Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: ajax13 on July 17, 2008, 05:39:14 PM
-
This is another example of a blatant manipulation by the Wiz. He uses this hack from the Union Institute to endorse AARC, a though McAndrews is an expert on adolescent addiciton treatment:
"Dr. Robert McAndrews, Professor at the Union Institute and second core reader of the Ph.D. by Dr. F. Dean Vause, stated in a letter date May 3, 1994: “Now that I see the ‘hard’ evidence and follow your thorough analysis, as a critical reviewer I am convinced that your model and actual program is one worth replicating everywhere possible…Your PDE research is scholarly, thorough, extensive, and analytical. I believe it may be the most complete piece of research available on youth addiction and treatment options.”
Here is McAndrew's education, which appears to entail nothing whatsoever to do with treating adolescent chemical dependence:
ROBERT MCANDREWS PHD
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Education:
1979 Ph.D., Human Sciences, Saybrook Institute, San Francisco, CA. Dissertation: Journeys: An Inquiry into Meaning and Value.
1968 M.A., Social Anthropology, Manchester University (1977), Manchester, England. Thesis: The Yap Caste System and the Yap Empire: An Analysis of Their Relationship
1967 Postgraduate studies in Social Anthropology, London School of Economics, London, England
1966 MPIA (Masters in Public and International Affairs), Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Thesis: The Domestic and Foreign Contributions to the Overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana
1962 B.A., Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, State University of California at Northridge, CA
To dispel any doubt that this was the Wiz lying and manipulating others to meet his needs, here is the final mutation of McAndrews, expert on Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and the Yap Empire, as told by Ron Stevens, MLA and AARC dupe:
"The AARC Model is unique in Calgary and perhaps the world and was developed based on the research and analysis of Dr. Vause. It has been thoroughly reviewed by international addictions experts. One of those experts, Dr. Robert McAndrews, concluded: now that I see the hard evidence and follow through your analysis, as a critical reviewer I am convinced that your model and actual program is one worth replicating everywhere possible. Mr. Speaker, this is excellent advice which I encourage my colleagues to support."
Now who was involved in AARC that would create the lie that McAndrews was an addicitions expert?
Which brings to mind this:
"A number of mind-controlling cult leaders may exhibit many of the behavioral characteristics of a sociopath -- an outstanding ability to charm and seduce followers. Since they appear apparently normal, they are not easily recognizable as deviant or disturbed. Although only a trained professional can make a diagnosis of whether or not someone is a sociopath, it is important to be able to recognize the personality type in order to avoid further abuse. These traits also apply to a one-on-one cultic relationship. ... Glibness/Superficial Charm ... Manipulative and Conning ... Grandiose Sense of Self ... Pathological Lying ... Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt ... Shallow Emotions ... Incapacity for Love ... Need for Stimulation ... Callousness/Lack of Empathy ... Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature ... Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency ... Irresponsibility/Unreliability ... Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity ... Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle ... Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility"
-
Common characteristics of those with malignant narcissism include:
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Impulsiveness, doesn't finish projects, or attempts to finish a project too quickly to move onto something else
Reckless tendencies
Pathological lying or exaggeration of the truth
Shallow affect
Creates illusions of superiority
Strives for constant recognition or prestige
Exaggerates and boasts about accomplishments
Feels ashamed or attacked by negative judgments from others
Preoccupation with fantasies of a perfect partner or future
Lack of empathy or selective empathy
Pulls attention from everyone else onto themselves to feel unique
Tendency to idealize their own superiority, devalue other people's worth or accomplishments
Sensitivity to how others react to him/her
Inability to tolerate boredom
Manipulativeness
Indifference to or rationalizes having hurt or mistreated others (underdeveloped conscience)
Drug and alcohol abuse
Narcissistic rage
-
This is another example of a blatant manipulation by the Wiz. He uses this hack from the Union Institute to endorse AARC, a though McAndrews is an expert on adolescent addiciton treatment:
"Dr. Robert McAndrews, Professor at the Union Institute and second core reader of the Ph.D. by Dr. F. Dean Vause, stated in a letter date May 3, 1994: “Now that I see the ‘hard’ evidence and follow your thorough analysis, as a critical reviewer I am convinced that your model and actual program is one worth replicating everywhere possible…Your PDE research is scholarly, thorough, extensive, and analytical. I believe it may be the most complete piece of research available on youth addiction and treatment options.”
Here is McAndrew's education, which appears to entail nothing whatsoever to do with treating adolescent chemical dependence:
ROBERT MCANDREWS PHD
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Education:
1979 Ph.D., Human Sciences, Saybrook Institute, San Francisco, CA. Dissertation: Journeys: An Inquiry into Meaning and Value.
1968 M.A., Social Anthropology, Manchester University (1977), Manchester, England. Thesis: The Yap Caste System and the Yap Empire: An Analysis of Their Relationship
1967 Postgraduate studies in Social Anthropology, London School of Economics, London, England
1966 MPIA (Masters in Public and International Affairs), Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Thesis: The Domestic and Foreign Contributions to the Overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana
1962 B.A., Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, State University of California at Northridge, CA
To dispel any doubt that this was the Wiz lying and manipulating others to meet his needs, here is the final mutation of McAndrews, expert on Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and the Yap Empire, as told by Ron Stevens, MLA and AARC dupe:
"The AARC Model is unique in Calgary and perhaps the world and was developed based on the research and analysis of Dr. Vause. It has been thoroughly reviewed by international addictions experts. One of those experts, Dr. Robert McAndrews, concluded: now that I see the hard evidence and follow through your analysis, as a critical reviewer I am convinced that your model and actual program is one worth replicating everywhere possible. Mr. Speaker, this is excellent advice which I encourage my colleagues to support."
