Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: webdiva on January 22, 2013, 01:07:03 PM
-
We are extremely alarmed by a new show on Lifetime called Teen Trouble. It is hosted by a famous teen coach named Josh Shipp; on it, he has sent 3 kids to 'troubled teen' chains that have been investigated for child abuse and deaths, and at least one more is likely.
These teens obviously need help, there is no doubt about that. Whether or not abuse is occurring, residential programs are an outdated mode of treatment for kids. At best, they are solution looking for a problem so that the owners can make money; at worst, kids are being tortured and killed. Parents are watching this show and being influenced by it, kids are at serious risk of being permanently damaged.
This show is hot hot hot, and it's picking up speed. They are now airing repeats on A&E and have announced it will be shown on Canada's Lifetime. Josh Shipp is making the rounds to Anderson Live, Good Morning America and other national talk shows, the media is praising him.
Please go here for more info: http://teentroublejoshshipp.com
-
This is how Synanon got rooted, through pop culture
History repeats itself
-
But don't worry everyone!
Josh shipp done got channnnnged. he's a different man now, all he had to do is tell people he channngged..
worthless sack of shit didn't even apologize to the 8 kids he tormented on national television.
-
Josh Shipp is on our side now or so he says. Time will tell. He will not be doing another season of teen trouble.
-
still doesn't account for the 8 kids he tormented on the first season neither does it explain www.joshshipp.com (http://www.joshshipp.com) (I promise its not a porn link) in which he prominently in a rather boastful manner his participation in teen trouble on the first page of his site.
Mostly, Josh Shipp is on Josh Shipp's side and he did just enough to wipe some of the shit off the Shipp to keep his google rankings free of fecal spray.
-
Shipp's show is being dropped because it was lame, not because his "eyes were opened". He's on our side? No. He's using us as a smokescreen. Shipp claims he received death threats - I doubt he has anything but contempt for everyone involved at the moment. Definitely take more of a wait and see attitude toward the Shippster, at least - I wouldn't start counting him as an ally, anyway. If he lied about his credentials...
Good riddance to bad rubbish, may the door slam him in the ass and godspeed him on the way out.
This is the best take I've seen on Shipp's show running aground:
http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2013/05 ... elled.html (http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2013/05/lifetime-tvs-teen-trouble-is-cancelled.html)
Saturday, May 18, 2013
LIFETIME TV'S "TEEN TROUBLE" IS CANCELLED - APPARENTLY, JOSH SHIPP THE HOST, TAKES CREDIT
Josh Shipp
Lifetime TV of A&E networks affirmed the network cancelled "Teen Trouble" hosted by motivational speaker Josh Shipp.
As of this date, there was no announcement or press release by A&E's Lifetime TV network indicating the show was cancelled. A&E confirmed this.
The unscripted series was originally approved for only eight episodes.
http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/teen-tr ... s/season-1 (http://www.mylifetime.com/shows/teen-trouble/episodes/season-1)
"Teen Trouble" - After months of scrutiny, petitioning the network, articles upon negative articles, voices raised in horror by survivors of the TTI industry and children's rights advocates, this indeed was received as good news. There will be no more episodes of "Teen Trouble."
So how did survivors and child advocates find out "Teen Trouble" was cancelled?
Well, Mr. Shipp. it appears, would like survivors and advocates to believe it was his choice - his "own personal decision to not do another season of Teen Trouble." How heroic of Mr. Shipp - how valiant. He "kept his word?" Which "word" was that?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/teentro ... p/?fref=ts (https://www.facebook.com/groups/teentrouble.joshshipp/?fref=ts)
"I have chosen to NOT film any more episodes of Teen Trouble." Who has chosen? He could film them, for sure, but the network would not be paying for them.
Mr. Shipp, the above statement, if made, is offensive to survivors and advocates. One does not know if you are suggesting that the cognitive capabilities of advocates and survivors is marginal at best.
