Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group
Another death last week at an Aspen program
Troll Control:
BUMP
Aspen program is legally defined as child abuse in the state of Oregon. State investigation finds ALL attendees abused, neglected and that program employees failed to protect children against the abuse. BOMBSHELL.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
--- Quote from: "AuntieEm2" ---If only "theraputic boarding schools" would cooperate in rigorous clinical trials by credible third parties, like universities, in comparing outcomes with public schools. I'm confident the programs would fail to measure up.
--- End quote ---
Can you point to an instance where a rigorous clinical trial was denied?
--- Quote ---I don't see how Aspen can any longer call their schools "therapeutic" after the Oregon DHS concluded, based on documentation of substantiated incidents, that their "therapy" meets the Oregon definition of child abuse.
--- End quote ---
Because not all programs work to the same model. Massachusetts calls the programs therapuetic so we can conclude (by your logic) that all of Aspen programs are therapeutic.
Your getting old GrannyEm. your logic fails.
--- Quote ---So "child abuse boarding schools" would be the accurate term.
--- End quote ---
You are also childish. Resorting to name calling because you cant argue. I think we can agree that the anti program group is running out of examples to hold up. We need a picture of the hobbit and the 300 pound staff member who sits on kids!! Then you can show them how abusive these places are!! Ha,Ha,Ha
--- End quote ---
This is a valid point, I dont remember reading anywhere that a program denied a clinical trial to be performed. The programs in our state have a good reputation for helping kids.
AuntieEm2:
--- Quote ---Can you point to an instance where a rigorous clinical trial was denied?
--- End quote ---
Since there are no instances in which programs have participated in a rigorous clinical trial--one that is NOT bought and paid for by the industry, or conducted in the 1950s, '60s or '70s--we clearly agree one is needed. Excellent!
So, if you will talk to your bosses at the programs (the ones who pay you to peddle your twaddle here) and get them to agree to:
* clearly defined criteria for diagnoses and treatment of youth with mental health and behavioral problems--the programs' version of that, vs the definitions used by children's mental health practitioners in community-based care settings (i.e., the two treatment methods the clinical trial will compare);
* enroll the youth in your programs in the study--I've seen the Power of Attorney documents parents have to sign, and based on those documents you have the power to sell kids for their bodily organs, fawgawdssake, so don't tell me you can't get permission from parents or that this would be a violation of HIPAA;
* enroll ALL of them, not just the "good ones";
* agree to open your programs to independent outside researchers who can observe and document firsthand the treatment practices in programs for a period of a year or more; and
* agree that the study will follow ALL these youth post-program for a period of at least five years.
If you will do that, then I can arrange for:
* the cooperation of a respected university;
* a comparative group of youth receiving community-based care following accepted standards and practices used by professionals nationwide;
* an oversight board to ensure ethical treatment of human subjects;
* senior researchers in childrens mental health, education, law, social work, and juvenile justice; and
* funding NOT from the Corporate Overlords at Aspen/CRC or UHS, but from institutions like the Centers for Disease Control, or the NIH.
Okay? Most amusing, by the way, that in the same post you called me a granny and a child.
Thanks for the words of support, John Carten.
Auntie Em
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "AuntieEm2" ---
--- Quote ---Can you point to an instance where a rigorous clinical trial was denied?
--- End quote ---
Since there are no instances in which programs have participated in a rigorous clinical trial--one that is NOT bought and paid for by the industry, or conducted in the 1950s, '60s or '70s--we clearly agree one is needed. Excellent!
So, if you will talk to your bosses at the programs (the ones who pay you to peddle your twaddle here) and get them to agree to:
* clearly defined criteria for diagnoses and treatment of youth with mental health and behavioral problems--the programs' version of that, vs the definitions used by children's mental health practitioners in community-based care settings (i.e., the two treatment methods the clinical trial will compare);
* enroll the youth in your programs in the study--I've seen the Power of Attorney documents parents have to sign, and based on those documents you have the power to sell kids for their bodily organs, fawgawdssake, so don't tell me you can't get permission from parents or that this would be a violation of HIPAA;
* enroll ALL of them, not just the "good ones";
* agree to open your programs to independent outside researchers who can observe and document firsthand the treatment practices in programs for a period of a year or more; and
* agree that the study will follow ALL these youth post-program for a period of at least five years.
If you will do that, then I can arrange for:
* the cooperation of a respected university;
* a comparative group of youth receiving community-based care following accepted standards and practices used by professionals nationwide;
* an oversight board to ensure ethical treatment of human subjects;
* senior researchers in childrens mental health, education, law, social work, and juvenile justice; and
* funding NOT from the Corporate Overlords at Aspen/CRC or UHS, but from institutions like the Centers for Disease Control, or the NIH.
Okay? Most amusing, by the way, that in the same post you called me a granny and a child.
Thanks for the words of support, John Carten.
Auntie Em
--- End quote ---
I am "all in" on that, Auntie em. I wish I had someone to talk to get that arranged. But like you I am not part of the industry, just a parent of a child who attended. I think if these studies were done it would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding around here and show the effectiveness of the programs... especially 5 years out.
I have never seen an instance where a program turned down the opportunity of a clinical study (I believe we all agree here). If the programs fund the studies themselves then it is perceived as not being independent. I do know of Universities who have conducted studies and published the results in their science journals, but since the results showed the program to be beneficial and no abuse was found it was rejected here on fornits. There have been independent studies done, but since one of the people on the team had a past association with the industry the results were rejected. (like rejecting a heart study because one of the team members use to be a heart doctor).
I think what you are looking for is a study which shows programs to be ineffective and abusive. There just isnt any data to support this. I think there would be more studies if the programs could justify the expense somehow. But since they are doing just fine without them, why incur the expense? Drug companies wouldnt go thru years of clinical trials and the expense unless they were forced to. So you see we cannot blame the programs for this.... many here are looking for answers that just dont exist.
Programs are effect (period) Are there abusive ones? sure... ineffective ones? yes.. but the industry as a whole is very effective in turning around at-risk youth. All the studies we have seen to date have substantiated this position.
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "TheWho" ---I do know of Universities who have conducted studies and published the results in their science journals, but since the results showed the program to be beneficial and no abuse was found it was rejected here on fornits.
--- End quote ---
I call bullshit on this (again). Now you're claiming multiple universitieS have conducted studies? Post them. And don't try to post Valerie Shapiro's sophmore psychology paper as a "university study" either.
Let's go, prove us wrong.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version