CBC Fifth Estate AARC piece

[Antigen]

This is to be expected.  Anyone who is attacked will try to defend themselves if they believe in their system and what they stand for, although I don’t think they will get nasty about it and start websites like “Rachaeltruth.com” or lower themselves to personal attacks on individuals.  I expect they will take a more professional stand and try to tell their side and point out any discrepancies as they see it.

AARColytes have already personally attacked Rachel in this forum within the past couple of days and going back to her early posts here. Vause attacked her and Simi and others on the hidden camera interview calling them all liars.

What color is the sky in your world?

[Anonymous]

i would like to clear up a few misconceptions, probably a waste of my time but you never know

1) I would like to thank all of you for your concerns regarding fees, food, host homes, fund raising etc. It is nice to know that people care about my time and money. I can assure you that I, along with 99% of AARC graduate parents, would do the program again despite all these extra things. Please save your concerns for those who really want them. I have yet to meet a parent who would not put a 2nd kid into the program because of the extras.

Wow, you REALLY believe every shred of what they teach you in the meetings! You have no idea the numbers of parents out there who wouldn't touch this treatment!

Not to mention the graduate parents who have other children with alcohol/drug problems who can not put the sibling into treatment because they can NO LONGER AFFORD IT! AARC milked them dry with the first child!

2) The CBC documentary had a laughable assertion - that parents put non-addicted kids into the program because we have "issues" we can't handle. I can't even begin to think how to refute this as it is one of the dumbest assertions I have ever heard. My daughter's heart stopped because of a cocaine OD and she used two days later. That is a common story that the kids have coming into AARC. The reality is that if all parents knew the full extent of their kids abuses, we would need 100 AARCs in Canada.

I'm very sorry for your daughter and your whole family due to the effects of drugs. The saddest part is AARC is not capable of handling people with TRUE addiction problems! A child goes into a host home with other clients their first night of treatment no matter how sick they are while withdrawing from a drug! Withdrawl from some drugs can KILL you if not properly medically supervised.

AARC DOES take clients who are not drug addicts. Some are accepted due to mental health issues and behavioural issues and this is a FACT!

3) Rachel, I am not certain if this was your intent, but the documentary seemed to imply that the rapists were directed by AARC to do this in order to teach you "powerlessness". I am completely stunned that anyone could actually believe this. We all know that you have suffered from psychosis but do you really think that Doc V and Mrs I ordered a rape? I am pretty sure this was a case of the CBC putting their slant on a story but this is how it came out.

I swear I could reach through this monitor and strangle you right now!

The girl was RAPED!!! And you're worried about whether people will think the center and or Dean Vause ORDERED this rape??? How about the fact that there is so little supervision and accountability and the fact that TROUBLED YOUTH are being put in charge of TROUBLED YOUTH so something like this could happen in the first place!!!

You, seriously are a piece of work!

4) The documentary says that normal programs offer a 30-40% success rate. We had our kid in AADAC until we found out that only 4% of their clients found sobriety. I would have loved to avoid the time and cost of AARC but it was the last resort. This actually brings up another point. The critics of AARC seem to focus on what they think are mistakes. I wish that there was an aspect of psychology that had 100% success in anything but that clearly isn't the case. Yeah, mistakes get made but the vast majority of families are helped.

Psychology is generally performed by Psychologists, not troubled kids in a unlicensed facility.

I hope critics of AARC don't hold themselves to the same level of expectation that they hold AARC.

Critics hold AARC to the level of expectation as all the other flawed behaviour modification programs out there with synanon roots and AARC has not let us down!

 :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:  :trophy:

[Gopher_dcgn]

i would like to clear up a few misconceptions, probably a waste of my time but you never know

1)  I would like to thank all of you for your concerns regarding fees, food, host homes, fund raising  etc.  It is nice to know that people care about my time and money. I can assure you that I, along with 99% of AARC graduate parents, would do the program again despite all these extra things. Please save your concerns for those who really want them. I have yet to meet a parent who would not put a 2nd kid into the program because of the extras.

Well you're obviously not looking very hard. I'd like to see some evidence of your 99% claim. Simply saying it doesn't make it true, in fact it makes your story lose credibility.

2) The CBC documentary had a laughable assertion - that parents put non-addicted kids into the program because we have "issues" we can't handle. I can't even begin to think how to refute this as it is one of the dumbest assertions I have ever heard. My daughter's heart stopped because of a cocaine OD and she used two days later. That is a common story that the kids have coming into AARC. The reality is that if all parents knew the full extent of their kids abuses, we would need 100 AARCs in Canada.

