Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 17, 2008, 07:01:13 PM
-
Summary:
Ajax was addressing 3 areas:
1. Dr. Vauses education
Conclusion: Dr. Vause continues to be active in the program and dedicated to a continuous life of learning and self improvement. Acquiring his PhD from Union University, an accredited University that has been open since 1964 and works under the provisions of APA guidelines and ethics(American Psychological Association).
2. AARC Outcome Study
Conclusion: The outcome study of AARC was found to be conducted by an independent professional in the area of addiction. To assist with the data collection and computation AARC had one of the Directors of Hazelden and their assistants oversea and help author the study. So the study is rock solid credible with some of it findings being:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
3. Transparency:
AARC has shown it has opened its doors to independent studies and reveals its people qualifications openly.
ajax or whoever you are, If there are issues which you do not understand then contact AARC directly. You live in town so it is not a toll call. If you continue to post false information under an assumed name then it will be understood that you are just out to harm AARC and/or their interests and the next communication will be taken off line from fornits.
-
sources for the above information?
-
If you continue to post false information under an assumed name then it will be understood that you are just out to harm AARC and/or their interests and the next communication will be taken off line from fornits.[/i]
LOL!!!! Not without a court order (and maybe not even with one, if it's outside your jurisdiction... this site is hosted in the states). Go fuck yourselves.
-
If you continue to post false information under an assumed name then it will be understood that you are just out to harm AARC and/or their interests and the next communication will be taken off line from fornits.[/i]
LOL!!!! Not without a court order (and maybe not even with one, if it's outside your jurisdiction... this site is hosted in the states). Go fuck yourselves.
Try to test that. Ajax lives here! We have done this before. It is easier to talk one on one, but if everyone continues to speak as an alias we can force this into the open, if needed, to resolve the issues. Does not matter to us, as long as it is addressed.
-
we can force this into the open, if needed
How? I'd like to see you try and accomplish that.
See. Reason why I think you're threating him about using his "assumed name" (and demanding he stop), not to mention requesting he contact you, is precisely because you know you can't accomplish what you're after (his real identity). So accept those things you cannot change, you 7 stepping cultist. If you're looking for an easy way to serve papers on Ajax, you're not going to get one.
See. Issue here is you Can't tie Ajax's online name to his real name... and that sucks for you.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
-- United States Supreme Court decision No. 93-986 April 19, 1995
-
This troll sounds a lot like TheWho...
-
Ajax lives here!
Can you prove that? How do you know he is not a US citizen?
-
Ajax lives here!
Can you prove that? How do you know he is not a US citizen?
Look, play your games, his IP has been traced here to Langdon, not exactly cowtown and I realize it isn’t accurate but he “is” a local guy who acts like a typical A.B.C., ask him yourself,(he posts elsewhere also). We are certain who “she” is with her local colour. She has history and a file with AADAC. She will lead us to him. You are giving out bad advice, psy. Print the truth if you can. We can deal with the truth but if the lies continue will we need to ,as I stated before, resolve it.
-
Ajax lives here!
Can you prove that? How do you know he is not a US citizen?
Look, play your games, his IP has been traced here to Langdon
Not possible. You don't have access to IP address information, unless you're admitting you or AARC hacked into this site somehow (highly unlikely, and also a crime). You have no admissable proof of anything. You don't know who he is, where he lives... nothing. You have jack shit.
not exactly cowtown and I realize it isn’t accurate but he “is” a local guy who acts like a typical A.B.C., ask him yourself,(he posts elsewhere also).
Sure. But you claim he is a liar. And where he claims to be from on this site, even who he claims to be, doesn't prove anything (he could be imitating somebody...). You have no admissible proof.
We are certain who “she” is with her local colour.
And you can prove this how? Maybe it's somebody imitating her.
She has history and a file with AADAC. She will lead us to him.
And you still can't tie him to his speech here. What... you think you can force him to admit he wrote these posts? I'll tell you how it'll turn out. Your dipshit lawyer will copy and paste a bunch of fornits posts into a supporing declaration claiming "we're sure it's him, don't think he'll deny it, just can't prove it", and you'll get a response similar to "plaintiff has no evidence and even admits it!".
You are giving out bad advice, psy.
And you're trying to trick Ajax and get a freebie on identifying him.
Print the truth if you can. We can deal with the truth but if the lies continue will we need to ,as I stated before, resolve it.