Now who was involved in AARC that would create the lie that McAndrews was an addicitions expert?
Which brings to mind this:
"A number of mind-controlling cult leaders may exhibit many of the behavioral characteristics of a sociopath -- an outstanding ability to charm and seduce followers. Since they appear apparently normal, they are not easily recognizable as deviant or disturbed. Although only a trained professional can make a diagnosis of whether or not someone is a sociopath, it is important to be able to recognize the personality type in order to avoid further abuse. These traits also apply to a one-on-one cultic relationship. ... Glibness/Superficial Charm ... Manipulative and Conning ... Grandiose Sense of Self ... Pathological Lying ... Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt ... Shallow Emotions ... Incapacity for Love ... Need for Stimulation ... Callousness/Lack of Empathy ... Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature ... Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency ... Irresponsibility/Unreliability ... Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity ... Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle ... Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility"
-
Let me clear something up, people without the proper education should be exposed. Look at Bill Gates spouting off like some software expert. He couldn’t hack college and never even bothered to try to get an associate’s degree. I have been exposing him for years (on other forums) and I finally got him to step down this year.
I have moved on to Michael Dell, another loser, dropped out of college and hit his parents up for a loan to start Dell, Inc. His head is so swollen because he thinks he knows about computer hardware and laptops. He thinks this way because he surrounds himself with suckups who enable this type of thinking. I will expose him soon, just you watch.
I am also working on exposing Richard Wagoner who is the CEO of General Motors Corp. This guy has been claiming for years to know about the Auto industry, but a background check has revealed he has no degree in this field at all (zero experience). In fact he doesn’t even Drive!!!!! He has a personal driver!! He will be easy to bring down.
Remember Socrates and Plato? Yep, you got it, them too. Not one day of formal training in the field of philosophy yet they spouted off as if they were experts. People were so gullible back then. Of course they didn’t have me to point out peoples short comings and expose them.
People often ask what training I have and you know what I tell them “it is none of your business!!!”, smart huh?. I don’t ever want to put myself into a position where I can be criticized. People ask me what qualifications the head of AARC should have, and you know what? I don’t have to answer that if I don’t feel like it.
Another guy I could have brought down to my level is Sigmond Freud. This fraud should have been thrown in jail and would have if I was around. They didn’t have the internet back then to perform background checks but this guy had a doctorate alright but nothing in psychology, go figure. The loser did his doctorate thesis on “the spinal cord of lower fish species”. Was this guy wacked out or what? Then goes on to pretend he knows what people are thinking about their own mother. Spinless, right? No pun intended. Dont get me going again. I dont think the wiz knows what he is up against. I dont think anyone should persue a degree or educate themselves unless they are willing to be exposed as losers.
-
ajaxl3
Nice try, but we're not buying it. Replacing the number ONE buy using a lower case "L" to make it appear the same, does not an Ajax13 make.
Now if you'll step to the side, our beautiful assistant has some lovely parting gifts for you.
-
Let me clear something up, people without the proper education should be exposed. Look at Bill Gates spouting off like some software expert. He couldn’t hack college and never even bothered to try to get an associate’s degree. I have been exposing him for years (on other forums) and I finally got him to step down this year.
I have moved on to Michael Dell, another loser, dropped out of college and hit his parents up for a loan to start Dell, Inc. His head is so swollen because he thinks he knows about computer hardware and laptops. He thinks this way because he surrounds himself with suckups who enable this type of thinking. I will expose him soon, just you watch.
I am also working on exposing Richard Wagoner who is the CEO of General Motors Corp. This guy has been claiming for years to know about the Auto industry, but a background check has revealed he has no degree in this field at all (zero experience). In fact he doesn’t even Drive!!!!! He has a personal driver!! He will be easy to bring down.
Remember Socrates and Plato? Yep, you got it, them too. Not one day of formal training in the field of philosophy yet they spouted off as if they were experts. People were so gullible back then. Of course they didn’t have me to point out peoples short comings and expose them.
People often ask what training I have and you know what I tell them “it is none of your business!!!”, smart huh?. I don’t ever want to put myself into a position where I can be criticized. People ask me what qualifications the head of AARC should have, and you know what? I don’t have to answer that if I don’t feel like it.
Another guy I could have brought down to my level is Sigmond Freud. This fraud should have been thrown in jail and would have if I was around. They didn’t have the internet back then to perform background checks but this guy had a doctorate alright but nothing in psychology, go figure. The loser did his doctorate thesis on “the spinal cord of lower fish species”. Was this guy wacked out or what? Then goes on to pretend he knows what people are thinking about their own mother. Spinless, right? No pun intended. Dont get me going again. I dont think the wiz knows what he is up against. I dont think anyone should persue a degree or educate themselves unless they are willing to be exposed as losers.
Ha,Ha,Ha, Ajax, instead of trying to put everyone else’s education on trial, why not specify what requirements you think are needed for the job, what Universities you approve of, maybe indicate what path you choose and why.
For example:
Head of AARC should have as a minimum:
Masters Degree in psychology or related field
3+ years experience working with addiction....etc.
This way we can compare requirements against actual experience.
...
-
Ha,Ha,Ha, Ajax,
It's not Ajax dumbass.
-
It's not Ajax dumbass.
Okay, I fixed the typo.
Let me clear something up, people without the proper education should be exposed. Look at Bill Gates spouting off like some software expert. He couldn’t hack college and never even bothered to try to get an associate’s degree. I have been exposing him for years (on other forums) and I finally got him to step down this year.
I have moved on to Michael Dell, another loser, dropped out of college and hit his parents up for a loan to start Dell, Inc. His head is so swollen because he thinks he knows about computer hardware and laptops. He thinks this way because he surrounds himself with suckups who enable this type of thinking. I will expose him soon, just you watch.