Again you're back to spouting unsupported superlatives and anecdotal stories. If you only knew how many terrible parents are out there who are eager to sign away their kids because they're too preoccupied with their social life or work, you'd need 100 AARC's for parents. (See I can make unsupported claims too!) Edit: Bolded is sarcasm for those who didn't get it

3) Rachel, I am not certain if this was your intent, but the documentary seemed to imply that the rapists were directed by AARC to do this in order to teach you "powerlessness". I am completely stunned that anyone could actually believe this. We all know that you have suffered from psychosis but do you really think that Doc V and Mrs I ordered a rape? I am pretty sure this was a case of the CBC putting their slant on a story but this is how it came out.

Nobody claimed that they ordered the rape, but the fact that someone defending AARC would jump to that conclusion is troubling (if you're getting defensive about something that was never claimed, maybe it was ordered?). As far as I'm concerned, presiding over and not investigating claims of rape and abuse is just as bad as ordering it. Also, the fact that you use the same tactics as AARC to discredit Rachael saying she "suffered from psychosis" - as if that means for the rest of her life anything she says should be discounted - makes you again lose all kinds of credibility. You're not doing a very good job of convincing.

4) The documentary says that normal programs offer a 30-40% success rate. We had our kid in AADAC until we found out that only 4% of their clients found sobriety. I would have loved to avoid the time and cost of AARC but it was the last resort. This actually brings up another point.  The critics of AARC seem to focus on what they think are mistakes. I wish that there was an aspect of psychology that had 100% success in anything but that clearly isn't the case. Yeah, mistakes get made but the vast majority of families are helped.

Actually the documentary says that the normal programs claim 30-40% success rates. AARC merely claims an 80% success rate, with no independent verification. See: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html

Once again you make claims that are not backed up by anything. There's no independently verified evidence that the majority of families are helped, nor do you explain what your measure of "help" is. And why shouldn't people focus on the mistakes of AARC? They seem to be making enough of them.

The fact that you imply what they do is an "aspect of psychology" is also bewildering. What goes on at AARC is entirely at odds with every psychological school of thought. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ps ... al_schools

I hope critics of AARC don't hold themselves to the same level of expectation that they hold AARC.

It wouldn't be very hard, it's only common sense. If only parents out there weren't so willing to ship their kids away for their own selfish convenience, or because they were duped by a smooth talking con man. If you're really a parent and not just an AARC shill (which I doubt), then I feel sorry for you because I know it's hard as an adult to admit to making mistakes, but I would urge you to take a look at independently verified evidence - don't take the claims of anyone at face value, especially when they're too good to be true.

[TheWho]

If only parents out there weren't so willing to ship their kids away for their own selfish convenience

Ah, You blew your credibility and your whole argument out of the water with that last statement.  You obviously don’t understand any of this, especially regarding the parents with a child in trouble.  If you ever took the time to speak to any parents of children in programs randomly (regardless whether the parents are for or against programs) you would know their decision was never one of convenience.

[Gopher_dcgn]

If only parents out there weren't so willing to ship their kids away for their own selfish convenience

Ah, You blew your credibility and your whole argument out of the water with that last statement.  You obviously don’t understand any of this, especially regarding the parents with a child in trouble.  If you ever took the time to speak to any parents of children in programs randomly (regardless whether the parents are for or against programs) you would know their decision was never one of convenience.

Of course the parents would claim that the decision is not out of convenience, therefore you're right, they would tell me it wasn't. That doesn't mean that convenience doesn't factor into the decision making process of the parent, (as it should, convenience is important to everyone). Speaking of convenience, you conveniently left out the rest of my sentence. If you combine the convenience aspect with a smooth and coercive salesperson, you get a dangerous combination. Hey, we're sending our kid to the BEST rehab center (80% success rate!), and on top of it there's the unspoken benefit of not having to deal with a problematic teen. The problem is of course, the claims of the rehab center are exaggerated and the parents don't investigate the claims thoroughly because it all seems like such a perfect solution.

And don't tell me I don't understand parents with "troubled" children, you don't know me, but I won't bore you with emotional and anecdotal evidence that would be thrown out in any scientific study. I have little respect for parents who put their kids in these programs and then when confronted with the evidence of the abuses by these programs STILL deny that there's anything wrong here.

[TheWho]

Of course the parents would claim that the decision is not out of convenience, therefore you're right, they would tell me it wasn't.

So you don’t believe they are telling the truth or that they just don’t understand.  So when survivors claim that the program didn’t help them or that they have succeeded in life "in spite" of the program this can be taken as not true also?  Kind of a denial maybe on the survivors part?  How about a survivor posting here that they were abused in a program, could we conclude that knowing that fornits is a very anti program site that kids wouldn’t say anything positive here?  Maybe tell us a story (make claims) out of convenience or to fit in (we all know fitting in is important as well as convienience)?  We certainly know success stories or pro program stories would not be received or believed as easily as negative ones and writing one would certainly insure that the survivor would not fit in.  How would coming and reading here on fornits sway a posters initial post?  Should we still beleive these Claims? (as you put it)

[Anonymous]

Well you're obviously not looking very hard. I'd like to see some evidence of your 99% claim. Simply saying it doesn't make it true, in fact it makes your story lose credibility.

