Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: ajax13 on August 07, 2008, 12:35:50 PM
-
AARC now claims that their program was based on the Wiz's research for his PhD. As AARC opened in 1992, and the Wiz did not complete his PhD until 1994, this claim is problematic to say the least. It would seem that the Wiz was performing research using AARC prisoners as experimentation subjects.
Here's what AARC says about this:
"AARC can provide leading edge foundation for adolescent chemical dependency research and treatment methodology."
http://www.aarc.ab.ca/AARCs_role_in_treatment.html (http://www.aarc.ab.ca/AARCs_role_in_treatment.html)
I have not yet encountered a former AARC prisoner who was aware that they were being used as research subjects. This is against international law:
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1 The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2 The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3 The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
4 The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5 No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6 The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7 Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
8 The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9 During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10 During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
See 1,4,6,10.
-
AARC now claims that their program was based on the Wiz's research for his PhD. As AARC opened in 1992, and the Wiz did not complete his PhD until 1994, this claim is problematic to say the least. It would seem that the Wiz was performing research using AARC prisoners as experimentation subjects.
Here's what AARC says about this:
"AARC can provide leading edge foundation for adolescent chemical dependency research and treatment methodology."
http://www.aarc.ab.ca/AARCs_role_in_treatment.html (http://www.aarc.ab.ca/AARCs_role_in_treatment.html)
I have not yet encountered a former AARC prisoner who was aware that they were being used as research subjects. This is against international law:
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
1 The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2 The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3 The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
4 The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5 No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6 The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7 Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
8 The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9 During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10 During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
See 1,4,6,10.
Same thing with the Seed and Straight. At first in the Seed, *clients* had to actually sign a form saying that they 'understood that they would be participating in a government funded medical experiment'. Until Sam Ervin investigated and found the techniques they were using were the same as what the Koreans had used on our POWs for thought reform, i.e. brainwashing.
Scary shit, the history of this place.
-
Few former prisoners to whom I have spoken were aware of AARC's lineage stretching back to the Seed.
-
In the original post I believe you confused the word "Research" with "Experimentation".
One can conduct research on people or groups of people without performing experiments on them.
...
-
I don't believe I confused anything. The program, according to AARC, is based on the research for the PdE written by Vause. It is thus experimental. I'm not in a B Mod program like AARC, so I'll thank you if you don't tell me what my thought processes are.
-
I don't believe I confused anything. The program, according to AARC, is based on the research for the PdE written by Vause. It is thus experimental. I'm not in a B Mod program like AARC, so I'll thank you if you don't tell me what my thought processes are.
But there is no indication that experiments were performed on anyone. People do research/collect data on existing programs all the time. There is no need to get anyones consent for that. The outcome study was research performed, but there didnt seem to be any indication of experiments being done, just observation of existing data and questionnaire feedback.
...
-
You're avoiding addressing the fact that the program was opened prior to the PdE being completed, and since the subject of the PdE is AARC and the methods used therein, the methods used are experimental.
-
You're avoiding addressing the fact that the program was opened prior to the PdE being completed, and since the subject of the PdE is AARC and the methods used therein, the methods used are experimental.
Not neccessarily, the program was up and running, defined and yielding results prior to the Phd which says 2 things:
1. The programs was not experimental, but in actual use
2. The program was running fine prior to the mans PhD, so the degree was never needed to begin with, it was something he wanted to do besides play golf.
...
-
I don't know that the Wiz could have afforded to play much golf, what with is just having slid out from under his complicity in Kids, but if you feel that golf has some bearing on this issue, I can't argue with you. The program was most certainly not defined if, as is claimed, it is based on the PdE which was written after the program opened. Unless of course time travel is in the Wizard's repertoire along with treating the deadly disease of marijuana addiction.
-
I don't know that the Wiz could have afforded to play much golf, what with is just having slid out from under his complicity in Kids, but if you feel that golf has some bearing on this issue, I can't argue with you. The program was most certainly not defined if, as is claimed, it is based on the PdE which was written after the program opened. Unless of course time travel is in the Wizard's repertoire along with treating the deadly disease of marijuana addiction.
I am sure the present program is defined by his work towards his PhD. Hopefully the program he has today is not the same as he had in '92. You need a cycle of continuous improvement in order to be successful. The study shows a 85% success rate today but I will bet that they are working to improve it and move it up to 90/95% which would entail improving the process.
So he had a working process in place prior to his PhD and a better process since his PhD.
...
-
You are sure, you hope, and you bet, but you provide no evidence whatsoever. I don't know what AARC's 85% success rate means, but I know that a minimum of 52% of clients involved in their study relapsed. I also know that at least three of their less than four hundred grads are accused in murder cases, and at least two have committed suicide in police custody. Neither you nor I have any idea that he had a working process in place, and equally we have no idea that he has a better process since his PhD. You simply made that up.
-
I don't know what AARC's 85% success rate means
Because either you haven’t read the report or do not understand it.
but I know that a minimum of 52% of clients involved in their study relapsed.
Yes they have but after 4 years 85 % are still living a clean and sober life. The majority of people relapse on their way to or during recovery. Recovery is a life long journey.