I am also working on exposing Richard Wagoner who is the CEO of General Motors Corp. This guy has been claiming for years to know about the Auto industry, but a background check has revealed he has no degree in this field at all (zero experience). In fact he doesn’t even Drive!!!!! He has a personal driver!! He will be easy to bring down.
Remember Socrates and Plato? Yep, you got it, them too. Not one day of formal training in the field of philosophy yet they spouted off as if they were experts. People were so gullible back then. Of course they didn’t have me to point out peoples short comings and expose them.
People often ask what training I have and you know what I tell them “it is none of your business!!!”, smart huh?. I don’t ever want to put myself into a position where I can be criticized. People ask me what qualifications the head of AARC should have, and you know what? I don’t have to answer that if I don’t feel like it.
Another guy I could have brought down to my level is Sigmond Freud. This fraud should have been thrown in jail and would have if I was around. They didn’t have the internet back then to perform background checks but this guy had a doctorate alright but nothing in psychology, go figure. The loser did his doctorate thesis on “the spinal cord of lower fish species”. Was this guy wacked out or what? Then goes on to pretend he knows what people are thinking about their own mother. Spinless, right? No pun intended. Dont get me going again. I dont think the wiz knows what he is up against. I dont think anyone should persue a degree or educate themselves unless they are willing to be exposed as losers.
Ha,Ha,Ha, Ajaxl3, instead of trying to put everyone else’s education on trial, why not specify what requirements you think are needed for the job, what Universities you approve of, maybe indicate what path you choose and why.
For example:
Head of AARC should have as a minimum:
Masters Degree in psychology or related field
3+ years experience working with addiction....etc.
This way we can compare requirements against actual experience.
...
-
Maybe some experience running a Nazi concentration camp, or Soviet gulag, or a Chinese Communist detention facility.
-
Maybe some experience running a Nazi concentration camp, or Soviet gulag, or a Chinese Communist detention facility.
Not sure I agree with the concentration camps. But what you said about experience is key. A person can have all the degrees in the world, but nothing can replace experience. The undergraduate and graduate degrees lay the foundation for future learning but do not, in and of themselves, create an expert. This is only acquired thru experience which occurs over time and thru exposure to a particular industry. Very few people go from classroom to CEO in one step.
It has not become clear to me what requirements ajax13/l3 feels would satisfy heading up AARC . I sense he is looking for a chemical dependency degree of some type which I am not sure where this is offered.
...
-
No. Teaching phys ed, and then working at Miller Newton's torture camp for a year and half is more than enough experience to head a facility that claims to treat acute cases of chemical dependence. Thanks Who.
-
No. Teaching phys ed, and then working at Miller Newton's torture camp for a year and half is more than enough experience to head a facility that claims to treat acute cases of chemical dependence. Thanks Who.
Your welcome, Ajax13, many people overlook the experience piece. So as I read back thru the threads it seems you are struggling a little with the University where this Vause guy got his PhD, but when it comes to defining qualifications for the job we are looking at some past experience in a facility and graduate work or a teaching background of some type (or better). I think the strength is within the past experience and graduate work.
This has always been my thinking also so it seems we can agree here on qualifications. So the doctorate degree doesn’t even come into the picture as far as needed credentials for this position. This is why it is good to define the requirements first, we can save pages of arguing over the PhD piece when it doesn’t even come into play.
...
-
Your welcome, Ajax13,
This is one of the many reasons nobody can stand you. You're condescension and arrogance. You know damn well that Ajax wrote 'thanks Who' with a sarcastic intent and you respond as if you're actually contributing something to the discussion at hand or anyone respects anything you say.
You slide around, twist words, manipulate, derail threads, change context and pretend that you're part of "us". You're nothing but a modern day snake oil salesman's PR guy. Newton and Vause are nothing but con men who have harmed thousands of kids over the years.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
-
but when it comes to defining qualifications for the job we are looking at some past experience in a facility and graduate work or a teaching background of some type (or better). I think the strength is within the past experience and graduate work.
Depends on where they got their past experience. In this case, Vause got if from Newton and his KIDS programs. Newton was shut down or run out of every state he tried to set up shop in for abusing kids, refusing to follow even the most fundamental regulations and in general being a complete fraud and abusive liar. How exactly is Vause's tutelage under Newton valuable to the kids Vause is now verbally vomiting all over?
-
Your welcome, Ajax13,
This is one of the many reasons nobody can stand you. You're condescension and arrogance. You know damn well that Ajax wrote 'thanks Who' with a sarcastic intent and you respond as if you're actually contributing something to the discussion at hand or anyone respects anything you say.
You slide around, twist words, manipulate, derail threads, change context and pretend that you're part of "us". You're nothing but a modern day snake oil salesman's PR guy. Newton and Vause are nothing but con men who have harmed thousands of kids over the years.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Sarcasm or not, I think we were able to separate out requirements from personal opinions which was an important step in this discussion. If you are merely here to make friends then good luck to you, and it appears you are the one trying to derail this thread not I.
You are so blinded by your own hatred that you missed the double standard playing out here. We have ajax13 openly diagnosing people with mental illnesses on line with no apparent credentials to speak of and at the same time telling others that their education is lacking.
You claim I am trying to be part of you? You haven’t even told me who you are or logged in, how could I be. Anyone who has been here long enough knows I speak for myself and am not trying to join your group, as you call it. You hide in the shadows and take pot shots at people and pretend to be brave, it seems you are the one behind the curtain.
...
