"Attack Therapy" at The John Dewey Academy

[ZenAgent]

ZenAgent is an industry spy who elicits information out of the real advocates and survivors who post here.

I shot Kennedy, too. 

[3xsaSeedling]

Some how, this makes me want to bang my head!
 :wall:

[TheWho]

Anecdotal evidence:

based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.

So it can be reliable or unreliable because there has been no controlled study.  We need, also, to remember that the accounts we read here on fornits are all anecdotal, so dont be too critical of this type of evidence.  We cannot say that fornits posters represent a true cross section of program grads or how accurate the stories are or if each persons definition of abuse, success, failure, happiness etc. is the same as another persons.

[Anonymous]

Fuck off, Who.

[TheWho]

Fuck off, Who.

Nice discussion skills, Psy.

[Froderik]

So I guess we should hire a judge to swear everyone in before posting here for credibility?

Sometimes I can't believe the amount of circling 'round the ol' mulberry bush that goes on here...boggles the mind.

[Froderik]

ZenAgent is an industry spy who elicits information out of the real advocates and survivors who post here.

I shot Kennedy, too. 

  So it WAS you!

[TheWho]

So I guess we should hire a judge to swear everyone in before posting here for credibility?

Sometimes I can't believe the amount of circling 'round the ol' mulberry bush that goes on here...boggles the mind.

The swearing in would not change the data type.  Fornits is based on peoples stories.  These stories are not scientific, not controlled or managed in anyway and the people are not tracked over a long period of time so the data is highly anecdotal. Fornits posters speak of other peoples experiences as well as their own.  They tell us how their parents are feeling, why they were sent to the program which is categorized as hearsay. 

I think the reason we keep going in circles is because many people don’t understand what they are against.  Many here are quick to ridicule information that different programs collect (organize and report) without realizing that they themselves are generating the same type of database.  If we expect people to respect/believe what is written here on fornits we need to do the same with other data collection sites.



...

[Anonymous]

So I guess we should hire a judge to swear everyone in before posting here for credibility?

Sometimes I can't believe the amount of circling 'round the ol' mulberry bush that goes on here...boggles the mind.

The swearing in would not change the data type.  Fornits is based on peoples stories.  These stories are not scientific, not controlled or managed in anyway and the people are not tracked over a long period of time so the data is highly anecdotal. Fornits posters speak of other peoples experiences as well as their own.  They tell us how their parents are feeling, why they were sent to the program which is categorized as hearsay. 

I think the reason we keep going in circles is because many people don’t understand what they are against.  Many here are quick to ridicule information that different programs collect (organize and report) without realizing that they themselves are generating the same type of database.  If we expect people to respect/believe what is written here on fornits we need to do the same with other data collection sites.



...

Thomas Bratters success is highly anecdotal.  His conviction as a sex offender is public record.  The Dewey staff who engaged in sexual misconduct, that's on record, too.

Parents are told to research programs before placing their kids.  Why would they choose Dewey based on this information?

[TheWho]

Thomas Bratters success is highly anecdotal.  His conviction as a sex offender is public record.  The Dewey staff who engaged in sexual misconduct, that's on record, too.

Parents are told to research programs before placing their kids.  Why would they choose Dewey based on this information?

Part of the research parents should be looking at are the staff that will be overseeing their child as well as the schools success rate which is what the OP points to.  If you want to link the two then to be fair the same should be done to fornits posters.  

Everyones history should be taken into account when weighing their story.  If a poster here poster had a history of drug abuse, acting out in school, not being truthful etc. this should be considered when judging the credibility of their story.

[Anonymous]

Everyones history should be taken into account when weighing their story.  If a poster here poster had a history of drug abuse, acting out in school, not being truthful etc. this should be considered when judging the credibility of their story.

Do they have a criminal record for any of the above offenses?  Bratter and a staffer have criminal records as sex offenders.  How can you question the credibility of every survivor who's abused drugs, acted out in school, or hasn't always been truthful? You're using the behaviors that landed them in programs to discredit their accounts.  Not only that, but the average high school kid lacks credibility, if drug abuse, lying and getting in trouble makes them questionable.

Dewey students have engaged in dangerous, often death-defying behavior which demands heroic intervention.

It sounds like the Dewey kids have their share of demons, but Bratter claims a less than 10% recidivism rate.  That estimate is based on "anecdotal data" from patients who've left Dewey after being sent there for "dangerous, often death-defying behavior".

You'll accept anecdotal data as valid if it supports a program, and questionable if it is critical.

[TheWho]

Do they have a criminal record for any of the above offenses?  Bratter and a staffer have criminal records as sex offenders.  How can you question the credibility of every survivor who's abused drugs, acted out in school, or hasn't always been truthful? You're using the behaviors that landed them in programs to discredit their accounts.  Not only that, but the average high school kid lacks credibility, if drug abuse, lying and getting in trouble makes them questionable.

I am not using anything, just holding everyone to the same standard.

It sounds like the Dewey kids have their share of demons, but Bratter claims a less than 10% recidivism rate.  That estimate is based on "anecdotal data" from patients who've left Dewey after being sent there for "dangerous, often death-defying behavior".