Every parent that went through treatment with me would do it again, gladly. My personal experience is 100%, not 99%

Again you're back to spouting unsupported superlatives and anecdotal stories. If you only knew how many terrible parents are out there who are eager to sign away their kids because they're too preoccupied with their social life or work, you'd need 100 AARC's for parents. (See I can make unsupported claims too!)

the vast majority of parents who look into AARC decide against it because of the time commitments. The ones who are there decided that it was worth whatever we had to do. You obviously are not intimately aware of what is involved if you think we put our kids there in order to get more free time for our social lives.

Nobody claimed that they ordered the rape, but the fact that someone defending AARC would jump to that conclusion is troubling (if you're getting defensive about something that was never claimed, maybe it was ordered?). As far as I'm concerned, presiding over and not investigating claims of rape and abuse is just as bad as ordering it. Also, the fact that you use the same tactics as AARC to discredit Rachael saying she "suffered from psychosis" - as if that means for the rest of her life anything she says should be discounted - makes you again lose all kinds of credibility. You're not doing a very good job of convincing.

Actually, CBC strongly implied that it was ordered by the staff. They allowed Rachel to claim it was done to teach her "powerlessness". Who else would be in charge of teaching her "powerlessness"? This part of the documentary is grounds for a very large legal suite.

The reality is that any workplace has the possibility of a rape occurring, including CBC's HQ, my office, and wherever you work. I have never claimed it didn't happen but it is a huge stretch to assert that it was ordered by AARC staff to teach her "powerlessness"

Actually the documentary says that the normal programs claim 30-40% success rates. AARC merely claims an 80% success rate, with no independent verification. See: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html

Once again you make claims that are not backed up by anything. There's no independently verified evidence that the majority of families are helped, nor do you explain what your measure of "help" is. And why shouldn't people focus on the mistakes of AARC? They seem to be making enough of them.

AARC has had there success measured by a US firm interested in addiction recovery. It is the only factual survey. I guess this does not have the same validity as your assertions on an internet forum but it will have to do.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of convenience, you conveniently left out the rest of my sentence. If you combine the convenience aspect with a smooth and coercive salesperson, you get a dangerous combination..

I never met Doc V until my first Tuesday parent rap. Never heard him speak, never heard his claims.

We put our daughter there because my niece was pulled off the streets doing meth. She graduated and it was her recovery that got us there. No salesman involved, just another success story, something you seem unwilling to recognize.

[Anonymous]

Of course the parents would claim that the decision is not out of convenience, therefore you're right, they would tell me it wasn't.

So you don’t believe they are telling the truth or that they just don’t understand.  So when survivors claim that the program didn’t help them or that they have succeeded in life "in spite" of the program this can be taken as not true also?  Kind of a denial maybe on the survivors part?  How about a survivor posting here that they were abused in a program, could we conclude that knowing that fornits is a very anti program site that kids wouldn’t say anything positive here?  Maybe tell us a story (make claims) out of convenience or to fit in (we all know fitting in is important as well as convienience)?  We certainly know success stories or pro program stories would not be received or believed as easily as negative ones and writing one would certainly insure that the survivor would not fit in.  How would coming and reading here on fornits sway a posters initial post?  Should we still beleive these Claims? (as you put it)

I agree with you, in general we should be skeptical of anyone's single claims. What we should be looking for is evidence. Thankfully, the CBC piece had plenty of evidence to back up its arguments. The factual evidence shows that there's a government subsidized treatment program designed by someone with questionable credentials, administered by people who are thoroughly unqualified, and none of it is based on normal medicinal standards. In fact the system is based on proven flawed systems of the past. The facts also show that AARC make unfounded claims about their success rates, that are not independently verified. One look at their treatment records demonstrates how far AARC strays from professional medicinal/psychological standards. That is all indisputable evidence based on facts. This alone is troubling. On top of it all, there's multiple credible allegations of misdiagnosis, abuse, and coercive practices.

If you're interested in analyzing why people make the claims they do, it can be productive, but it is all secondary to the problems that are proven. A survivor being critical of AARC in order to fit in on a web forum? Doesn't seem very logical. A parent and child both not wanting to relive a traumatic past phase by rocking the boat and opening up about prior abuse or bad decisions? Seems more logical. Posting on a web forum is optional, your family situation is not optional.

[Gopher_dcgn]

That last post was me - forgot to login.