-
You're nothing but a modern day snake oil salesman's PR guy. Newton and Vause are nothing but con men who have harmed thousands of kids over the years.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
-
We have ajax13 openly diagnosing people with mental illnesses on line with no apparent credentials to speak of and at the same time telling others that their education is lacking.
I think the salient point and large difference is that, and pay attention here, Ajax is not in the position of having control over kids lives. Ajax is not claiming to be able to *treat* anything or anyone. Ajax is not charging thousands parents of dollars for his *expertise* and *education*. Ajax is giving opinions and stating sources facts. Vause is exposing countless kids to the sort of *treatment* he learned at the hands of Miller Newton.
-
but when it comes to defining qualifications for the job we are looking at some past experience in a facility and graduate work or a teaching background of some type (or better). I think the strength is within the past experience and graduate work.
Depends on where they got their past experience. In this case, Vause got if from Newton and his KIDS programs. Newton was shut down or run out of every state he tried to set up shop in for abusing kids, refusing to follow even the most fundamental regulations and in general being a complete fraud and abusive liar. How exactly is Vause's tutelage under Newton valuable to the kids Vause is now verbally vomiting all over?
Many people take their experiences and improve upon them. If this guy newton was running an abusive program that doesn’t necessarily mean the people around him would duplicate that model, especially in light of its outcome. The present program may follow more closely with regulations. But, aside from that, reading thru this thread I don’t think this problem Ajax has is with AARC or its effectiveness.
What I think is confusing is if the program is indeed abusive or ineffective why focus on one persons degree and where he got it from? Why try to diagnose him with a mental illnesses and poke fun at his family members. This type of response is usually due to a personal problem, not with the effectiveness of the program or how qualified Vause may be to lead AARC. The apparent attacks on this mans family indicates that ajax has a personal issue with Vause and is merely trying to smear the school as a way to vent his anger.
Take a second read through and I think you will see what I mean.
...
-
Many people take their experiences and improve upon them.
But that's not what happened here.
If this guy newton was running an abusive program that doesn’t necessarily mean the people around him would duplicate that model, especially in light of its outcome. The present program may follow more closely with regulations.
But it doesn't.
But, aside from that, reading thru this thread I don’t think this problem Ajax has is with AARC or its effectiveness.
The problem IS with AARC and its ineffectiveness.
What I think is confusing is if the program is indeed abusive or ineffective why focus on one persons degree and where he got it from?
Because, as with any cult, the devoted followers are fond of claiming all kinds of wild and untrue things about their beloved guru. Ajax is merely pointing out the falsehoods.
Why try to diagnose him with a mental illnesses and poke fun at his family members.
Because it's fun. There are people here who spent quite a bit of time with Vause and I'm sure there's a measure of satisfaction to finally be able to speak out and speak freely and, quite frankly, speak to him as he spoke to so many of them. Doesn't make the content of WHAT they're saying any less valuable.
This type of response is usually due to a personal problem, not with the effectiveness of the program or how qualified Vause may be to lead AARC.
Yes, many have a personal problem with how Vause treated his charges. Doesn't make the content of WHAT they're saying any less valuable.
The apparent attacks on this mans family indicates that ajax has a personal issue with Vause and is merely trying to smear the school as a way to vent his anger.
Well, yes. YOU would see it like that.
Take a second read through and I think you will see what I mean.
I don't.
-
The problem IS with AARC and its ineffectiveness.
You are mistaken, it seems apparent that ajax13 has a personal axe to grind. It is clear by the following statements:
ajax13 wrote:
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.....
….Vause is a sociopath…..……
If a program is ineffective or is abusive then there is no need to make fun of people or tryto diagnose them with a mental illness of some type to get this point across and we all know this.
Just to put this in perspective........ if you are talking to someone who just came out of Walmart and they are ranting and raving over how fat the cashier was or how the manager was a sociopath we all know this doesnt reflect on the quality of the products that he purchased there.
The issue is personal
...
-
You are mistaken, it seems apparent that ajax13 has a personal axe to grind.
If a program is ineffective or is abusive then there is no need to make fun of people or tryto diagnose them with a mental illness of some type to get this point across and we all know this.
Just to put this in perspective........ if you are talking to someone who just came out of Walmart and they are ranting and raving over how fat the cashier was or how the manager was a sociopath we all know this doesnt reflect on the quality of the products that he purchased there.
The issue is personal
Of course it is! It's very personal to those who were abused or love someone that was abused by those sick fucks. Doesn't make the content of WHAT they're saying any less valuable.
-
We have ajax13 openly diagnosing people with mental illnesses on line with no apparent credentials to speak of and at the same time telling others that their education is lacking.
I think the salient point and large difference is that, and pay attention here, Ajax is not in the position of having control over kids lives. Ajax is not claiming to be able to *treat* anything or anyone. Ajax is not charging thousands parents of dollars for his *expertise* and *education*. Ajax is giving opinions and stating sources facts. Vause is exposing countless kids to the sort of *treatment* he learned at the hands of Miller Newton.
Bears repeating.
-
You are mistaken, it seems apparent that ajax13 has a personal axe to grind.
If a program is ineffective or is abusive then there is no need to make fun of people or tryto diagnose them with a mental illness of some type to get this point across and we all know this.
Just to put this in perspective........ if you are talking to someone who just came out of Walmart and they are ranting and raving over how fat the cashier was or how the manager was a sociopath we all know this doesnt reflect on the quality of the products that he purchased there.
The issue is personal
Of course it is! It's very personal to those who were abused or love someone that was abused by those sick fucks. Doesn't make the content of WHAT they're saying any less valuable.
Thank you, there are many here that cannot distinguish the two. If AARC was indeed the issue then their processes or model would be the focus of the attack not how much a board member weighs or trying to diagnose people with mental illnesses.
