It is ok to relapse

[ajax13]

"The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said."

 Maybe you could address the above comment, or the fact that your Dad, along with the Wiz, and Natalie Oldcomer wrote the study, passed it on to Herard, who then claimed that the study was written by Patton, which it wasn't, and that it showed that 85% of the sample population were still sober after 5 years, which it didn't.
The mean time since graduation was just over 2 years, not 5, and only 48%, not 85%, reported being still sober since graduation.  Taking into account what Alexander said, there is no reason to believe any of the data gained in the interviews.  In light of the fact that parents are the ones invested in AARC's success, and will reject their offspring in favor of AARC, it's one more reason to attribute bias to the interviews.  
It's never hard to catch you folks in an outright lie.  As always, you have my gratitude for your unbridled willingness to lie pubicly, and to embarass yourself by attempting to support your church's deceptions.

[TheWho]

Maybe you could address the above comment, or the fact that your Dad, along with the Wiz, and Natalie Oldcomer wrote the study, passed it on to Herard, who then claimed that the study was written by Patton, which it wasn't, and that it showed that 85% of the sample population were still sober after 5 years, which it didn't.

The fact that the study was conducted by people connected to AARC could indicate that it was biased.  The emphasise on “could”.  Your facts are way off, they are all guesses on your part derived in your head.  My father died 9 years ago and I never attended AARC.  I am interested in the study outcome.  Or maybe you are thinking of another poster.

The mean time since graduation was just over 2 years, not 5, and only 48%, not 85%, reported being still sober since graduation. Taking into account what Alexander said, there is no reason to believe any of the data gained in the interviews. In light of the fact that parents are the ones invested in AARC's success, and will reject their offspring in favor of AARC, it's one more reason to attribute bias to the interviews.
It's never hard to catch you folks in an outright lie. As always, you have my gratitude for your unbridled willingness to lie pubicly, and to embarass yourself by attempting to support your church's deceptions.

I didn’t see anywhere in the study where it said the “mean time” was 5 years.  Could you point this out for me?  Take another look at the study, it seems you misinterpreted it.  Your post indicates that you either didn’t read the study or didn’t understand it.
The rest doesn’t apply to me, I never mentioned what church I went to or if I even attended church service.  You seem to be mixing up several people.  The summary given above seems to be accurate from what I have read.  If you are reading a different rendition could you post that for me or post a link.  Thanks.
As far as the 48% or 85% either one would be a huge success compared to the 30 day models and AA results.  I feel if you study the results a little more you will see how they differentiate the 48 and 85%.  Its an interesting distinction.

[TheWho]

Guest, I wouldn’t waste alot of time trying to explain the study to Ajax13.  Someone attempted this in another thread and he doesn’t understand the basic tables nor the dialog.  There is no “Mean time” of 5 years, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
I was here about a year ago and everyone was screaming “we need studies”!!!.  Now that studies have been presented everyone is scrambling to try to discredit them.  Its funny to watch,  facts are not high on the priority list here.  As more and more studies are presented the anti-program people will have to figure out a new spin or get better at disinformation.

[ajax13]

"He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."

No comment on this lie passed off in the legislature to beg more money from the government and to legitimize the fraudulent faith healing activities in AARC?

No comment on the lie that Patton wrote the study when it was in fact written by Mr. Garrison's Dad, the Wiz, Natalie Oldcomer, and Choda?

No comment on the obvious bias pointed out about the methods used in information gathering, specifically the interviews conducted by AARColytes?

I for one was never screaming for a study.  It took me about an hour of reading back in March of 2007 to discover that AARC was a fraud, passing off the Synanon attack therapy and the Seed's isolation techniques as a new form of treatment invented by Dean Vause.  While I am sure that a portion of AARC's clients are indeed chemically dependent, to this day I have yet to meet a former client who was chemically dependent prior to entering AARC.

So I don't know who was crying for a study of a cult with a phony treatment method led by lying fraud and staffed with incompetent amateurs.  It didn't really seem necessary to me.

[TheWho]

"He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."

No comment on this lie passed off in the legislature to beg more money from the government and to legitimize the fraudulent faith healing activities in AARC?

No comment on the lie that Patton wrote the study when it was in fact written by Mr. Garrison's Dad, the Wiz, Natalie Oldcomer, and Choda?

No comment on the obvious bias pointed out about the methods used in information gathering, specifically the interviews conducted by AARColytes?

I for one was never screaming for a study.  It took me about an hour of reading back in March of 2007 to discover that AARC was a fraud, passing off the Synanon attack therapy and the Seed's isolation techniques as a new form of treatment invented by Dean Vause.  While I am sure that a portion of AARC's clients are indeed chemically dependent, to this day I have yet to meet a former client who was chemically dependent prior to entering AARC.

So I don't know who was crying for a study of a cult with a phony treatment method led by lying fraud and staffed with incompetent amateurs.  It didn't really seem necessary to me.

Ajax, Where was it indicated that there was a "mean time" of 5 years.  I am trying to track down some validity to your comments and have yet to find any.  Can you point to this reference that you made?
I was told that you do not understand these studies, but you can atleast reference where in the study this was said?