So provide proof of falsity (that means evidence, not unsupported statements) of some of his statements. I know the onus is reversed in canada, but this isn't a court, and you might as well address the issues if you're that concerned about truth (which I highly doubt you are). What you're concerned about is silencing a person who is attempting to speak out.
-
False, easily refuted claims made by desperate imbeciles... gotta love it.
-
Psy, If that really is AARC they have a legitimate beef. It is clear that you are not able to see both sides of the issue. Imagine if you owned a construction business you are trying to make successful and you had someone questioning your ability publically. Even though you have a degree, they questioned whether or not you ever attended class. They attacked your school saying it was unaccredited when it in fact was. Telling people that the house you built for him fell down. This person made up lies about the health of your employees and their spouses, placing this information on the internet. Tried to discredit you thru manipulating your published statistics of success and trying to discredit the people who conducted and put together the numbers.
On top of all of this, this person refused to reveal themselves choosing to cower in the shadows instead of discussing their concerns face to face.
Wouldn’t you want to talk to this person?
...
-
Psy, If that really is AARC they have a legitimate beef. It is clear that you are not able to see both sides of the issue. Imagine if you owned a program you are trying to make successful and you had someone questioning your ability publically. Even though you have a license, they questioned whether or not your staffers overseeing the patients have any education beyond GED's. They attacked your school saying it was unaccredited when it in fact was (BY NATSAP). Telling people that the kids you treat relapse of suicide shortly after release. This person made up lies about the credentials of your employees based on documents and evidence you tried to bury, placing this information on the internet. Tried to discredit you thru manipulating your published statistics of success by pointing out the gross fabrications in them and trying to discredit the people who conducted and put together the numbers by showing they lied.
On top of all of this, this person refused to reveal themselves choosing to cower in the shadows instead of discussing their concerns face to face.
Wouldn’t you want to talk to this person?
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to cowering in the shadows. Scout's honor.
...
-
Psy, If that really is AARC they have a legitimate beef.
So they claim but have provided no proof of falsity to date. If they had actual evidence to prove his statements were false, why have the not presented them? Seems to me that if they did that, it would benefit them more than if they took him to court (would be far easier too). Think what you like about the people here, but I believe they're after the truth. If AARC presented proof of falsity of some of Ajax's statements, I even bet they might get an apology... so why haven't they? All I see is "ajax said this" and "this is false", but no evidence to back it up.
They attacked your school saying it was unaccredited when it in fact was (BY NATSAP).
NATSAP is not an accrediting agency (the GAO was not pleased a certain school was claiming this). If a school is claiming to be accredited by NATSAP they're misrepresenting themselves to the public and you know that.
On top of all of this, this person refused to reveal themselves choosing to cower in the shadows instead of discussing their concerns face to face.
As for why the person hasn't revealed himself. I think the reasons for that is clear: You can't sue who you can't identify (well, you can try, but unless you can identify a person at some point, it's pointless), and programs will sue people regardless of whether they have a case or not (they're betting on a defendant backing down and shutting up). Trust me, I know... and so do others. Anonymity, again, is a shield against the tyranny of the majority and a necessity in this instances where people are speaking about against a foe with near unlimited resources and very few ethical qualms. This is the reason for anti-slapp legislation.
-
You quoted the wrong post. I didn’t write that. Maybe because you have me on ignore.
My point is,Hypothetically, if someone was running around bad mouthing you and your business. Saying things about your employees and their families. Saying the school you attended was not accredited, when in fact it was, wouldn’t you want to speak to this person and find out what his beef is? Would you be curious as to why they never contacted you and tried to resolve their issues instead of spreading this information all over the web.
I am not by any means asking you to “out” anyone and I would not expect Ajax to either here on fornits. But many of his questions could be resolved by contacting AARC directly. It seems odd that he chooses this median to try to get answers to AARCs questions. If he has exhausted all of those avenues then sure I would try to resolve it more publically.
...
-
AARC is shit and you know it, WHO. :blabla:
-
I think it's time the straight inc. forum was renamed Ajax's Flamewars featuring TheWho
-
Ajax lives here!
Can you prove that? How do you know he is not a US citizen?
His name is Greg Elliot and he lives in Alberta . He has posted on other web pages, giving his name and spewing the same drivel .
-
Psy, If that really is AARC they have a legitimate beef. It is clear that you are not able to see both sides of the issue. Imagine if you owned a construction business you are trying to make successful and you had someone questioning your ability publically. Even though you have a degree, they questioned whether or not you ever attended class. They attacked your school saying it was unaccredited when it in fact was. Telling people that the house you built for him fell down. This person made up lies about the health of your employees and their spouses, placing this information on the internet. Tried to discredit you thru manipulating your published statistics of success and trying to discredit the people who conducted and put together the numbers.