You'll accept anecdotal data as valid if it supports a program, and questionable if it is critical.

I accept the anecdotal data from both Dewey and fornits.  There are some people who want the readers to believe one but not the other.  I don’t think we should disregard results because one person was convicted of a crime 10 -15 years ago or a kid was convicted a few years ago.  If Ginger was convicted of a crime does that invalidate all the stories that have been posted on fornits?  I wouldn’t think so.  But the rationale in the above threads would lead to all the posts here becoming invalid.

So lets look at the studies these programs report on.  We all know that no company is going to go public with information that will hurt their business and parents  know this also.  But a lot can be learned by examining what areas were left out of the report which would reveal where they are failing or unsuccessful.

[Anonymous]

I am not using anything, just holding everyone to the same standard.

There is a difference in status between Bratter as a mental health care professional and his patients at Dewey.  Not only did he break the law, he violated the ethics of his profession and the trust of those in his care.  Abusive caregivers and those they abuse can't be held to the "same standard".

So lets look at the studies these programs report on.  We all know that no company is going to go public with information that will hurt their business and parents  know this also.  But a lot can be learned by examining what areas were left out of the report which would reveal where they are failing or unsuccessful.

 

Let's look at the studies then.  I'll defer to you to provide them.  In regard to these companies not reporting information that could damage their profitability, you've shown the need for independent evaluations to present fact-based studies of programs for parents to consider, since you've made it clear mental health professionals will violate their ethics and lie as damage control.

You're getting closer to the problem of transparency in the industry.  There is none at the moment, and no incentive for the industry to resolve this problem.

[TheWho]

There is a difference in status between Bratter as a mental health care professional and his patients at Dewey.  Not only did he break the law, he violated the ethics of his profession and the trust of those in his care.  Abusive caregivers and those they abuse can't be held to the "same standard".

You take a kid who was comfortable in his world (Drugs, self destructive, crime etc.) force him out of that environment and into a program (an environment he doesn’t like or chose for himself).  This particular kid doesn’t do well in a program, goes back to his old life style  and then comes on here to fornits to talk about his experience.  Do you expect a balanced account of his time in the program?  Don’t you think it would be a little biased?  I know the answer, I have read more than my share.  Status isn’t really the issue, it is motivation.  This is why I feel the parents are probably in a better position to view behavior changes and report back successes and failures better then the students or program owners.

Let's look at the studies then.  I'll defer to you to provide them.  In regard to these companies not reporting information that could damage their profitability, you've shown the need for independent evaluations to present fact-based studies of programs for parents to consider, since you've made it clear mental health professionals will violate their ethics and lie as damage control.

You're getting closer to the problem of transparency in the industry.  There is none at the moment, and no incentive for the industry to resolve this problem.

I am all for studies.  The more independent the better.  But it will not stop anyplace from showing their best side.  The part you are missing is this isn’t a teen industry problem.  It occurs in all industries.  The Hospital up the street has a big sign out front “Voted one of the top 100 hospitals in the Country”.  This same hospital also ranks below the 30th percentile in infection containment nationwide but I didn’t see any signs telling us that.  No lists of present and past lawsuits posted in the lobby.  You need to go dig for that info.
Regulation may eventually force programs to track and report success rates but only the positive results will make their way onto the brochures.

[Anonymous]

You take a kid who was comfortable in his world (Drugs, self destructive, crime etc.) force him out of that environment and into a program (an environment he doesn’t like or chose for himself).  This particular kid doesn’t do well in a program, goes back to his old life style  and then comes on here to fornits to talk about his experience.  Do you expect a balanced account of his time in the program?  Don’t you think it would be a little biased?  I know the answer, I have read more than my share.  Status isn’t really the issue, it is motivation.  This is why I feel the parents are probably in a better position to view behavior changes and report back successes and failures better then the students or program owners.

"You take a kid who was comfortable in his world (Drugs, self destructive, crime etc.) force him out of that environment and into a program (an environment he doesn’t like or chose for himself)".  This particular kid realizes people around him are getting their asses kicked regularly and decides to pretend he/she is completely "on-board" or "aligned" with the program.  He/she completely hoodwinks the unethical "professionals" desperate for a "success" and they fawn all over the kid.  The kid gets out quickly, tows the line at home for three months and the program declares success.  Then the patient relapses or finds a forum to give an account of the abuse he/she witnessed.  Ask DYS about fooling trained "experts" in a program.

Where are the parents going to report the failures?  You've already said any company will suppress information from that could hurt profitability.  The programs will quash the negative outcomes.  Also, the parents with "failures" may not be inclined to report anything back to the unsuccessful program unless it's through an attorney.  Most of them try to "put it behind them and move on", which keeps the industry going, unchecked and unaccountable.

Anyone familiar with John Rosen, the self-proclaimed psychoanalyst who wrote Direct Psychoanalysis?  He was one of the first to use brutal "attack therapy", resulting in the death of a patient and Rosen losing his license over sexual assault and over sixty counts of malpractice.  Bratter and Rosen have a lot in common, both get carried away with the "godlike" power they have over their patients and both were sexually abusive to those in their care.