THE SCENARIO INFERRED BY MR. SHIPP'S STATEMENT
Okay, so you are not a noted star, but for an individual to cease production of further episodes, by his choice alone on a series, if true, is great "spin" for any network. This is news worthy! This selfless effort is certainly worth a logline from the network lauding you or the network for ones humanity above the almighty dollar. It's Disney! A rarity, but actors have walked away from other series. Where is it? Where is the network news release? Oh, it's in an undisclosed private "email." However, the gist of it may be shared. Perhaps, the email was misinterpreted? Another "spin" coming?
NETWORK REASONING - THE BOTTOM LINE DICTATES
According to network executives, they pull the plug on a series, when the series does not perform well in the ratings(performance-very poor ratings), negative reviews (Mr. Shipp's self-proclaimed Harvard endorsement did not help, nor the marketing of himself as a "Teen Behavioral Expert et al"), or because of radical or controversial content (sending children to abusive facilities without educating oneself is right up there).
According to A&E's Lifetime, "Teen Trouble" did not perform up to their expectations, therefore the show was cancelled. Whether it is because of the aforementioned network reasoning or Mr. Shipp's take is any one's guess. However, logic dictates that the reasoning for the cancellation of "Teen Trouble" leans more toward performance and controversy - although to networks, controversy is sometimes thought of as a positive as related to hype.
"Teen Trouble" did not make it because of the ratings? "Reality bites."
If one believes it was Mr.Shipp's decision to end "Teen Trouble," then one must conclude A&E's Lifetime network would have continued the series with menial ratings, thus sending children to abusive facilities, if Mr. Shipp stayed. After all the controversy, this wouldn't shed a halo of light on the network - a Disney network. A&E would not be pleased, especially for making the network officials look like imbeciles as the ratings numbers were not there to sustain "Teen Trouble," nor was the advertising. Again, the network only agreed to eight episodes. The episodes were over and apparently, so was the series.
What we take issue with, is using pure of heart individuals, survivors of the TTI industry and children's rights advocates for one's own gain. What worth is that "gain," if it is the result of "a dog and pony show?"
We deal in the heartbreak of certain realities every day and, yes, it bites. It is not mired in any personal visions of grandeur or "spin." Our visions of grandeur are that of keeping all children safe.
Mr. Shipp, respect is earned and your ten minutes of advocacy is up.
And... that's our take.
Ratings:
http://thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2013/ ... _20130125/ (http://thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2013/01/28/fridays-cable-ratings-gold-rush-continues-reign-for-discovery-351511/cable_20130125/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_Trouble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_Trouble)
-
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. There are a lot of children in crisis in this country and there are even fewer answers on how to help them and even fewer, still, people willing to step up and give it a try. Television/ media is one of the best ways to get the word out and enlighten people that there is a problem. Maybe many here do not agree with the solution but I think we can all agree that there is a need in this country for people to care and intervene.
We just cant beat down and discard an entire concept like “Teen Trouble” without commenting or having an honest discussion on the positive and negatives of its airing. How did the show approach Self- awareness, social awareness and relationship skills? (to name a few) It just seems to have gotten to the point where many here on fornits are not willing to dissect any program and differentiate the good from the bad....... its boiled down to: “If a child is sent to a program then the program must be bad.”
It would be more beneficial if we could all rise above this mentality.
...
-
Whooter, point taken. However, as a fairly outspoken critic against Teen Trouble, let me try to explain the three levels of critcism that has been directed at Josh Shipp.
1. I was always of the opinion that his "sin" of sending youth to programs, particularly CCA and DRA, was the least of it and the focus on the programs he was sending youth to actualy obscured the two major issues, that actually made him a one-man caricature if the TTI
2. He presented himself as being more credentialed than he really was. At best, he could lay claim to being a peer mentor, with excellent engagement skills developed through his marketing experience and empathy built through shared life experience. Calling himself a "teen behavior expert" was a stretch. Saying he was endorsed by Harvard was an outright lie.
