Teen Trouble - Josh Shipp - EXPOSED

[blombrowski]

I was actually expecting a little more from you.  The one consistent motif throughout the industry is that young people should take accountability for their actions, and accept responsibility for the results that those actions bring.  

Leaving aside the hypocrisy, and lack of role modeling on this issue, here's the danger in not publicly addressing the issue.  While there are programs that have evolved, there are programs that most certainly have not.  As I recall as recently as 2011 there was a Washington state based psychologist defending MBA's use of pulling tree trunks - he was defending a practice that the State of Oregon found to be abusive.  Without a public discussion of what in 2013 is antiquated treatment, practicioners will continue use outdated methods.  And I don't expect that the free market will be very effective in weeding those people out in a timely manner, for that very same reason that the profession hasn't declared it to be an antiquated technology.

It's not that I would expect the industry to flaggelate itself over its past abuses, it's that I would expect in light of everything that's happened over the last seven years, that there would be more of a paper trail of people who work in the parent choice industry talking about how the industry evolved, and exactly why it needed to evolve.  Particularly, if we are to believe that the those who are now in their late 20's and 30's who talk about how they were abused as youth isn't indicative of where the field is today.

If you can point me to articles where this kind of critical analysis has occurred, it would be much appreciated.

[Whooter]

I was actually expecting a little more from you.

 
I really dont have the time I use to have to respond.

The one consistent motif throughout the industry is that young people should take accountability for their actions, and accept responsibility for the results that those actions bring.  

Leaving aside the hypocrisy, and lack of role modeling on this issue, here's the danger in not publicly addressing the issue.  While there are programs that have evolved, there are programs that most certainly have not.  As I recall as recently as 2011 there was a Washington state based psychologist defending MBA's use of pulling tree trunks - he was defending a practice that the State of Oregon found to be abusive.  Without a public discussion of what in 2013 is antiquated treatment, practicioners will continue use outdated methods.  And I don't expect that the free market will be very effective in weeding those people out in a timely manner, for that very same reason that the profession hasn't declared it to be an antiquated technology.

Oh boy , here is where my opinions get me in trouble.
Personally I would not take the governments word over a professional psychiatrist.  Physiatrists are the enemy of the government because they cost them money and always want to extend treatment past the 30 day limit.  I would easily trust the word of a psychiatrist versus a government burocrat with no knowledge in the area.
I dont know anything about pulling logs or why this would be considered abusive, or if pulling a load of rocks would be more abusive or less abusive.  I would have to read the report.  I am not sure how this could be measured.  If a child was forced to write a book report on a book he read and if it wasnt done he would not eat that night then that would be abusive, in my opinion, but writing a book report isnt abusive.  The same with pulling a tree trunk.  If, for example, a child can pull the tree trunk 30 feet in under 1 minute then he could break the “all time record” and it would be good for his self esteem.  He would get bragging rights and build up his muscles, build up and appetite and focus on something other than his depression.  It may give the child something to work towards.

It's not that I would expect the industry to flaggelate itself over its past abuses, it's that I would expect in light of everything that's happened over the last seven years, that there would be more of a paper trail of people who work in the parent choice industry talking about how the industry evolved, and exactly why it needed to evolve.  Particularly, if we are to believe that the those who are now in their late 20's and 30's who talk about how they were abused as youth isn't indicative of where the field is today.

If you can point me to articles where this kind of critical analysis has occurred, it would be much appreciated.

I am not convinced that there are all that many kids who were abused by these programs.  I wish there was a way to better measure these result via outcome studies.  I know that Aspen performed many studies in the past  to help better measure their successes and there were a few independent studies done all of which tilted towards positive results.  I am with you that we need more critical analysis of this industry but am unsure where this would start.



...

[psy]

Hey, Zen, I hope all is well.  Here is my 2 cents.

I dont think Josh shipp should be judged based on if he is on “our side” or someone else’s side.  Josh works for what he believes in.  He was abused as a child and struggled with addiction and because he was helped by adults he was able to overcome many of his problems.  Just like Jacqueline Danforth and many others he wanted to give back and help others to succeed in life.  I don’t think they should be criticized and beaten down for trying to help others.

This is the crux of the issue right here.  He believes he was helped by his treatment and took it upon himself to treat others in turn.  It doesn't matter whether the treatment was objectively helpful in comparison to say, a control group.  All that matters is that he believes he was helped.

In the same way a child of an abusive parent can justify his abuse as "it made me the man I am today", so many "professionals" in the industry are simply repeating the treatment they received in the blind faith that it's objectively helpful.  There is no science to back the belief up.  All that's there is dogma.

Not all kids who were abused by their parents grow up and say "i'll never treat my kids that way" in the same way that not all kids who were abused or mistreated in programs recognize what happened to them as wrong.  Often they see it as having been necessary, or even good.  It's in this way programs spawn.  To give just one example, a client from Kids went on to start AARC in Canada.  It doesn't matter that Kids was shut down due to it's abuse.  The guy believes what happened to him to be the only way to save kids, and is determined to bring his righteous faith to the unwashed infidel masses.

