AARC's Eternal Circle of Conflict of Interest

[ajax13]

I am very concerned that compulsive self-gratification may lead some of the more tireless promoters of AARC to go blind.  Examining the "independent" validation of AARC's assault/unlawful confinement program, we see that Dr. "Sleepy" Goresky, a board member, and Mr. Fururehalloffamercreatorofheavenandearthdoctorvause, Executive Director, and Mrs. Natalie Oldcomer, clinical? were authors.  Additionally, another conflict of interest arises.  Peter Choda, ABC,123, pitched in to churn out the non-independent request for more money/prisoners as well.  Choda, a well-known specialist in not paying attention, or "childhood syndrome", also provides assessments of AARC prisoners to confirm their status as drug fiends and all-around deviants.  Choda has a lengthy and we trust lucrative association with AARC.
We have already seen the heart-warming link between Mr. Destroyerofworldsacademyawardnomineedoctorvause and Mr. Michaeldoctorpatton, leaving only Val "Slyamaker" outside of the AARC circle of love.  Haymaker comes to us via the renowned school of 12-stepology, the Hazelden Foundation.  How much Lottery/Rotary/Parental money did our pal Val get for independently stroking AARC?  Inquiring minds want to know.

"Your love gives me such a thrill, but your love won't pay my bills! I need money!", Mr. Lordvaderdoctorvause

[Anonymous]

Is the actual study available on the website?  Where can it be obtained?  I am curious and suspicious and I would like to read it and compare it to the claims and "studies" done by Kids in New Jersey all of which were simply frauds.

[ajax13]

One could only hazard to guess whether or not the study is even of this world.  It could be that it was taken corporeally into heaven upon it's completion.  How could a document detailing a completely unscientific study completed by parties who benefit financially from AARC, which is used to sell AARC be a fraud?

[Anonymous]

My question is an entirely serious one.  Has a "study" been published.  Is it available anywhere?  The question matters for significant reasons.  AARC methods were based on those used at Kids.  It has apparently represented that it is different then kids and that the abuses associated with Kids are not repeated at AARC.    That may be true with the most obvious abuses but it does not answer the question because when Kids is taken out of the equation there is no model for AARC other then AARC.  Kids consistently misrepresented data and "studies" which did not exist or were simply made up.  Does AARC have evidence to back up its claims of success?  Do they include verifiable information about the extent of the drug use of patients at intake from sources other then those same patients recalling their use years later? GIven the relationship of AARC to Kids there is reason to be suspicious of any study that is not available for review.

There is either evidence to support the treatment or there is not.

[ajax13]

This subject is entirely serious.  The "treatment model" is exactly that used in Kids, and there are currently at least two people from Kids working at AARC.  As has been pointed out in this forum repeatedly, the Raps are taken from Kids.  The terminology of Newcomer and Oldcomer, the system of placing children in the homes of other kids in the program, all of it is taken directly from Kids.  
As to the abuses, there have been staffers caught  having sexual relations with clients.  There have been assaults in the host homes.  The leader takes vast sums of money that is not used to pay for medical staff nor any other form of client care.
The study was produced by AARC for AARC.  AARC claims to have presented it to the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine.  Was it published somewhere?  Remains to be seen.  
AARC is a machine to provide an income and position of authority to the leader.  No more and no less.  All other aspects are derived from this fact.

[Anonymous]

I do know the similarities between Kids and AARC in great detail.  The similarities are usually expressed in terms of the phases, motivation, phases, host homes etc.  I am trying to place the focus someplace more important and not often discussed. It is a common problem at tough love facilities to have Kids, desperate to advance and having no alternative, to confess to conduct that simply did not happen and then to repeat those confessions to parents.  That was a common practice at Kids including among the Canadien kids who were sent to Kids from Alberta.  Miller Newton lied about studies that he claimed proved he was doing something valuable.  When pressed it became clear that the studies were non existent or total nonsense.  Here is my point.  If there are AARC studies they ought be produced.  The names of patients will not be there so it is easy.  Given the connection between Kids and AARC any claims by AARC to studies that prove with statistics that they are doing something good should be suspect in regard to both the source and particularly the drug use history of the patients based on pre AARC records.

[ajax13]

The practise of extracting false drug use accounts does occur at AARC the way it did in Kids and Straight.  There is no way to prove what a kid's drug use was prior to entering AARC, just as there is no way for them to prove abstinence afterward.   All kids in AARC are charactarized as heavy drug users and there have been instances of children who used marijuan infrequently being kept at AARC for months.  These same children will avow to massive hard drug use so as to meet the demands of their old-comers and staffers.

