General Interest > Feed Your Head
Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---There was a third party oversight committee which watched over the study and insured there was no conflict of interest.
--- End quote ---
No, there wasn't. There was an outside group that approved the format of the questionaire, nothing more. If this were true, I'm sure you could post a link and excerpt.
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---If you see flaws with this you need to contact the oversight committee
--- End quote ---
There is no oversight committe.
You also have posted numerous times about a fictitious "one year follow-up study." That doesn't exist either.
--- End quote ---
"Bulletproof"? That's funny. ^^Three bleeding bullet holes right there^^ that can't be plugged.
I hear ya, Psy. It's tedious. Anytime Whooter would like to post the proof of any of these items, we can come back to it then. Until then, these items remain to be Whooter's unsubstantiated opinions only.
Whooter:
Like I said you will have to discredit the review board by stating your case, DJ. If you feel strongly that they just reviewed a questionnaire then make that challenge... ask them if they do the same thing when reviewing studies for the pharmaceutical industry. There is an independent study, an oversight committee and a presentation to the American Psychological Association (APA). You need to get one of these to come forward or back down, but this hasnt happened and the study has been standing 4 years.
Sorry DJ, your singled handed anonymous rant on the internet isnt going to invalidate a study, lol. But it is fun to watch.
Here lets take another look:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study
Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. If you still feel that the study is invalid then you can speak to the APA and the review board who audited and approved the study. If they side with you then come back and make your argument here.
A person unaffiliated with the Framingham Heart Study cannot just invalidate a study and say "Phsst, this study is crap, look there was a doctor involved with the research who use to perform heart transplants and another who is a doctor. This is a total conflict of interest, someone get me a cigarette and a cheeseburger!!!" lol
...
Troll Control:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
--- End quote ---
Funny, I clicked on that link and there's absolutely zero content related to the study you cited. Zero. No "approval." No "audit." No nothing. This will have to be resolved before we move on to your other claims.
Sorry, Whooter, but you can't fool people like this.
FWIW, the Framingham Heart Study is peer reviewed and published in multiple medical journals, two things that the Behrens whitepaper is clearly not. You proved my point, Whooter!
Your final line should have said "Someone get me a peer review and a publication!" Lols. I'm sure you'll come up with something. ; )
Whooter:
All the links worked for me, I just checked them. If you dont think the study was conducted by Canyon Research or you feel there was no oversight by WIRB then you can call them. If you feel that the study wasnt presented at the annual APA conference the feel free to contact them.
I can see that you at least feel the study is bullet proof because you have not been able to dispute the study findings which is a big step, so now you are working to discredit the people who conducted the study and found nothing there so you need to find fault with the review board... good luck with that. We will all be waiting for the review boards ruling on your findings.
Let us know.
...
Troll Control:
Oh, the link to WIRB worked, it just doesn't mention the study or even Canyon Research. Isn't that weird, if they oversaw the study as you claim? I'm guessing you can't substantiate this claim at all, so you're trying to wiggle out of it.
Just post the link to the WIRB page/content that says they "oversaw" and "audited" the Behrens "study." Looking at their site, it seems they never even heard of this study, much less had "oversight" or "audited" it. You just made that up and now you're flailing.
When you can support your claim about the WIRB and can provide the "one year follow-up" you keep touting, then we can move on to whatever else you want to explore. Until then, here we stay. You made a lot of claims, so let's just go one by one. I'm sure you have the proof. Don't hold out on us, lol.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version