I can recall many seminars and LGAT’s that I have attended and came away disliking the instructor because of their political views or the way they treated people but it wasn’t a reflection on the effectiveness of the seminar. The two are separate and that is the point I am trying to make. The fact that AARC is 85% effective doesn’t have anything to do with the weight of the wife of a board member.
...
-
Thank you, there are many here that cannot distinguish the two. If AARC was indeed the issue then their processes or model would be the focus of the attack not how much a board member weighs or trying to diagnose people with mental illnesses.
You mis-state and twist words again. But we've all come to expect that from you.
The fact that AARC is 85% effective
[Citation needed]
-
Thank you, there are many here that cannot distinguish the two. If AARC was indeed the issue then their processes or model would be the focus of the attack not how much a board member weighs or trying to diagnose people with mental illnesses.
You mis-state and twist words again. But we've all come to expect that from you.
The fact that AARC is 85% effective
[Citation needed]
http://fornits.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=mupl6jk8740c2s70klsjfrum10&topic=25565.msg311401;topicseen#msg311401 (http://http://fornits.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=mupl6jk8740c2s70klsjfrum10&topic=25565.msg311401;topicseen#msg311401)
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.
...
-
Since the AARC study was done, in 2003, on one hundred sequential graduates from 1998 to 2003, it is patently false to claim that 85% were clean and sober after five years, since most had been out of AARC less than five years, and some less than one years. Thanks again Who. Great work.
-
Did they include clients who didn't complete the program? What were all the parameters? This study was done over a period of how many years and they only SURVEYED 100?
Something smells.
-
As I have said repeatedly, AARC does not give verifiable figures for drop-out rates. However, they have run at a capacity of 30 to 36 inmates since at least 1998. Thus, in five years there should have been 150 to 180 grads. Where are those missing AARCies?
-
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.
-
Thus, in five years there should have been 150 to 180 grads. Where are those missing AARCies
Its called a sample plan. They dont test everyone, just like they dont "crash test" every car. A sample of a 100 is a very hefty sample if there were only 180 grads. Thats over a 50% sampled.
-
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.
In other words, it was NOT anything that could be considrered clinical, controlled, verifiable research/statistics. This is more of an informal survey than it is anything close to being scientifically valid. That's ok. There never has been. Just admit it.
-
Thus, in five years there should have been 150 to 180 grads. Where are those missing AARCies
Its called a sample plan. They dont test everyone, just like they dont "crash test" every car. A sample of a 100 is a very hefty sample if there were only 180 grads. Thats over a 50% sampled.
Of course not!! That' would mean they could be held accountable for what they advertise. Please educate yourself on what constitutes valid, verifiable studies and clinical research before you start railing on things you quite obviously have very little knowledge about.
Remeber. HONESTY is the first and most important rule!
-
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.
-
Drop out rate? Total # of students v. control group?
Thought not.
Surveys don't count
-
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.
-
Control group? Dropout rate?
-
Best debate of the day and sound bite:
The crash test studies are invalid because they never tested my car, there is not a dent on it, which proves I am right
Ha,Ha,Ha you got to love this place. Bottom line is AARC conducted a study which was done by a specialist. It cannot be disproven unless you speak to Mr. Patton directly and review the raw data and boundary conditions, sample plan etc. he choose and understand why.
It is useless to try to pick apart the results without reviewing the raw data. Its fun watching you guys though.
...
-
All we're asking for is CREDIBLE research that *proves* the outlandish claims that have been made here.
Key words: credible, clinical, randomized, controlled. OBJECTIVE
-
The one hundred grads were consecutive in five years, meaning there are no others from that period. 52% had resumed alcohol or other drug use within that period. Most had not been out for five years, and many less than one, thus the claim that 85% were sober after five years is not substantiated by the study.
-
The one hundred grads were consecutive in five years, meaning there are no others from that period. 52% had resumed alcohol or other drug use within that period. Most had not been out for five years, and many less than one, thus the claim that 85% were sober after five years is not substantiated by the study.
No, you are wrong. You need to review the study to make determinations like that, you are drawing conclusions on summary data, you need to look at the raw data to do that. here is a summary:
Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr. Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed consecutive cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and sober after five years.
-
Uh, slap? I think maybe the good doctor, or most likely whoever is quoting him, may have momentarily forgotten the first and most impotent rule. Remember, folks, PhD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.
-
No, you don't need the raw data to make determinations like that. The study was conducted in 2003, of grads from 1998 to 2003. It is impossible for all the grads to have been out for five years. Thus it is ridiculous to claim that the study showed that 85% of the grads in the study were sober after five years.
-
No, you don't need the raw data to make determinations like that. The study was conducted in 2003, of grads from 1998 to 2003. It is impossible for all the grads to have been out for five years. Thus it is ridiculous to claim that the study showed that 85% of the grads in the study were sober after five years.
You obviously do not understand how to read the study.
-
Even though the study was done in 2003, involving clients who graduated in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, they had all been graduated for five years in 2003. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
Even though the study was done in 2003, involving clients who graduated in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, they had all been graduated for five years in 2003. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.
The report never stated the sample population had been graduated for 5 years. Their time after graduation ranged from 8 months to 5.5 years. This study was a snapshot in time. What I believe you were thinking is that they interviewed 100 people after they had been out of AARC for 5 years, which is not the case. This study took 100 sequential graduates.
...
-
AARC is not a school of any sort, so yoyu have absolutely no business using the word "graduate".
-
AARC is not a school of any sort, so yoyu have absolutely no business using the word "graduate".
"A School is an institution designed to allow and encourage students (or "pupils") to learn".
This can be confusing but many people think the word "School" can only be used to refer to public or private educational institutes. But there is Bible school, Karate school etc. any place inwhich something is taught. So if they teach sobriety or any lessons at all then they can be refered to as a school.