I also know that at least three of their less than four hundred grads are accused in murder cases, and at least two have committed suicide in police custody.
And this is some how attributed to AARC? If the less than 400 did not attend AARC would that number be significantly higher?
Neither you nor I have any idea that he had a working process in place,
Sure we do, we just dont know what their success rate was during that time.
we have no idea that he has a better process since his PhD
Well if he didn’t then he went from a 90%+ success rate down to the 85% success rate they are experiencing today.
You simply made that up.
Speculation
-
You are entirely correct. I do not understand the reported 85% success rate. If the former prisoners have relapsed, I fail to see how the word "still" applies to their living a clean and living a sober life. Still implies continuity. A relapse is in fact quite the opposite of continued sobriety. Did you perhaps not grasp the significance of suicide and incarceration in an assesment of "personal and social functioning"? As for you making up the 90% success rate decreasing to 85%, you most certainly did make that up.
-
You are entirely correct. I do not understand the reported 85% success rate.
Take another look:
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%
Did you perhaps not grasp the significance of suicide and incarceration in an assesment of "personal and social functioning"?
I understood it. But did you?
As for you making up the 90% success rate decreasing to 85%, you most certainly did make that up.
Let me rephrase for you.
If the success rate was below 85% prior to Vause receiving his PhD then the rate would have increased subsequent to the degree. If the success rate was above 85% (90, 95%) then the rate dropped subsequent to Vause receiving his PhD to level out at 85%.
-
What is sucess at AARC? As far as I know, it's going back to work or school, and rejoining the family, which every single client does on level 3, while they are still incarcerated. Beyond that, a minimum of 52% of graduates in the study began using drugs or alcohol again after leaving AARC. No data was given in the study with regard to how many of the graduates in the study killed themselves, or were incarcerated subsequent to their captivity in AARC.
-
What is sucess at AARC? As far as I know, it's going back to work or school, and rejoining the family, which every single client does on level 3, while they are still incarcerated. Beyond that, a minimum of 52% of graduates in the study began using drugs or alcohol again after leaving AARC. No data was given in the study with regard to how many of the graduates in the study killed themselves, or were incarcerated subsequent to their captivity in AARC.
I would say success is individually defined. Some may want to remain clean for 12 months and others may want AARC to help them stay clean for 3 years or more, still others may define it as staying sober for life. The study merely defines what AARC has achieved and new clients can expect after graduating. If the results are favorable to a particular person then AARC would be worth the price... others may take a pass.
...
-
If success is individually defined, there doesn't seem to be much point to AARC claiming an 85% success rate. However, it has been claimed, falsely, that the 2005 study showed that 85% of the AARC clients from the study were still sober after five years, when in fact most had not been graduated for five years, and 52% had already relapsed.
-
If success is individually defined, there doesn't seem to be much point to AARC claiming an 85% success rate. However, it has been claimed, falsely, that the 2005 study showed that 85% of the AARC clients from the study were still sober after five years, when in fact most had not been graduated for five years, and 52% had already relapsed.
Take another look:
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%
It was a snap shot in time. Each individual was at a different distance away from graduation. From 8 months to 5.5 years and the study showed that 85% of the people who graduate from AARC are still clean after 4 years. This is what studies are designed to do, ajax. Only a percentage of the population were at the 5 year mark.
What I would suggest is to ask someone in the company you work for or someone you know who has a statistics background to explain the table/study to you and the concept of probability. I have a resource that I us for such occasions.
-
52% of the one hundred graduates had relapsed at the time the study was undertaken. The majority had not yet been graduated for five years. There is nothing in the study that indicates that 85% are still clean after four years. 15% of the graduates cited in the study did not even take part in the study.
-
52% of the one hundred graduates had relapsed at the time the study was undertaken.
That is untrue, You just made that up, why?
-
The majority had not yet been graduated for five years.
Thats why they used statistics! That’s the beauty of it. The time from graduation ranged from 8 months to 5.5 years at the time of the study. The study showed that 85% of all graduates (not just the ones in this study) will be clean and sober after 4 years. 93% of the graduates will be clean and sober after 1 year.
There is nothing in the study that indicates that 85% are still clean after four years.
I showed you the table, just take a look at it.
15% of the graduates cited in the study did not even take part in the study.
That is correct. 85 out of the 100 population participated in the study. Many mail out studies and questionnaires see as low as 25% response rate so it is encouraging to see most were interested in participating in the AARC study.
...
-
The study showed what people not included in the study will do? Incredible. As always, tremendously insightful help from you, Who.
-
The study showed what people not included in the study will do? Incredible. As always, tremendously insightful help from you, Who.
Exactly. The study provides a prediction of what "every person" can expect upon completing the program (not just those in the study). The study would not be very useful if the results only applied those in the study.
A portion of those in the study show that 85% of the graduates will be clean and sober after 4 years
Another portion of the study show that 93% of the graduates will be clean and sober after 12 months etc.
...