On top of all of this, this person refused to reveal themselves choosing to cower in the shadows instead of discussing their concerns face to face.
Wouldn’t you want to talk to this person?
...
I can assure you AARC has nothing to do with THIS!!! . What Vinny/Ajax writes on this blog is the least of his worries. However, as I have said - AARC is focused on their business and Vinny is just an obsessed moron. Whether AJAX is both his wife and Greg Elliot writing in here, is not really important. THey are both spreading lies and the point of coming here is to challenge them on them. SO IF by chance anyone seeking help from AARC or has had help from AARC who has been referred here by sick individuals, they will see that what he/they say is not fact and that others writing here MIGHT just know some facts. ALso, if there were as many rapes as these people including one deranged parent likes to say then why the hell haven't they brought formal charges and why the hell hasn't the treatment population been contaminated as would definitely be the case????
AARC would NOT be expanding if what psy/ajax/sick wife say is true. i can guarantee you that. BUT they ARE and more and more people nationally and internationally are bringing their kids to AARC because they are successful. There will be more studies by interested addiction specialists because they are getting too well known now. and what the hell is AJax going to do then. Run down all those people and claim connections to AARC, he will have a hell of a hard time. They will be turnig up at AARC's door because they will want to know why it is so successful and AARC won't be turning them away. So chew on that for awhile 'psy' and 'Vinny'.
-
Any program based on and/or derived from Straight Incorporated's "Large Group Awareness Therapy" brand of Tough Love has got to suck, in many ways and for many reasons; it's pretty much a given! Straight knew how to fuck up kids and their families for years and sometimes forever.
-
Ajax lives here!
Can you prove that? How do you know he is not a US citizen?
His name is Greg Elliot and he lives in Alberta.
Prove it. (this means what evidence you have and how you can definitively tie the fornits poster "Ajax13" to this "Greg Elliot" fellow.)
See this post:
posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=313587#pr313530 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=313587#pr313530)
See... What really sucks for AARC trying to identify who said what is that there are (shock horror) MORE THAN ONE persons complaining about your shitpit. Pinning it all on Ajax in an attempt to demonize him and make an "example" of him in the hopes it will scare others WILL fail. All it will do is piss others off, self included. You get rid of him, you'll find me as a regular in his stead. You can't win this through intimidating people into silence, AARC. Let Ajax present his allegations/evidence and you present yours. Let the public decide.
-
Ajax lives here!
Can you prove that? How do you know he is not a US citizen?
His name is Greg Elliot and he lives in Alberta.[/quote]
Prove it. (this means what evidence you have and how you can definitively tie the fornits poster "Ajax13" to this "Greg Elliot" fellow.)
See this post:
http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/posting.ph ... 7#pr313530 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=313587#pr313530)
See... What really sucks for AARC trying to identify who said what is that there are (shock horror) MORE THAN ONE persons complaining about your shitpit. Pinning it all on Ajax in an attempt to demonize him and make an "example" of him in the hopes it will scare others WILL fail. All it will do is piss others off, self included. You get rid of him, you'll find me as a regular in his stead. You can't win this through intimidating people into silence, AARC. Let Ajax present his allegations/evidence and you present yours. Let the public decide.[/quote]
Psy, ARE you just a LITTLE co-dependent. :rasta: AND ooooh, you are such a scary dude . . you got me just shakin in my boots, psy.
you make another error assuming that AARC people are responsible for trying to identify people online and whatever else. There are some people who come on here and challenge you because they support Vause and what he does. Doesn't mean they work at AARC or have been a client. They just know alot about the place, Vause and know people from the community over the years and have seen the success stories coming out of there. Vause has lots of friends as a result of the people he has helped. They happen to have alot of respect for AARC and Vause. I think people from AARC quit visiting here a long time ago because they are aware of the outlandish crap posted and know where it comes from and they are more concerned with focusing on what they do rather than a tiny few who can't get over themselves. You included , psy
oh where oh where has little AJAX gone, oh where oh where can he be LOL
some one has nailed it on who he/they are. he left a trail . . .
-
you make another error assuming that AARC people are responsible for trying to identify people online and whatever else.
Who else would care what Ajax wrote about AARC to the point of identifying and silencing him?
What's it to anyone else BESIDES AARC & Affiliates?