-
Even though the study was done in 2003, involving clients who graduated in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, they had all been graduated for five years in 2003. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.
The report never stated the sample population had been graduated for 5 years. Their time after graduation ranged from 8 months to 5.5 years. This study was a snapshot in time. What I believe you were thinking is that they interviewed 100 people after they had been out of AARC for 5 years, which is not the case. This study took 100 sequential graduates.
...
Twice in this forum you have presented Denis Herard's comment that the study showed that 85% of graduates were still sober after 5 years. Again, this is a lie. 52% had relapsed, and most had not yet been out for five years, meaning that over time it was likely that more would relapse. If 52% have relapsed, then 85% are not still sober after 5 years.
I don't need you to tell me what I am and am not thinking. I'm not in AARC.
-
Twice in this forum you have presented Denis Herard's comment that the study showed that 85% of graduates were still sober after 5 years. Again, this is a lie. 52% had relapsed, and most had not yet been out for five years, meaning that over time it was likely that more would relapse. If 52% have relapsed, then 85% are not still sober after 5 years.
I don't need you to tell me what I am and am not thinking. I'm not in AARC.
Ajax13, you are not understanding the study results. The results ended up saying that 85% of graduates will still be sober 4 or more years (up to 5.5). This applies not only to the 100 surveyed but also the entire population and future graduates. Based on a small sample the study can gain a degree of confidence (typically 95% or better) that can predict future performance. This is the strength of statistical models and sampling.
Take a look at table 2 and the time since graduation. The study is not saying they the entire sample has been out for 5 years. It is distributed over a period of 8 months to 5.5 years
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation One month Six months Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) 2.49% 4.8% 92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) 0% 14.3% 85.7%
I realize it is a bit confusing to draw a conclusion on activities that have not occurred yet based on current data. What may help is to speak with someone who is good at statistics or sample modeling. I have a guy I speak with that is our local guru on statistics when I have a question, every company usually has a guy that at least dabbles a bit in stats and can help explain the tables and results to you.
...
-
(Note: The following analysis assumes that the numbers weren't MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. This is, of course, amazingly common when dealing with all facets of the troubled teen industry.)
Well, judging from the cherry-picked sample sizes, we can judge two important facts:
1. Whatever dumbass wrote this report has absolutely no idea how to judge numbers. "One year or less" and "Two to three years" actually leaves a gap of a whole year. What, could they not find anyone who's been incarcerated there (again, not a school, so no graduates, any more than you'd graduate from jail) to support them?
2. The programming seems to wear off after about four years or so, judging by the large unaccounted-for sample in "Four years or more". Remember that programmies won't even acknowledge non-programmie viewpoints as valid. Do you expect them to actually put something accurate down when confronted with an ex-inmate who says "Fuck you, I'm drunk RIGHT NOW, so lick my nutsack"? Similarly, "Go blow a goat" and a hang-up is probably the most common answer.
Selection bias in action, folks!
Judging from that and the fact that the still partially controlled ex-inmates feel compelled to lie about their sobriety, we can estimate the actual sobriety rate at something on the order of 25%.
Aren't statistics wonderful?
-
Ajax13, you are not understanding the study results. The results ended up saying that 85% of graduates will still be sober 4 or more years (up to 5.5). This applies not only to the 100 surveyed but also the entire population and future graduates. Based on a small sample the study can gain a degree of confidence (typically 95% or better) that can predict future performance. This is the strength of statistical models and sampling.
- False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright © 1997 All rights reserved
I realize it is a bit confusing to draw a conclusion on activities that have not occurred yet based on current data. What may help is to speak with someone who is good at statistics or sample modeling. I have a guy I speak with that is our local guru on statistics when I have a question, every company usually has a guy that at least dabbles a bit in stats and can help explain the tables and results to you.
...
- Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright © 1997 All rights reserved
-
Because we have questions or don’t understand something does not invalidate it. For instance, if someone doesn’t understand how electricity is passed thru a wire and states “Electricity cant go thru a wire like that!!, why if it did we would all be electrocuted if we touched it, dumbass!!”, this doesn’t invalidate the existence of electricity or the fact that it passes thru a wire. It is an opportunity for that person to learn something new.
It is good exercise to question the study because it is initiates understanding of it and promotes thinking. I find it so hard to believe that many of you are not fascinated with the study and want to learn more instead of spending time trying to discredit people who have spent their entire lives dedicated to understanding in this area.
Whatever dumbass wrote this report has absolutely no idea how to judge numbers. "One year or less" and "Two to three years" actually leaves a gap of a whole year.
I might be able to help here. These statistical types like to keep the buckets (categories) as few and simple as possible as it makes the numbers easier to crunch and the results more accurate.
They could have said:
0-1 years
1-2 years
2-3 years
3-4 years
4-5 years
5-6 years
Which would have been 6 categories. Instead they choose three categories
“One year or less” may be defined (0 – 1.49 years)
Two to three years may be defined (1.5 – 3.49 years)
Four or more years may be defined (3.5 – 5.5 years)
This way you have reduced the categories by half.
2. The programming seems to wear off after about four years or so, judging by the large unaccounted-for sample in "Four years or more". Remember that programmies won't even acknowledge non-programmie viewpoints as valid. Do you expect them to actually put something accurate down when confronted with an ex-inmate who says "Fuck you, I'm drunk RIGHT NOW, so lick my nutsack"? Similarly, "Go blow a goat" and a hang-up is probably the most common answer.