3. The methods he used on camera were borderline abusive, and clearly meant to confront in an effort to break youth down.
We can have a conversation about what would be effective, and I thought that for the most part the first 25-30 minutes of each episode effectively demonstrated how a parenting coach (even a relatively unqualified one) could help facilitate parent-child communication. But I'm convinced that reality-tv is a poor medium to address our concerns because drama sells, even though drama isn't conducive to good treatment.
-
I think blombro sums it up. His antics on air were disgusting.
I said it elsewhere and I'll say it here, Josh Shit hasn't apologized to any of the 8 kids he subjected to his brand of treatment. Just look at his website www.joshshipp.com (http://www.joshshipp.com), right there on the front page he links to and mentions teen trouble as part of his "cv". Seems to me he's still using Teen Trouble to shill his services as a "motivational" speaker.
Some people have put their all on the line standing up for josh, I just hope they aren't shat on when it comes to light of just how big of a unrepentant little weasel the son of a bitch is. All it will take is just one of his private customers coming forward to comment on the real face of Josh Shipp away from the cameras.
From what I've heard, it's even more grim behind the scenes and he toned it down a fair bit for the cameras. Hard to say though, gossip is gossip and I'd need to see a first hand account from one of his victims before believing it.
-
Anyone who thinks the he was concerned about anything but ratings and sponsors is fooling themselves. And regardless of what he did or didn't do, if the ratings and the money were right, he wouldn't have been canceled. You get ratings when people either love you or hate you enough to watch. I guess not too many people did.
-
Whooter, point taken. However, as a fairly outspoken critic against Teen Trouble, let me try to explain the three levels of critcism that has been directed at Josh Shipp.
1. I was always of the opinion that his "sin" of sending youth to programs, particularly CCA and DRA, was the least of it and the focus on the programs he was sending youth to actualy obscured the two major issues, that actually made him a one-man caricature if the TTI
2. He presented himself as being more credentialed than he really was. At best, he could lay claim to being a peer mentor, with excellent engagement skills developed through his marketing experience and empathy built through shared life experience. Calling himself a "teen behavior expert" was a stretch. Saying he was endorsed by Harvard was an outright lie.
3. The methods he used on camera were borderline abusive, and clearly meant to confront in an effort to break youth down.
We can have a conversation about what would be effective, and I thought that for the most part the first 25-30 minutes of each episode effectively demonstrated how a parenting coach (even a relatively unqualified one) could help facilitate parent-child communication. But I'm convinced that reality-tv is a poor medium to address our concerns because drama sells, even though drama isn't conducive to good treatment.
Blombrowski, You seem to be much more informed than I am on this subject. I have seen the show and initially found it to be a great idea in that it placed a spotlight on the industry and those kids in need of help, but as I thought about it (in light of this discussion) you look at the reality shows and the people in them they all need to keep stepping it up each season, increase the drama from last season. Many are so desperate to keep it going they create their own scandals, have an affair, get pregnant, get married, get divorced, leak a sex tape etc. In Jeff’s case the networks were more than likely pushing him hard to increase the drama and he was unwilling to push any harder than he already has for the sake of ratings.
I agree with you that reality TV is a poor place to try and reach out to kids who are struggling and expect positive results or a sincere effort to focus on the kids needs vs increased ratings.
...
-
I think none-ya's explanation is the most likely. I find it hard to believe the guy had a genuine change of heart. Perhaps the risk of scandal had something to do with it but I find it more plausible it had to do with dismal ratings. If the ratings were good, would the guy have made the same choice? I doubt it.
-
I remember thinkin', wow whooter's got a tv show!