[Gopher_dcgn]

the vast majority of parents who look into AARC decide against it because of the time commitments. The ones who are there decided that it was worth whatever we had to do. You obviously are not intimately aware of what is involved if you think we put our kids there in order to get more free time for our social lives.

Well you certainly seem intimately aware of why or why not parents decide against joining AARC. Tell me, are you an AARC employee?

Actually, CBC strongly implied that it was ordered by the staff. They allowed Rachel to claim it was done to teach her "powerlessness". Who else would be in charge of teaching her "powerlessness"? This part of the documentary is grounds for a very large legal suite.

The reality is that any workplace has the possibility of a rape occurring, including CBC's HQ, my office, and wherever you work. I have never claimed it didn't happen but it is a huge stretch to assert that it was ordered by AARC staff to teach her "powerlessness"

I wasn't claiming it happened, I was being facetious. I don't believe they ordered it. However they did provide an environment where it was allowed to happen. And is it so hard to believe that, in a program that highlights being powerless as a therapy technique, that the rapist (acting alone or not) would also use such language?

AARC has had there success measured by a US firm interested in addiction recovery. It is the only factual survey. I guess this does not have the same validity as your assertions on an internet forum but it will have to do.

Right, but the numbers that were analyzed by this other firm came directly from AARC instead of being collected by the firm. This does not sound very independent.

[Gopher_dcgn]

Speaking of convenience, you conveniently left out the rest of my sentence. If you combine the convenience aspect with a smooth and coercive salesperson, you get a dangerous combination..

I never met Doc V until my first Tuesday parent rap. Never heard him speak, never heard his claims.

We put our daughter there because my niece was pulled off the streets doing meth. She graduated and it was her recovery that got us there. No salesman involved, just another success story, something you seem unwilling to recognize.

You put your daughter there, because your niece was doing meth? So your daughter wasn't even doing drugs? And on top of it you didn't even bother to talk to the head of the program who personally conducts many therapy sessions? You sound very irresponsible.

[TheWho]

If you're interested in analyzing why people make the claims they do, it can be productive, but it is all secondary to the problems that are proven. A survivor being critical of AARC in order to fit in on a web forum? Doesn't seem very logical. A parent and child both not wanting to relive a traumatic past phase by rocking the boat and opening up about prior abuse or bad decisions? Seems more logical. Posting on a web forum is optional, your family situation is not optional.

If you are out to get someone you are not apt to be fair about your reports or if you have an agenda.  You read about someone who thought the program helped them and you get:
….” Well I can see how the program would be tough for some kids if they didn’t fit in or didn’t want to do the work…..  But for me the program really taught me how to deal with my emotions…”A typical antiprogram report may sound like:  …..”we were abused 24/7, all the counselors were power hungry, the food was awful, they forced us to work in the kitchen…” which leaves the reader with overwhelming feeling that they are not getting the whole picture from this poster.  The poster obviously has an axe to grind and is only willing to reveal the parts which are damaging to the program, where the poster with the positive experience is willing to share the good and the bad with the readers. This plays itself out over and over here on fornits.  So the neutral reader is compelled to believe the poster who is willing to share the good and bad aspects of the program, because he/she has no agenda.
The average reader knows that even in the most difficult circumstances that there are positive experiences and the only reason to withhold this part of the story is because the poster is  looking to make the program look as bad as possible.

[psy]

The problem is of course, the claims of the rehab center are exaggerated and the parents don't investigate the claims thoroughly because it all seems like such a perfect solution.

It's a claim that seems too good to be true, and parents rarely want to hear it *is*.  Some are desperate, yes... some do it out of cruelty or convenience, yes...  but almost all end up *believing* that their kids would have been dead without the program.  Imagine you enroll your kid in AARC only to hear he/she is a "level 4 addict".  Scary, yes?

It's all marketing based on exaggerated fear and promise to "save"...  provided you do exactly as they say.

"you are broken, only faith can heal you, just do everything I tell you to do" - Maynard James Keenan - Tool - Opiate

[psy]

Speaking of convenience, you conveniently left out the rest of my sentence. If you combine the convenience aspect with a smooth and coercive salesperson, you get a dangerous combination..

I never met Doc V until my first Tuesday parent rap. Never heard him speak, never heard his claims.

We put our daughter there because my niece was pulled off the streets doing meth. She graduated and it was her recovery that got us there. No salesman involved, just another success story, something you seem unwilling to recognize.

You put your daughter there, because your niece was doing meth? So your daughter wasn't even doing drugs?

This happened a lot at KIDS (AARC predecessor), if you watched the Phil Elberg interview...  Of course the kids all *confess* to doing drugs or being "addicts" under duress, so to the parents it seems as if they made a necessary decision.