[Anonymous]

That is why it is important to see any study that AARC claims supports their treatment model and why it is outrageous for them to claim that there is such a study without publishing it.  That is the only point I was trying to make.  People that believed Miller Newton were fooled for a long time. The list of the fooled includes the government of canada that shipped adolescents to New Jersey. Had Newton been required to produce the studies he claimed he had he made have been closed down and exposed sooner and lots of kids and their families would have been spared his abuse.

[hanzomon4]

If there is an AARC study that could be compared to a Kids study I bet they would be near identical. Try calling up the people AARC claimed to have presented this study to and ask how you can go about viewing it. If these places give you a "huh?" as in "wtf are you talk'in about, what study?" it's bunk.

If this study is totally made up by AARC they'll have some explaining to do to the people who supposedly saw this study. If it's real you should be able to have a copy, anything less is bull.... but you know this.

[Anonymous]

... the validity of the study.  Vause seems intent on periodically presenting certain of his "graduates " to the Alberta Legislature.  which is what he did in 2005 with his three hundredth.  The legislature were told by the MLA for Calgary Edgmont that this guy was a "miracle".  they also quoted Dr Patton of the Union Institute as "validating"  their 85% success rate.  You can read about it in Alberta Hansard.  (just Google the names.  What you cannot get from Google is the actual study.  Nary even a mention of it.  Perhaps somebody with access to university web sites as a graduate student could possibly dig something up.  --- or, better still, contact the Hon. member for Calgary Egmont .  Come to think of it, if the Hon member hasn't seen it he might deny that he has it any more as he would be too embarassed to admit he had been conned.  
Lies, damned lies and statistics, don't y'know.

[Anonymous]

I keep coming back to this because I think it is a practical to way to place an appropriate focus on whether AARC is really a place that does something valuable or simply not as bad as Kids which is no endorsement at all.  Miller Newton lied by claiming to have studies, always accompanied by statistics like 53% or 85% which he simply made up or which were done by his patients with no basis in reality.  The people that run AARC were trained by Newton.  They say they have a study.  Politicians and board members and funders apparently cite such studies.  Maybe they are the same politicians and funders that sent Canadiens to Kids and never apologized for it.  Any study is a good place to begin an evaluation of AARC.  It has been around long enough so that there should be a study for review by interested parties including researchers.  The Board of AARC should be asked to place it on the internet or make it available.  It is really that simple.
The parading of success stories was another gruesome technique used by Newton.  They were made up too. It is no substitute for a study.

[ajax13]

I have contacted the board member of the Canadian Society of Addictions Medicine  for Alberta, as this was a forum to which AARC claims to have presented their study and I am awaiting a reply.  A cursory look at  the facts about the study on AARC's website shows it to be completely without scientific value, and some brief analysis of those facts is in another post on this forum.

[Anonymous]

wonderful! Let's see what we get.  I am curious.

[Antigen]

I'm curious too. Last I checked, the California chapter of ASAM and the national ASAM, Robert DuPont was affiliated.

http://www.asam.org/CommitteesCouncilsActionGroups.html

He still holds two board seats. Last time I heard of ASAM, years ago, they had just formally endorsed California's Prop 36
http://www.prop36.org/

And so there was just NO way to get drug policy reformers to see the danger of forced treatment. To them, it was a panacea and they were not going to let anything silly like the fact that the Stepcraft cult in general and DFAF and other Program outfits specifically basically run drug treatment industry and culture in this part of the world.

They play SO dirty and at such high levels of authority, it scares hell out of me every time I check and see what the crazy bastards are up to now. Ajax, I share your aprehension!. If CSAM is anyghing like ASAM I expect them to do all they can think of (which isn't saying much) to cover for their fellow patron of the dark arts. I'm not telling you this to further frighten or discourage you, only to let you know that I understand the scope of this, I'm not taking things too lightly.

And there is hope! Now is probably a fantastic time to strike a blow at the whole boondoggle. The American Republicans have tied themselves so very closely with the cult since the `70's. I always thought it would be the cult to take down the party, not the other way around. But I'll take it, I'll take it! And I have some idea who is coming together lately to blow holes in the whole scam. I don't think it's too ambitious to expect ASAM to get a little egg on their face by the end of it.

[Antigen]

Just thought I'd drop in this x-ref.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=21377