-
Interesting how the situation gets turned around so easily and now AARC is the bad guy. I have watched for the last several weeks as Ajax slandered and libeled AARC from the shadows of an assumed name. If he had any sincerity at all he would have attempted to get his answers from AARC themselves. Now that AARC wants to know who he is all of a sudden they are the “evil one”. Ha,Ha,Ha
Look at this a different way. Suppose you had someone spreading lies about you. Telling people your professional degree was invalid and acquired from an unaccredited school (when in fact it was accredited). Telling people your friends and family members had diseases or addiction issues (when they did not). This person acquired an alias and went on line and started posting this information also. Wouldn’t you be a bit curious as to who this person is and why they have never contacted you personally? Would you be considered the “Evil one here?
A little different when you put it in perspective. People want to hate programs so much here that facts really don’t play a big part in it anymore.
...
-
Interesting how the situation gets turned around so easily and now AARC is the bad guy. I have watched for the last several weeks as Ajax slandered and libeled AARC from the shadows of an assumed name.
How do you know that what Ajax is saying isn't true? You admitted that you have no knowledge or experience with or about AARC.
If he had any sincerity at all he would have attempted to get his answers from AARC themselves.
How delusional do you have to be to think that they'd give honest answers??
Now that AARC wants to know who he is all of a sudden they are the “evil one”. Ha,Ha,Ha
Now you're catching on!! AARC simply cannot and will not tolerate dissent.
Look at this a different way. Suppose you had someone spreading lies about you. Telling people your professional degree was invalid and acquired from an unaccredited school (when in fact it was accredited).
it may be now, but it wasn't at the time that Vause "attended". Ajax is not spreading lies.....he's speaking the truth and AARC can't deal with it.
Telling people your friends and family members had diseases or addiction issues (when they did not).
Oh, that's rich!!!!!! Taht's AARC's modus operandi. That's how they stay in business.
This person acquired an alias and went on line and started posting this information also. Wouldn’t you be a bit curious as to who this person is and why they have never contacted you personally? Would you be considered the “Evil one here?
A little different when you put it in perspective. People want to hate programs so much here that facts really don’t play a big part in it anymore.
Fuck you. The FACTS are that AARC is a DIRECT descendant of Straight and KIDS. Vause was trained by Newton and followed Newton's model for "treatment" precisely. Down to the phases, oldcomers, beltlooping, lingo, 'host' homes etc. It's NO DIFFERENT from Straight and Straight was forced to close in EVERY STATE THEY OPERATED in because of abuse. Personally, I'm glad to see Vause/AARC finally getting their comeupance. It's about fucking time Straight was closed for good.
-
Psy, If that really is AARC they have a legitimate beef. It is clear that you are not able to see both sides of the issue. Imagine if you owned a program you are trying to make successful and you had someone questioning your ability publically. Even though you have a license, they questioned whether or not your staffers overseeing the patients have any education beyond GED's. They attacked your school saying it was unaccredited when it in fact was (BY NATSAP). Telling people that the kids you treat relapse of suicide shortly after release. This person made up lies about the credentials of your employees based on documents and evidence you tried to bury, placing this information on the internet. Tried to discredit you thru manipulating your published statistics of success by pointing out the gross fabrications in them and trying to discredit the people who conducted and put together the numbers by showing they lied.
On top of all of this, this person refused to reveal themselves choosing to cower in the shadows instead of discussing their concerns face to face.
Wouldn’t you want to talk to this person?
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to cowering in the shadows. Scout's honor.
...
Why are you here? Isn't Aspen your drug....er, program of choice?
-
How do you know that what Ajax is saying isn't true?
Because if you bother to go back and read you will see it was pointed out where his information was in error but he choose to post the lies instead of the truth. His choice not anyone elses. Why state a school is unaccredited when the facts state that it is? Why diagnose people with diseases? If everyone feels this is wrong why do it yourselves? Why not make an honest attempt to get factual answers instead of posting lies and half truths?
It is bazaar behavior and doesnt make sense, I believe most people would agree with this.
...
-
How do you know that what Ajax is saying isn't true?
Because if you bother to go back and read you will see it was pointed out where his information was in error but he choose to post the lies instead of the truth.
Please provide a link to those posts of his.
Why state a school is unaccredited when the facts state that it is?
Wait, AARC says it's NOT a school. AJAX was saying that Vause's credentials were questionable. That's absolutely true.
Why diagnose people with diseases?
I dunno. You'd have to ask AARC and Vause that question.