-
You keep dropping the qualifier "still" from your claims about what is indicated in the study. 52% of former inmates in the study were already relapsed, most not yet out of AARC 5 years. A study of a sample group does not show what every person can expect, but rather shows tendencies within the study group. Depending on the validity of the tests, and the size of the group tested, a margin of error can indicate a rate at which the tendencies shown in the study can be expected to occur in the total population.
-
You keep dropping the qualifier "still" from your claims about what is indicated in the study. 52% of former inmates in the study were already relapsed, most not yet out of AARC 5 years. A study of a sample group does not show what every person can expect, but rather shows tendencies within the study group. Depending on the validity of the tests, and the size of the group tested, a margin of error can indicate a rate at which the tendencies shown in the study can be expected to occur in the total population.
Show us your table so we can all review it. No reason to get all upset about it. The facts are the facts. Lets get them on the table and review the study. Its public knowledge, its not like anyone is hiding anything except maybe you. Toss it up and lets take a look.
-
I might suggest that you read the study yourself, rather than relying on me or anyone else to provide you the inforamtion contained in the study. You could then draw your own conclusions. How do you know what anyone has to hide? Is that more of that AARColyte ESP I keep seeing?
-
I might suggest that you read the study yourself, rather than relying on me or anyone else to provide you the inforamtion contained in the study. You could then draw your own conclusions. How do you know what anyone has to hide? Is that more of that AARColyte ESP I keep seeing?
I did read it and here is what it said:
Take another look:
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%
Shows that 85% are sober after 4 years and
93% are sober after 12 months of graduation.
Where was your section again?
...
-
Right. 52% relapsed since leaving AARC, most out for an average of just over 2 years. Exactly what I said.
-
Right. 52% relapsed since leaving AARC, most out for an average of just over 2 years. Exactly what I said.
so you dont have any source besides yourself? Is there a table you can reference for us.
...
-
If you are curious about what is contained in the study, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to read the study. I would encourage anyone else who feels that the study itself, it's methodology, or the data contained therein are relevant to the discussions in this forum, to read the study and draw their own conclusions.
-
If you are curious about what is contained in the study, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to read the study. I would encourage anyone else who feels that the study itself, it's methodology, or the data contained therein are relevant to the discussions in this forum, to read the study and draw their own conclusions.
I think we can agree that everyone should read the study. But if you reference figures you claim came from the study you should be able to point to them or paste up a copy of the referenced piece. The following is a table taken from the study and I can provide a link for you if you like.
Take another look:
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%
Toss up the relapse figures and we can compare them. Relapse isnt the end of the world. It will probably happen to almost all of them at some point so it is not something to be ashamed of. Just not sure where yur numbers came from. Is it something you made up?
-
As the study is available on this forum, I don't know why you would offer to post a link. However, that aside, the fact that a minimum of 52% of former prisoners in the study had relapsed is important when the fact that an 85% rate of continuous abstinence has been used to solicit funding for AARC.
-
As the study is available on this forum, I don't know why you would offer to post a link. However, that aside, the fact that a minimum of 52% of former prisoners in the study had relapsed is important when the fact that an 85% rate of continuous abstinence has been used to solicit funding for AARC.
Take another look:
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%
85% of the grads are sober after 4 years and
93% are sober after their first 12 months after graduating.
Lets add your table and take a look.
-
I dont' have any tables. I've been referring to data contained in a study written by All About Receiving Cash. If you were mistakenly under the impression that I have undertaken such a study, I can't help you. If you do happen to come across the double blind information related to AARC's 2005 study, by all means let readers of this forum know about it.
-
I dont' have any tables. I've been referring to data contained in a study written by All About Receiving Cash. If you were mistakenly under the impression that I have undertaken such a study, I can't help you. If you do happen to come across the double blind information related to AARC's 2005 study, by all means let readers of this forum know about it.
so you lied about your girlfriend at AARC and now you are making up statistics about AARC? Sorry Ajax, you have just been exposed. Your girlfriend never went there and you are pissed because you are part of the 15% who cant stay clean and are now pissed at AARC for it. Well WAAA, WAAA dont blame others because you cant stay sober. It wasnt AARC's fault you took drugs and drank. They were there to help, you screwed it up not them.
...
-
I have been exposed. Any of you reading here who have met me, or who were in All About Receiving Cash along with my Special Lady Friend, time to wake up and realize that the Who has fractured your delusional state of reality. Thanks Who!
-
ajax13, The sad part is there are people on this forum who have been hurt by programs and come on here to tell their stories and with people like you pretending to have a wife who attended a program and making up lie after lie it discredits all the other people who are trying to get the truth out.
Yeah you had me fooled (trolled me pretty good as they say) and can have a laugh at my expense, but you made it that much harder for readers to believe the other stories on this site. I mean, WTF, it was really stupid of you just for a laugh.
...
-
Now that you have exposed me and my wife, all of the people who were in AARC who read this forum will have to deprogram themselves of their memories of her and her family, whom they imagined to have been involved with AARC for over ten years. Any of you former AARC prisoners with whom I have spoken on the telephone, sat down and chatted with, or otherwise communicated with, it was all in your head.