Four years is a good length of time. The critical phase, in my opinion, would be staying sober for the first year so that the person has past every holiday and encountered most of the triggers which may make him/her go back to using. I would consider the program a success if a graduate was able to accomplish this first year on their own. After a year it is pretty much up to the individual on whether they what to continue their success or not. Even if the programing wears off after a year the individual will find themselves free of the physical and emotional addiction by that point.
...
-
AARC is not a school of any sort, so yoyu have absolutely no business using the word "graduate".
"A School is an institution designed to allow and encourage students (or "pupils") to learn".
This can be confusing but many people think the word "School" can only be used to refer to public or private educational institutes. But there is Bible school, Karate school etc. any place inwhich something is taught. So if they teach sobriety or any lessons at all then they can be refered to as a school.
Brilliant. Somebody teaches the employees at the bottle depot how to sort bottles. Until just now, I never realized that the bottle depot is actually a school. Fantastic!
-
Let me clear something up, people without the proper education should be exposed.
Wow... I hardly know where to start in responding in this thread.
Parent of a recent "graduate" here.
Regarding Vause's status as a "doctor" my son was surprised to hear that Vause is not/was not a MEDICAL DOCTOR. During his 11 months at AARC he was under the belief that Vause was not only a medical doctor, but also a psychologist possibly a psychiatrist and also his LEGAL GUARDIAN for the duration of his stay at AARC. He argued with me until I told him that a phone call to both the college of physicians and surgeons as well as the college of psychologists confirmed that he is not and never has been licensed in Alberta. A search done at the court house and a conversation with a family lawyer of 15 years confirmed that Vause is not and has never been his legal guardian either.
As far as AARC and regulations etc., what sets them apart from their peer programs to the south is that those programs were required to have a license and meet some sort of state standards etc. Here in Alberta and Canada, private facilities such as AARC are a "buyer beware" industry, completely unregulated. SO ... you can't lose a license you're not required to have in the first place.
-
Wow... I hardly know where to start in responding in this thread.
Parent of a recent "graduate" here.
Regarding Vause's status as a "doctor" my son was surprised to hear that Vause is not/was not a MEDICAL DOCTOR. During his 11 months at AARC he was under the belief that Vause was not only a medical doctor, but also a psychologist possibly a psychiatrist and also his LEGAL GUARDIAN for the duration of his stay at AARC. He argued with me until I told him that a phone call to both the college of physicians and surgeons as well as the college of psychologists confirmed that he is not and never has been licensed in Alberta. A search done at the court house and a conversation with a family lawyer of 15 years confirmed that Vause is not and has never been his legal guardian either.
My daughter was the same way. She had a therapist who she called “Wendy” but after a few weeks she heard someone call her “Doctor Hammond”. Since that time she always thought she was a medical doctor (someone who performed surgery).
What helped in her case was to explain that anyone who received a PhD in their field is considered a Doctor (Doctorate degree). Some like to be called doctors other do not. It is merely a label they can place upon themselves. Have your son go onto Wikipedia and look up the term doctor and he will see it is a professional title. That may help to calrify it for him.
As far as AARC and regulations etc., what sets them apart from their peer programs to the south is that those programs were required to have a license and meet some sort of state standards etc. Here in Alberta and Canada, private facilities such as AARC are a "buyer beware" industry, completely unregulated. SO ... you can't lose a license you're not required to have in the first place.
As far as licensing goes. If it is not forced upon them then it is the communities fault. If we were not forced to get a drivers licensed I don’t think there would be many of us that would volunteer to spend the time taking the test and paying the fee. How many of us would take a half a day off of work to take the test if we didn’t have to? But if we didn’t have a license that would mean we would be bad drivers would it?.
...
-
My daughter was the same way. She had a therapist who she called “Wendy” but after a few weeks she heard someone call her “Doctor Hammond”. Since that time she always thought she was a medical doctor (someone who performed surgery).
What helped in her case was to explain that anyone who received a PhD in their field is considered a Doctor (Doctorate degree). Some like to be called doctors other do not. It is merely a label they can place upon themselves. Have your son go onto Wikipedia and look up the term doctor and he will see it is a professional title. That may help to calrify it for him.
Or maybe Vause could just stop trying to pass himself off as a "doctor"?
-
My daughter was the same way. She had a therapist who she called “Wendy” but after a few weeks she heard someone call her “Doctor Hammond”. Since that time she always thought she was a medical doctor (someone who performed surgery).
What helped in her case was to explain that anyone who received a PhD in their field is considered a Doctor (Doctorate degree). Some like to be called doctors other do not. It is merely a label they can place upon themselves. Have your son go onto Wikipedia and look up the term doctor and he will see it is a professional title. That may help to calrify it for him.
Or maybe Vause could just stop trying to pass himself off as a "doctor"?
Why? Vause is a Doctor, he has a phd, that is the whole point!! Check out wikipedia or a local dictionary
-
But if we didn’t have a license that would mean we would be bad drivers would it?.
...
That's some mush mouth gibberish, but I think I understand you. You may not be a bad driver without a license but you would be an illegal driver.
-
My daughter was the same way. She had a therapist who she called “Wendy” but after a few weeks she heard someone call her “Doctor Hammond”. Since that time she always thought she was a medical doctor (someone who performed surgery).
What helped in her case was to explain that anyone who received a PhD in their field is considered a Doctor (Doctorate degree). Some like to be called doctors other do not. It is merely a label they can place upon themselves. Have your son go onto Wikipedia and look up the term doctor and he will see it is a professional title. That may help to calrify it for him.
Or maybe Vause could just stop trying to pass himself off as a "doctor"?
That's a trick he learned from his mentor, "Dr." Virgil Miller "Fr. Cassian" Newton. Newton used the title 'casue it made people, especially parents and media types, think he was a psychiatrist or at least qualified to make diagnoses of chemical dependency by looking into their kids eyes for evidence of marijuan or cocaine use. This Vause guy is just as much a sack of shit as Newton is, which is not surprising in the least, considering that's where he learned his trade.