It is bazaar behavior and doesnt make sense, I believe most people would agree with this.
Yes. I imagine that people posing pointed questions about the quality of care provided at these facilities does seem bizarre to you.
-
Please provide a link to those posts of his.
As Ajax would say: The answer is in this forum somewhere, go find it!! Nice and forthcoming wasn’t he. Helped with the critical thinking skills.
Wait, AARC says it's NOT a school. AJAX was saying that Vause's credentials were questionable. That's absolutely true.
Call union institute and find out for yourself or check their web site. We have been over this. It is an accredited school.
I dunno. You'd have to ask AARC and Vause that question.
But see that is the twisted logic here. Ajax made the statement Ha,Ha,Ha, why ask AARC for the answer? Ajax was asking everyone but AARC for answers that could have been easily answered by them.
Yes. I imagine that people posing pointed questions about the quality of care provided at these facilities does seem bizarre to you.
No, look at my last response above. Expecting AARC and Vause to answer questions about Ajax’s statements. That is bazaar. We should try to direct the questions to those who have or have access to the answers. You have fallen into the same illogical trap.
...
-
Please provide a link to those posts of his.
As Ajax would say: The answer is in this forum somewhere, go find it!! Nice and forthcoming wasn’t he. Helped with the critical thinking skills.
In other words, you can't. That's ok. Just admit it though.
Call union institute and find out for yourself or check their web site. We have been over this. It is an accredited school.
But even the AARC supporters are saying its NOT a school.
But see that is the twisted logic here. Ajax made the statement Ha,Ha,Ha, why ask AARC for the answer? Ajax was asking everyone but AARC for answers that could have been easily answered by them.
Christ, you're getting lost in your own bullshit now.
No, look at my last response above. Expecting AARC and Vause to answer questions about Ajax’s statements. That is bazaar. We should try to direct the questions to those who have or have access to the answers. You have fallen into the same illogical trap.
.
Who is this "we" you're talking about? Aren't you an Aspen supporter? Expecting AARC or Vause to answer pointed questions about either Vause's academics or AARC's "treatment methods" is out there. I mean, REALLY out there. Any criticism is automatically dismissed as coming from "disgruntled" former patients (or clients, or students or whatever they're calling them...it seems to change to fit the needs of the discussion), druggies, legalization proponents, sick people or any other derogatory label they can place on them to try and discredit what they have to say.
Go back to Aspen Who. You know NOTHING of AARC/Straight/KIDS etc.
...[/quote]
-
But even the AARC supporters are saying its NOT a school.
See this was the same issue ajax had. Just google Union institute and you will see it is an accredited school
See this is the whole issue. It goes round and round with this one said this, that one stated something else.
Direct your questions towards those who have the answer i.e. AARC, Hazelden, Union institute. Then you can bring the information back to fornits and share it here. But to ask questions here on fornits about universities credentials and thoughts that the director of Hazelden had when conducting studies is bazaar.
...
-
No, AARC supporters say that AARC isn't a school. I'm trying to get an answer as to what they are. Are they a treatment center? Are they a school? Do they have patients or students?
-
No, AARC supporters say that AARC isn't a school. I'm trying to get an answer as to what they are. Are they a treatment center? Are they a school? Do they have patients or students?
I believe it is a treatment center/facility. I would check the AARC web site for what they prefer to be called.
-
No, AARC supporters say that AARC isn't a school. I'm trying to get an answer as to what they are. Are they a treatment center? Are they a school? Do they have patients or students?
I believe it is a treatment center/facility. I would check the AARC web site for what they prefer to be called.
Well, that's part of the problem. They won't really give a straight answer. It seems like they don't want to be nailed down to one description or the other due to the fact that they really have no credentials to be calling themselves either one. They do a lot of what you do here. Deflection and spin in order to avoid pointed questions about how they operate and what their background is.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbyX-Ra9GiU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbyX-Ra9GiU)
-
Well, that's part of the problem. They won't really give a straight answer. It seems like they don't want to be nailed down to one description or the other due to the fact that they really have no credentials to be calling themselves either one. They do a lot of what you do here. Deflection and spin in order to avoid pointed questions about how they operate and what their background is.
Ajax!! Your back (well at least your logic is)!! So here we go again. You state as a fact that they don’t have the credentials to be either a treatment Center or a Treatment facility. (notice the word fact)
Then we ask...okay? What are the credentials to be a Treatment Center or Facility. Then this is where Ajax runs away and starts a new thread stating AARC does not have the credentials to run a Treatment Center!! Ha,Ha,Ha or he says it is not up to me to define what the credentials are!! Ha,Ha,Ha... which shows he doesnt have any facts, never did. That is not what he is about. Everyone reading knows that, but many here are so geared towards hating programs that facts dont play into it anymore.