-
Please share this link to the Facebook pages that I'm sure y'all are associated with:
http://www.vice.com/read/thousands-of-a ... nt-centres (http://www.vice.com/read/thousands-of-american-teens-are-trapped-in-abusive-cult-like-treatment-centres)
There are at least four things that I think are worth taking away from this article:
1. Josh Shipp is basically unrepentant. As much as he claims to be informed and educated, he's still taking the position that his placements were safe. This doesn't surprise me. I think the most credit we can give him is that he wasn't willing to produce a television show that put kids in even more harms way for the purpose of ratings. But we don't know.
2. Josh Shipp is well suited to be part and parcel of the Troubled Teen Industry. I think he must ask himself how much good can I do and how much can I get paid to do it? While evaluating his the quality of his work through anecdote. While never stopping to think what are the unintended harms of what he's doing, or minimizing the reality of those harms by justifying how little the young people he's working with have to lose.
3. The industry still needs to make a reckoning with its Synanon-influenced past. i would like to believe that after the first Miller hearings, the Elan and FFS Truth Campaigns, the closing of Mount Bachelor, a smart businessperson would realize that the world was changing and that having food and sleep deprivation and forced exercise as part of the program milieu was bad business. 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). Without the industry taking accountability for it's past actions, how can we be sure to what extent it has actually changed - so... Whooter you have the floor.
4. This isn't taken so much from the article but something I read earlier today. This was taken from an article written by a critic of the charter school field. I think it fairly well explains the difference between TTI family involvement and the kind of family involvement that we talk about in Wraparound.
I’ve attended too many meetings where polarized groups of charter and public school parents are pitted against each other in contentious, at times ugly debates over resources, facilities and priorities. This polarization has its roots, not just in clashing short-term interests and an inadequate pool of resources, but in conflicting conceptions of the role parents should play in public education. For the charter movement, parents are mainly customers seeking services with no major role in school governance or advocacy for all children. But in a system of universal public education, parents are citizens seeking rights and, collectively, the owner-managers of a fundamental public institution in a democratic society.
From what I can tell there is very little civic family involvement in the NATSAP/IECA world. Sure there are lots of parents who become educational consultants or develop non-profits to support the industry, or start their own programs, but where's the equivalent of parents who just join the school board. Who want to help the development of the industry without there being any dollar amount in it for them.
Anyways, look forward to all of your thoughts.
-
................................
3. The industry still needs to make a reckoning with its Synanon-influenced past. i would like to believe that after the first Miller hearings, the Elan and FFS Truth Campaigns, the closing of Mount Bachelor, a smart businessperson would realize that the world was changing and that having food and sleep deprivation and forced exercise as part of the program milieu was bad business. 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). Without the industry taking accountability for it's past actions, how can we be sure to what extent it has actually changed - so... Whooter you have the floor.
I dont see why the industry needs to dig up the past in order to be successful in the future. Every industry evolves over time. The parts that are not effective get dropped or stripped away and the elements which are effective get embellished. The needs of the children and parents change over time. Keeping a spot light on the industry and asking for studies to reflect reported successes should help to keep the industry evolving.
When I was young (and little enough) I use to sit on the dash board when we rode in the car while my sisters stood on the front seat. Now kids have to be strapped into a certified booster seat. I dont see any use in going back and arresting or reprimanding those parents, car makers or law makers for not keeping the children safe.
As long as we keep measuring the success and continuing to improve then I think we are on a good track and dont need to dwell too much on past mistakes.
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
-
There is a good Vice article on the industry that mentions Josh Shipp, Aspen, and others. I'm starting a new thread here (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=43976&start=0) as I think it deserves it's own thread.
-
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.
...
-
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 (http://http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-758-NONI.aspx?activeIngredientId=758&activeIngredientName=NONI) (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.
-
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 (http://http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-758-NONI.aspx?activeIngredientId=758&activeIngredientName=NONI) (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.
...
-
Drinking red wine can cause liver damage also but is also good for your heart.
Possibly (http://http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-wine/HB00089). 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.
-
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.
...
-
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 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.
-
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.
...