-
That's a trick he learned from his mentor, "Dr." Virgil Miller "Fr. Cassian" Newton. Newton used the title 'casue it made people, especially parents and media types, think he was a psychiatrist or at least qualified to make diagnoses of chemical dependency by looking into their kids eyes for evidence of marijuan or cocaine use. This Vause guy is just as much a sack of shit as Newton is, which is not surprising in the least, considering that's where he learned his trade.
Oh no he uses voodoo!!??
-
Oh no he uses voodoo!!??
Who do voodoo.
-
Vause got his degree from a diploma mill, as has been stated many, many times before. In some states he can be held legally liable for passing himself off as a doctor of any stripe.
-
The Wizard keep two articles up on his website in which he is referred to as a psychologist. This allows him to create the impression that he is a licensed practictioner, without breaking the law. In this province it is illegal for him to claim to be a psychologist in writing.
-
Let me clear something up, people without the proper education should be exposed. Look at Bill Gates spouting off like some software expert. He couldn’t hack college and never even bothered to try to get an associate’s degree. I have been exposing him for years (on other forums) and I finally got him to step down this year.
I have moved on to Michael Dell, another loser, dropped out of college and hit his parents up for a loan to start Dell, Inc. His head is so swollen because he thinks he knows about computer hardware and laptops. He thinks this way because he surrounds himself with suckups who enable this type of thinking. I will expose him soon, just you watch.
I am also working on exposing Richard Wagoner who is the CEO of General Motors Corp. This guy has been claiming for years to know about the Auto industry, but a background check has revealed he has no degree in this field at all (zero experience). In fact he doesn’t even Drive!!!!! He has a personal driver!! He will be easy to bring down.
Remember Socrates and Plato? Yep, you got it, them too. Not one day of formal training in the field of philosophy yet they spouted off as if they were experts. People were so gullible back then. Of course they didn’t have me to point out peoples short comings and expose them.
People often ask what training I have and you know what I tell them “it is none of your business!!!”, smart huh?. I don’t ever want to put myself into a position where I can be criticized. People ask me what qualifications the head of AARC should have, and you know what? I don’t have to answer that if I don’t feel like it.
Another guy I could have brought down to my level is Sigmond Freud. This fraud should have been thrown in jail and would have if I was around. They didn’t have the internet back then to perform background checks but this guy had a doctorate alright but nothing in psychology, go figure. The loser did his doctorate thesis on “the spinal cord of lower fish species”. Was this guy wacked out or what? Then goes on to pretend he knows what people are thinking about their own mother. Spinless, right? No pun intended. Dont get me going again. I dont think the wiz knows what he is up against. I dont think anyone should persue a degree or educate themselves unless they are willing to be exposed as losers.
WTF!!
-
Nice try, but we're not buying it. Replacing the number ONE buy using a lower case "L" to make it appear the same, does not an Ajax13 make.
Now if you'll step to the side, our beautiful assistant has some lovely parting gifts for you.
Looks like Who and pals are getting extra desperate today.
(YES- SERIOUSLY- THIS IS HOW MUCH INTEGRITY PROGRAMMIES REALLY HAVE!)
-
Let me clear something up, people without the proper education should be exposed. Look at Bill Gates spouting off like some software expert. He couldn’t hack college and never even bothered to try to get an associate’s degree. I have been exposing him for years (on other forums) and I finally got him to step down this year.
I have moved on to Michael Dell, another loser, dropped out of college and hit his parents up for a loan to start Dell, Inc. His head is so swollen because he thinks he knows about computer hardware and laptops. He thinks this way because he surrounds himself with suckups who enable this type of thinking. I will expose him soon, just you watch.
I am also working on exposing Richard Wagoner who is the CEO of General Motors Corp. This guy has been claiming for years to know about the Auto industry, but a background check has revealed he has no degree in this field at all (zero experience). In fact he doesn’t even Drive!!!!! He has a personal driver!! He will be easy to bring down.
Remember Socrates and Plato? Yep, you got it, them too. Not one day of formal training in the field of philosophy yet they spouted off as if they were experts. People were so gullible back then. Of course they didn’t have me to point out peoples short comings and expose them.
People often ask what training I have and you know what I tell them “it is none of your business!!!”, smart huh?. I don’t ever want to put myself into a position where I can be criticized. People ask me what qualifications the head of AARC should have, and you know what? I don’t have to answer that if I don’t feel like it.
Another guy I could have brought down to my level is Sigmond Freud. This fraud should have been thrown in jail and would have if I was around. They didn’t have the internet back then to perform background checks but this guy had a doctorate alright but nothing in psychology, go figure. The loser did his doctorate thesis on “the spinal cord of lower fish species”. Was this guy wacked out or what? Then goes on to pretend he knows what people are thinking about their own mother. Spinless, right? No pun intended. Dont get me going again. I dont think the wiz knows what he is up against. I dont think anyone should persue a degree or educate themselves unless they are willing to be exposed as losers.
WTF!!
Dam ajax what the hell is wrong with you?
-
I guess I've gone to pieces after seeing one too many bodies piled up in the streets of Calgary after yet another fatal overdose of marijuana. These kids are sick, they're drinking Slurpees, eating Doritos and listening to their I-Pods, and the next thing you know their heads literally explode. The only thing worse is seeing syllacibin addicts roaming the streets in packs. They will do anything to feed their need for zoomers. Their addiction to mushrooms is so powerful that they often resort to licking old pizza boxes outside of Domino's, generally in an effort to work up the nerve to rob old ladies. It's all been too much for me.