Then if AARC comes back in a few days asking who is this guy spreading lies.. resulting in AARC being considered the bad guy here... go figure.
That has been the logic over the past several weeks. Fact based? No.... Bazaar? Yes.
...
-
Wrong. If they're going to claim to "treat" anything, they need to have medical people supervising and implementing "treatment plans". This mom of a recent grad didn't seem too impressed with AARC or Vause. In fact, she pretty much states what we've all been saying for a very long time. Vause may not specifically claim he is a "Dr.", but he loves to give that impression and then not correct it when people mistake him for a medical doctor. Typical. That way he can maintain plausible deniability.
Parent of a recent aarc graduate here.
Never heard "get honest" in the real world, but it's coined a lot in AARC.
AARC has dealings with a REAL psychiatrist. AARC will mention this person's name if they are queried on professionals within their organization. I spoke to her. This person is not on staff and is NOT in contact with the clients. She will "consult with the clinical staff" if it's requested. This is a consultation only, based on information provided by AARC staff, the psychiatrist does NOT interview or examine the client.
Despite my son's history and previous involvement with a psychiatrist, this psychiatrist had never heard of my son, certainly never treated him and was surprised to hear of many incidents I described that, due to their nature, should have been brought to her attention, but weren't.
My client child also believed AARC, specifically Dean Vause, was his legal guardian. He was not.
He believed "Doc Vause" was a medical doctor, a psychiatrist. He is not.
He believed Peter Choate was a psychiatrist or at least a psychologist. He is not. But Choate did give him a short quiz AFTER he was already a client at AARC, which according to them, confirmed his status as an addict.
This "quiz" along with information provided by AARC and no one else constituted the "independent, outside evaluation" that was explained to me to be conducted on my son. I fail to believe that Choate is entirely independent or outside of the AARC program.
He believed the doctor he visited (Dr. Alan Stanhope) had no previous or current connection to the AARC program despite the fact that this doctor is the only doctor to examine clients (they are not permitted to see their OWN physicians), is quoted several times on the AARC website, is a former board member, not to mention being married to the provincial youth court judge who ordered my son into the program in the first place and then kept him there as a minor without parental consent which was required to get him in there in the first place.
This husband and wife doctor/judge team also attended his graduation ceremony at AARC, as AARC appointed 'guests'.
He believed his lawyer had no connection to the AARC program and was simply a referral despite the fact that the clinical staff later revealed that this lawyer is a part of the AARC's "legal committee" and in spite of the fact that this lawyer was spotted sitting with the executive director of AARC, Dean Vause, in box seats at a Calgary Hitmen/Swift Current Bronco's playoff game.
I provided a wrapped Christmas present for my son, a dress shirt, along with a stocking full of toiletries that complied with "client rules". A staff member gave him this shirt and claimed it was HIS OWN and my son could have it. The contents of the stocking were later given to him too (sans stocking) with no mention that it came from his family.
He believed I abandoned him, and didn't care if he lived or died. He knew nothing of the numerous times I tried to remain in contact with him, but was unlawfully denied access to my own child for almost an entire YEAR!
He knew nothing of the fact that his autistic brother could not participate in the AARC program. Or that lack of participation meant he had to be removed from our household for me to remain in AARC and remain in contact with him. Despite the fact that there was no where for his brother to go, including AARC's suggestion that he be placed into the custody of Child Welfare even though he is safe and well cared for with his family.
He progressively grew to hate me, knew nothing of the torment his brother and I went through over the holidays and birthdays and each and every day we knew nothing of his whereabouts or well being.
Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.
His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.
Don't even talk to me about "lies"!!!!!
Anything else you'd like first hand information on?
-
Wrong. If they're going to claim to "treat" anything, they need to have medical people supervising and implementing "treatment plans". This mom of a recent grad didn't seem too impressed with AARC or Vause. In fact, she pretty much states what we've all been saying for a very long time. Vause may not specifically claim he is a "Dr.", but he loves to give that impression and then not correct it when people mistake him for a medical doctor. Typical. That way he can maintain plausible deniability.
Thats a start. How many medical people and what kinds? Chiropractors? psychologists, psychiatrists? psychoanalyist’s? Licensed therapists ? How many per person? Do they need to have them on staff or can they utilize their surrounding medical environment?