[psy]

But other than some writings by Tom Croke, I haven't seen anything that even reads like an excuse (i.e. well, back in the 90's CEDU was the best thing going for us since medical psychiatry wasn't effective at getting our kids to grow up fast enough, but now we know we can achieve forced maturity without torturing kids).

Yet even he continues to refer kids and young adults to CEDU clones.  To me it sounds like little more than an attempt at obfuscation.  To superficially acknowledge mistakes of the past and pretend those mistakes are no longer the practice when we know from places like MBA that very little if anything has actually changed.

[psy]

There is a good Vice article on the industry that mentions Josh Shipp, Aspen, and others. I'm starting a new thread here as I think it deserves it's own thread.

[Whooter]

This is the crux of the issue right here.  He believes he was helped by his treatment and took it upon himself to treat others in turn.  It doesn't matter whether the treatment was objectively helpful in comparison to say, a control group.  All that matters is that he believes he was helped.

I really dont see this as a problem at all Psy.  This is how the whole world has evolved.  People try things and if they benefit from them then they pass it on, if they eat a berry and feel sick or die then others take note and no one will eat that particular berry.  Right now I am adding Noni juice to a morning shake that I make.  It has been reported that it boosts the immune system, although I cannot find any studies that support this I have read enough to know the risk is good and have added it to my diet.  Most people are not willing to wait for outcome studies on anything, even when it comes to their health or childrens health.  People assess the risks and then make a decision.



...

[psy]

This is the crux of the issue right here.  He believes he was helped by his treatment and took it upon himself to treat others in turn.  It doesn't matter whether the treatment was objectively helpful in comparison to say, a control group.  All that matters is that he believes he was helped.

I really dont see this as a problem at all Psy.  This is how the whole world has evolved.  People try things and if they benefit from them then they pass it on, if they eat a berry and feel sick or die then others take note and no one will eat that particular berry.

Except that a berry might not kill everybody who eats it, and some might see it as beneficial.  One good example is with Mescal Beans.  The psychedelic dose is very close to a lethal one.  I certainly wouldn't suggest people try it.

Right now I am adding Noni juice to a morning shake that I make.  It has been reported that it boosts the immune system, although I cannot find any studies that support this I have read enough to know the risk is good and have added it to my diet.  Most people are not willing to wait for outcome studies on anything, even when it comes to their health or childrens health.  People assess the risks and then make a decision.

So there's this juice that nobody really knows what it does, there has been at least one study linking it to liver and kidney damage (click side effects, also see Wikipedia), there has been no published concrete evidence of any health benefits whatsoever -- and you've decided it's a good idea to drink it on a regular basis.  Well.  If your risk assessment deems that suitable -- it's your body to do with what you please.  Thank heavens for organ donors.  And as you note since kids are little more than property of their parents, the parents are also free to experiment on their kids with similar abandon.  Science be damned.  Peer reviewed studies be damned.  Anecdote and false hope should be enough for anybody.

[Whooter]

So there's this juice that nobody really knows what it does, there has been at least one study linking it to liver and kidney damage (click side effects, also see Wikipedia), there has been no published concrete evidence of any health benefits whatsoever -- and you've decided it's a good idea to drink it on a regular basis.  Well.  If your risk assessment deems that suitable -- it's your body to do with what you please.  Thank heavens for organ donors.  And as you note since kids are little more than property of their parents, the parents are also free to experiment on their kids with similar abandon.  Science be damned.  Peer reviewed studies be damned.  Anecdote and false hope should be enough for anybody.

I believe in weighing the positives and negatives and making an informed decision on what is best.  Nothing is 100% safe.  Drinking red wine can cause liver damage also but is also good for your heart.  Everything has a negative side effect, drinking too much water puts a lot of stress on the kidneys and disrupts normal digestion.  I think most people collect as much information as they can and make an informed decision whether it be their children or their health.



...

[psy]

Drinking red wine can cause liver damage also but is also good for your heart.

Possibly.  Then again, the article says:

Red wine seems to have even more heart-healthy benefits than other types of alcohol, but it's possible that red wine isn't any better than beer, white wine or liquor for heart health. There's still no clear evidence that red wine is better than other forms of alcohol when it comes to possible heart-healthy benefits.

Antioxidants in red wine called polyphenols may help protect the lining of blood vessels in your heart. A polyphenol called resveratrol is one substance in red wine that's gotten attention.

Resveratrol in red wine

Resveratrol might be a key ingredient in red wine that helps prevent damage to blood vessels, reduces "bad" cholesterol and prevents blood clots.

Most research on resveratrol has been done on animals, not people. Research in mice given resveratrol suggests that the antioxidant might also help protect them from obesity and diabetes, both of which are strong risk factors for heart disease. However, those findings were reported only in mice, not in people. In addition, to get the same dose of resveratrol used in the mice studies, a person would have to drink over 60 liters of red wine every day.

Wow.  So basically to get the health benefits from red wine you would have to drink so much you'd die of alcohol poisoning long before.  And only if you're a mouse.