[ajax13]

Nobody has a comment or explanation for the lie that 85% of the graduates were still clean and sober after 5 years?  
How about the lie that the study was written by Patton?
How about the issue of bias in the reporting due to the fact that AARColytes conducted the interviews?

[TheWho]

Nobody has a comment or explanation for the lie that 85% of the graduates were still clean and sober after 5 years?  
How about the lie that the study was written by Patton?
How about the issue of bias in the reporting due to the fact that AARColytes conducted the interviews?

So when you mentioned the "mean time" of 5 years.  This was just something you made up?  Do you typically just fabricate information?  If you cannot justify your own comments how can we believe anything else you say.

The study was clear as I had read it.  Patton himself said it was a good study.  AARC has an 85% success rate.  Do you have any studies which indicate other wise?  Can you back up your statement that the data specifies a "mean time" of 5 years?

[ajax13]

Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."

The study was conducted by AARColytes.  Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates.  The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years.  There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years.  Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.  

I can't decide if that's three lies or four.


Maskirovka!

[TheWho]

The study was conducted by AARColytes.

It was an internal study, which means it was conducted by members of AARC’s staff.  This is common.  Even fifth element interviews stated this is common and the results of the study were good.

Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates.

I think you meant “Didnot”.  Do you believe that all ford cars are personally built by Henry Ford?  The study never stated Patton interviewed anyone.  He was there to crunch the numbers.

 

The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years.

You should read the report yourself.  If I remember correctly 48% had at least one relapse since graduation

There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years.

Look at table 2:
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation One month Six months Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) 2.49% 4.8% 92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) 0% 14.3% 85.7%

Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.

So where is the mean time of 5 years that you stated earlier?  Read the report, Ajax, before commenting on it.  Read the fifth Element again.  The consensus was that it was a good study and that it should be followed up with an independent study, although costly they admit.

[TheWho]

Going back, I cannot locate the 48% figure.  It may be a continuous sobriety number vs. a relapse figure.  The 85% comes off Table2.

[ajax13]

Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."

The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did not interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober since graduation. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.

I can't decide if that's three lies or four.

[TheWho]

The study was conducted by AARColytes.

It was an internal study, which means it was conducted by members of AARC’s staff.  This is common.  Even fifth element interviews stated this is common and the results of the study were good.

Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates.

I think you meant “Didnot”.  Do you believe that all ford cars are personally built by Henry Ford?  The study never stated Patton interviewed anyone.  He was there to crunch the numbers.

 

The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years.

You should read the report yourself.

There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years.

Look at table 2:
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation One month Six months Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) 2.49% 4.8% 92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) 0% 14.3% 85.7%

Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.

So where is the mean time of 5 years that you stated earlier?  Read the report, Ajax, before commenting on it.  Read the fifth Element again.  The consensus was that it was a good study and that it should be followed up with an independent study, although costly they admit.

[ajax13]

Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."

The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did not interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober since graduation. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.

I can't decide if that's three lies or four.

Would you AARColytes consider this statement to entail three lies or four?  I'm torn.

[TheWho]

The study was conducted by AARColytes.

It was an internal study, which means it was conducted by members of AARC’s staff.  This is common.  Even fifth element interviews stated this is common and the results of the study were good.

Patton states very clearly that he did interview the graduates.

I think you meant “Didnot”.  Do you believe that all ford cars are personally built by Henry Ford?  The study never stated Patton interviewed anyone.  He was there to crunch the numbers.

 

The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober after five years.

You should read the report yourself.

There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years.

Look at table 2:
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation One month Six months Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29) 0% 6.9% 93.1%
Two to three years (n=42) 2.49% 4.8% 92.9%
Four or more years (n=14) 0% 14.3% 85.7%

Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.

So where is the mean time of 5 years that you stated earlier?  Read the report, Ajax, before commenting on it.  Read the fifth Element again.  The consensus was that it was a good study and that it should be followed up with an independent study, although costly they admit.2BULWXS

[ajax13]

Any AARColytes have an explanation for the blatant series of lies spun by Herard in order to beg more money and support for AARC?
"Mr. Speaker, in 2005 an evaluation of the AARC program was
conducted by a noted addiction program evaluation authority, Dr.
Michael Patton, PhD. He studied and interviewed 100 consecutive
cases and found that 85 per cent of the graduates were still clean and
sober after five years."

The study was conducted by AARColytes. Patton states very clearly that he did not interview the graduates. The study claimed that only 48% of grads reported that they were still clean and sober since graduation. There is no figure given in the study indicating how many of the grads were still clean and sober after five years. Just that mean time since graduation of just over two years, after which only 48% were still reportedly clean and sober.

I can't decide if that's three lies or four.

Would you AARColytes consider this statement to entail three lies or four? I'm torn.

Come on fellas! Joel, Joshy, Mr. Garrison, even you Joanne! Can't one of you come up with something to say about this blatant deception of the people of Alberta on behalf of your church?