Where is this all defined?
A Phd is called a doctorate degree and therefore entitle the holder to be called Doctor if they choose.
...
-
Wrong. If they're going to claim to "treat" anything, they need to have medical people supervising and implementing "treatment plans". This mom of a recent grad didn't seem too impressed with AARC or Vause. In fact, she pretty much states what we've all been saying for a very long time. Vause may not specifically claim he is a "Dr.", but he loves to give that impression and then not correct it when people mistake him for a medical doctor. Typical. That way he can maintain plausible deniability.
Thats a start. How many medical people and what kinds? Chiropractors? psychologists, psychiatrists? psychoanalyist’s? Licensed therapists ? How many per person? Do they need to have them on staff or can they utilize their surrounding medical environment?
Where is this all defined?
A Phd is called a doctorate degree and therefore entitle the holder to be called Doctor if they choose.
...
Yes, but there is a difference between a PhD. and a medical degree. What Vause does is allow for the mistaken impression that he is a medical doctor. Coincidentally, Miller Newton did and still does this. Newton loved to be called "Dr." and was quite happy to have the parents, staff and kids believe that he was a psychologist or psychiatrist. He is not. Neither is Vause. He is however, quite aware that many, if not most of the parents and kids are under that impression and he does nothing to clarify the difference. He LIKES the attention he gets from people believing that he has qualifications that he has NEVER had or even attempted.
If I was thinking about sending my child to a "treatment center" for actual "treatment", I would damn sure want to know that they were indeed being seen and followed by a qualified medical professional.
But that's just me. Obviously you're A-OK with any Tom, Dick or Harry peddling their particular brand of "treatment". Wow.
-
I need to make a couple of things clear based on actual investigation into the facts.
First of all. Vause has credentials. Vause fulfilled the requirements. Not that he needs them to run AARC.
Drug treatment for youth, in Canada, has NO CRITERIA, STANDARDS OR REGULATION regarding the necessity for credentials. It is an unregulated industry.
Vause, the clinical staff, the peer counselors, the host home parents, the oldcomers etc., are not REQUIRED to have credentials. So it really doesn't matter what credentials they do or do not have.
Certain donors require that AARC hold a level of accreditation with the Canadian Accreditation Counsel on Human Services, but upon query, they hold the lowest level of accreditation acceptable to their donors. They COULD be accredited at a higher level, they COULD be accredited as an alcohol and drug treatment center, or a residential facility, as they should be because this is what they claim they are and do, but they did/do not meet the standards for this higher level of accreditation.
Why? If you're a drug treatment center, why not be accredited as one? If you're a residential facility why not be accredited as one? Why only be accredited as a "community based program" right up there with the boys and girls club where kids hang out after school and play fooseball for a couple of hours. Is AARC not providing a higher level of service than that? They sure claim to be.
This is something the average person would not realize, or even think to look deeper into.
Now, if this was a provincially run program with USER FEES being paid by the province (I'm not saying the province doesn't give them money). That would be another story all together and THEN the issue of accreditation, regulation and credentials would come into play.
No, again, AARC IS NOT A SCHOOL. But AARC does have a classroom, an off campus classroom of the Alternative High School which IS a school. This is supposedly in place so the clients of AARC can receive an education when they reach a certain level in the program and are allowed to attend classes. What bothers me about this, is the coding these students receive to be attending this off campus classroom. It is very severe. High school level of schooling receives a certain amount of money per student and that amount is even higher with the students being "coded".
I was told my son would have to be "coded" to be accepted into the program and the school component. I can't say for certain if this is the case with ALL clients of AARC, especially considering many of those clients are too old to attend high school.
Not only that but my son started in the AARC program summer 2007. He didn't actually attend classes until the last month of the school year and only obtained credits in 2 courses. This is with him being registered as a full time student during the months of Sept - May that he wasn't permitted to attend classes. If this is the case for most of the clients that is a HUGE expense (high school costs plus additional funds for coded students) to our already strained education dollars for students who are not receiving an education.
Perhaps if the clients only attend for a month or two, the fees for one student/client should be applied to 10 clients. Each of them receiving their own portion of the allotted funds/class time.