I think most people collect as much information as they can and make an informed decision whether it be their children or their health.

And as you've just pointed out with both this and the Noni juice, what often seems like an informed, good decision, based on what you've casually overhead on the 7-o-clock news or what seems to be "common knowledge", is often not in actual fact, a good idea (or at best, completely benign).  Parents think, based on superficial research, tv "experts, or "common knowledge", that programs are a good idea for their kids.  In actual fact, there has never been any evidence, aside from anecdote, to support that conclusion.  We do know, however, based on actual research, that confrontational techniques like the ones commonly used in programs can cause lasting harm.  In other words, in order to get the possible, theoretical benefits of Resveratrol, you have to take the very real and documented risk of alcohol poisoning.

[Whooter]

Wow. So basically to get the health benefits from red wine you would have to drink so much you'd die of alcohol poisoning long before. And only if you're a mouse.

lol  No I dont read it that way.  There is no indication we would need to consume the same ratio as mice to reap the benefits.  The studies are ongoing, if it was concluded that we needed to consume 60 lites a day then there would be no need to continue to research this.  Typically they do testing on animals and then follow up with testing on humans.

And as you've just pointed out with both this and the Noni juice, what often seems like an informed, good decision, based on what you've casually overhead on the 7-o-clock news or what seems to be "common knowledge", is often not in actual fact, a good idea (or at best, completely benign). Parents think, based on superficial research, tv "experts, or "common knowledge", that programs are a good idea for their kids. In actual fact, there has never been any evidence, aside from anecdote, to support that conclusion. We do know, however, based on actual research, that confrontational techniques like the ones commonly used in programs can cause lasting harm. In other words, in order to get the possible, theoretical benefits of Resveratrol, you have to take the very real and documented risk of alcohol poisoning.

I dont take the advice of 7 o’clock news, psy.  Like most other parents we investigate and look at many points of view and collect as much information as possible.  From what I have read, so far, Noni juice is much better for you than most other juices and Red Wine (in moderation) is healthy for you based on studies to date (Mice may benefit more than humans).  
People cant sit around waiting for studies to be done on everything.  If your child is in need of an anti-cancer medication and all other avenues have been tried unsuccessfully then most parents would be willing to try a medication that is still undergoing trial studies to see if it has an effect on their child.

People need to rely on their common sense and the information available to them at the time they need to make a decision.



...

[psy]

If your child is in need of an anti-cancer medication and all other avenues have been tried unsuccessfully then most parents would be willing to try a medication that is still undergoing trial studies to see if it has an effect on their child.

The difference is parents are warned by doctors that often untested treatments have as much potential for harm as they do to help.  There is an informed consent.  How many programs, how many, will tell the honest to god truth by saying "What we do is experimental. We are not sure that what we do works, but we believe it does as a result of their anecdotal experience; however there have been a significant number of former students who report being harmed as a result of our treatment".  How many will say that, Whooter?  Why is there no warning label on programs like there is on even a bottle of Aspirin?

[blombrowski]

I can answer that.  Is that an expectation for any mental health professional or educational professional?  When part of treatment effectiveness is built upon the placebo effect, having faith that a treatment will work if properly followed through on is at least as important as the treatment intervention itself.

Can you imagine a therapist who is starting CBT with a client, saying to them, "well the therapeutic intervention I'm going to use on you is CBT, and it has a 60% success rate if fully followed through on compared to a 30% rate of success if we do absolutely nothing.  It's indicated if you have an anxiety disorder or a mood disorder, but is counterindicated if you have a personality disorder."  Sure it would be nice if mental health professionals did that, but by in large they don't.

[Whooter]

If your child is in need of an anti-cancer medication and all other avenues have been tried unsuccessfully then most parents would be willing to try a medication that is still undergoing trial studies to see if it has an effect on their child.

The difference is parents are warned by doctors that often untested treatments have as much potential for harm as they do to help.  There is an informed consent.  How many programs, how many, will tell the honest to god truth by saying "What we do is experimental. We are not sure that what we do works, but we believe it does as a result of their anecdotal experience; however there have been a significant number of former students who report being harmed as a result of our treatment".  How many will say that, Whooter?  Why is there no warning label on programs like there is on even a bottle of Aspirin?

I was never told the program would be effective.  I was told my daughter would enter an extremely structured environment, visit with a therapist once per week, the therapist and I would talk and the therapist would speak to her home therapist which she was seeing prior to entering ASR.  She would hopefully be weened off her meds which she was.  She would attend school and catch up on her studies etc. We could write to each other,We would get to speak once a week for half an hour and visit periodically.   I spoke with a few parents who had kids graduate from the program and I was free to walk around the campus and speak with the kids.  I knew there was no way anyone could guarantee success and never expected a guarantee .  I cant think of a single industry which talks about their failures.  Cancer doctors talk about survivor rates (not death rates).  If you enter a car dealership they dont have pictures of  car accidents all over the wall.  Its not because they are withholding information its just that people tend to look at the positive aspects vs the negative.



...