Independent Study Shows Success.

[Dysfunction Junction]

Let's keep in mind that Whooter has no understanding of human research when we read his drivel.  His responses are false and intended to mislead readers.

Let's have a look at what constitutes a conflict of interest in the research setting, shall we?

Reportable Interests means any personal interest or relationship that would reasonably appear to affect or be affected by the research, including but not limited to those with monetary value, such as salary or other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria); equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests); and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights), as further described in Section III below.

III. Disclosure of Reportable Interests
Principal Investigators and Key Personnel should disclose the Reportable Interests related to a particular research project involving human subjects not only for themselves, but also for a spouse or domestic partner and dependent children. Reportable Interests include:
a. compensation for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria), or in-kind payments, other than from a primary employer, in the prior calendar year and projected over the next twelve months; (EDITOR NOTE: BEHRENS WAS ACTIVELY CONSULTING FOR AEG AT THE TIME OF THIS WORK)
b. royalty income or the right to receive future royalties under a patent, license, or copyright, if the research project is directly related to the licensed technology or work;
c. equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests, including equity holdings the value of which cannot readily be determined by reference to publicly available prices);
d. intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights);
e. gifts or funds available to an investigator from a sponsor of the research in addition to the funding for the current research project;
f. funding expected to significantly exceed the projected costs of conducting the current research project; and
g. another personal interest or relationship that may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Obvioulsy Behrens was in violation of several of these COI rules and did not disclose her COI to the WIRB or they would not have issued certificates for this work.  What a surprise!  Aspen and Behrens lied.  Who woulda thunk it?

Obviously this is why this work has never been reviewed or published.  It fails on its face before you even open the binder!

[RTP2003]

 The local Mcdonalds or Ford dealership doesnt hold kids against their will.



...

This may be a little off topic, but do you know what Whootie orders when he's at McDonald's?  Yep, you guessed it-----"A large bag of dicks, please.  And be sure to give me extra sauce."

[Whooter]

As DJ mentioned above, the review board looks at all potential conflicts of interest to determine if the study can move forward and gain approval.  There are allowances for people and businesses to have a relationship as long as they meet certain guidelines.  If there is a conflict of interest then the study will not be approved.  Thats what they are being paid top insure otherwise they would not be needed.  vIf someone refuses to submit their records then of course they would not approve the study.
If a few of us here at fornits can find consulting records on the internet I am sure a oversight commission would be able to find this easy enough. It is well documented as we can all see.



...

[Dysfunction Junction]

Behrens did not disclose.  She had a direct financial relationship with Aspen and was actively consulting for them at the time.  This was not disclosed or the study would not be approved.  Hence no peer review and no publication, which, for those of you that don't know and are mislead by Whooter, does not cost the researcher one thin dime.  It's free.  If this work were worth anything, anything at all scientifically, it would have been peer reviewed and published.  It wasn't.

[Whooter]

Behrens did not disclose.  She had a direct financial relationship with Aspen and was actively consulting for them at the time.  This was not disclosed or the study would not be approved.  Hence no peer review and no publication, which, for those of you that don't know and are mislead by Whooter, does not cost the researcher one thin dime.  It's free.  If this work were worth anything, anything at all scientifically, it would have been peer reviewed and published.  It wasn't.

Yes she did disclose it.  The study got approved.  If you really feel that she didnt disclose info and you have a smoking gun give the oversight commission a call.  I am sure they would like to blow the lid off of a research firm and get some free advertisement for themselves.

Let us know how it turns out.  I'll keep watching the papers.



...

[RobertBruce]

Yes she did disclose it

Souce?

[Whooter]

Yes she did disclose it

Souce?

The approval board will not move forward until all documents, sources of income are disclosed.  The fact the study got approved shows that all paperwork was submitted.  The income statements and tax documents that she filed to the IRS would reflect her consulting work and fees she received.  So yes they were disclosed.  If she refused to submit any or all her past tax documents they would not have approved the study.



...

[Whooter]

Interesting outcomes from the study:

After treatment in an Aspen residential program, both parents and teens indicated the teens' emotional problems had been reduced to a normal range. Aspen's programs helped teens develop a better sense of self, providing the confidence to be less susceptible to peer pressure and other outside influences.



...

[RobertBruce]

The approval board will not move forward until all documents, sources of income are disclosed. The fact the study got approved shows that all paperwork was submitted. The income statements and tax documents that she filed to the IRS would reflect her consulting work and fees she received. So yes they were disclosed. If she refused to submit any or all her past tax documents they would not have approved the study.

So what you're saying is, is that you're guessing and actually have nothing. What we have is the review boards standards showing any study conducted by a person with conflict of interest, which Ms. Behrens clearly had, would not be approved. This of course means, unless you can show evidence of an exception, that she lied to the board and was dishonest. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Whooter, this blatent conflict of interest and clear policy violation should be brought to the review boards attention immediately.

[shaggys]

The approval board will not move forward until all documents, sources of income are disclosed. The fact the study got approved shows that all paperwork was submitted. The income statements and tax documents that she filed to the IRS would reflect her consulting work and fees she received. So yes they were disclosed. If she refused to submit any or all her past tax documents they would not have approved the study.

So what you're saying is, is that you're guessing and actually have nothing. What we have is the review boards standards showing any study conducted by a person with conflict of interest, which Ms. Behrens clearly had, would not be approved. This of course means, unless you can show evidence of an exception, that she lied to the board and was dishonest. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Whooter, this blatent conflict of interest and clear policy violation should be brought to the review boards attention immediately.

Looks like RB has this one summed up pretty well. Dishonesty and financial conflict of interest = no cred. Case closed?

[Whooter]

Well lets take another look:

Link

The offical position is still that the study is valid and was overseen by an independent review board.  If you have a smoking gun then you should let the oversight commission know.   In the mean time we have no choice but to go with what the oversight commission says.

If there is a change of any kind I will post it here and you let us know if you hear any changes to the studies status.

[RobertBruce]

The smoking gun has already been fired Whooter, hence why it's smoking. This woman lied. Even you can't be oblivious to the fact that she had a working relationship and recieved payments from Aspen. Even if you do remain obstinate it does nothing to change the facts, and ruin this marketing tools credibility.

[Whooter]

The smoking gun has already been fired Whooter, hence why it's smoking. This woman lied. Even you can't be oblivious to the fact that she had a working relationship and recieved payments from Aspen. Even if you do remain obstinate it does nothing to change the facts, and ruin this marketing tools credibility.

wow, you guys work fast, good work.  Let me know when the review board reverses their approval of the study.  Until then (unfortunately for you) the study still stands because it is still approved, valid and was presented at the APA annual conference.  These are the facts as of today.

Let us all know what the oversight committee says.



...

[Whooter]

While we are waiting lets take a look at some of the results of the study:

Both parents and teens agreed the teens' behavior was not in the normal range of a typical teenager prior to treatment. However, at discharge, teens were far more cooperative, with their negative behaviors diminished to 'normal' levels.  



...

[RobertBruce]

Until then unfortunately the study still stands because it is still approved, valid and was presented at the APA annual conference

.......and remains unpublished for fear of critique and peer review. Let us know if that ever changes Whooter. In the mean time post the results of the adverstisement in question to your hearts content. The rate at which these places are shutting down, it doesn't seem to be doing much good.