-
Sounds like AARC does something similar to Benchmark in most respects you discuss:
http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/licensing.html (http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/licensing.html)
-
Yes, but there is a difference between a PhD. and a medical degree. What Vause does is allow for the mistaken impression that he is a medical doctor. Coincidentally, Miller Newton did and still does this. Newton loved to be called "Dr." and was quite happy to have the parents, staff and kids believe that he was a psychologist or psychiatrist. He is not. Neither is Vause. He is however, quite aware that many, if not most of the parents and kids are under that impression and he does nothing to clarify the difference. He LIKES the attention he gets from people believing that he has qualifications that he has NEVER had or even attempted.
If I was thinking about sending my child to a "treatment center" for actual "treatment", I would damn sure want to know that they were indeed being seen and followed by a qualified medical professional.
But that's just me. Obviously you're A-OK with any Tom, Dick or Harry peddling their particular brand of "treatment". Wow.
I believe he has a doctorate in psychology, educational psychology I think. He cannot perform open heart surgery but he is a doctor. He should not mislead people to believe he is something he is not, though, if he is doing that.
If/when I was sending my child to a treatment center I would want to make sure it was a good match for the child and be more interested in their success rate and the people that would be treating him/her and not whether or not the owner had a doctorate or not. It wouldn’t matter if they had medical personnel on staff or if they were brought in as needed. I would like to meet the staff who would be interacting with my son/daughter on a daily basis. When my daughter attended a program she did not have a need for medical doctors with the exception of a therapist which she saw once/twice a week.
Issues like members of the board being overweight, how the tables in a report are structured, whether or not the owner used to play hockey or how he managed his time during the period he researched his PhD, those types of issues wouldn’t bother me. Not sure why they were such big issues for Ajax or even why Ajax lied about them is even more puzzling. These issues would not reflect positively or negatively on my view of a program. Most parents, like myself, are just looking to get a problem addressed and move on.
...
-
Wrong. If they're going to claim to "treat" anything, they need to have medical people supervising and implementing "treatment plans". This mom of a recent grad didn't seem too impressed with AARC or Vause. In fact, she pretty much states what we've all been saying for a very long time. Vause may not specifically claim he is a "Dr.", but he loves to give that impression and then not correct it when people mistake him for a medical doctor. Typical. That way he can maintain plausible deniability.
Parent of a recent aarc graduate here.
Never heard "get honest" in the real world, but it's coined a lot in AARC.
AARC has dealings with a REAL psychiatrist. AARC will mention this person's name if they are queried on professionals within their organization. I spoke to her. This person is not on staff and is NOT in contact with the clients. She will "consult with the clinical staff" if it's requested. This is a consultation only, based on information provided by AARC staff, the psychiatrist does NOT interview or examine the client.
Despite my son's history and previous involvement with a psychiatrist, this psychiatrist had never heard of my son, certainly never treated him and was surprised to hear of many incidents I described that, due to their nature, should have been brought to her attention, but weren't.
My client child also believed AARC, specifically Dean Vause, was his legal guardian. He was not.
He believed "Doc Vause" was a medical doctor, a psychiatrist. He is not.
He believed Peter Choate was a psychiatrist or at least a psychologist. He is not. But Choate did give him a short quiz AFTER he was already a client at AARC, which according to them, confirmed his status as an addict.
This "quiz" along with information provided by AARC and no one else constituted the "independent, outside evaluation" that was explained to me to be conducted on my son. I fail to believe that Choate is entirely independent or outside of the AARC program.
He believed the doctor he visited (Dr. Alan Stanhope) had no previous or current connection to the AARC program despite the fact that this doctor is the only doctor to examine clients (they are not permitted to see their OWN physicians), is quoted several times on the AARC website, is a former board member, not to mention being married to the provincial youth court judge who ordered my son into the program in the first place and then kept him there as a minor without parental consent which was required to get him in there in the first place.
This husband and wife doctor/judge team also attended his graduation ceremony at AARC, as AARC appointed 'guests'.
He believed his lawyer had no connection to the AARC program and was simply a referral despite the fact that the clinical staff later revealed that this lawyer is a part of the AARC's "legal committee" and in spite of the fact that this lawyer was spotted sitting with the executive director of AARC, Dean Vause, in box seats at a Calgary Hitmen/Swift Current Bronco's playoff game.
I provided a wrapped Christmas present for my son, a dress shirt, along with a stocking full of toiletries that complied with "client rules". A staff member gave him this shirt and claimed it was HIS OWN and my son could have it. The contents of the stocking were later given to him too (sans stocking) with no mention that it came from his family.
He believed I abandoned him, and didn't care if he lived or died. He knew nothing of the numerous times I tried to remain in contact with him, but was unlawfully denied access to my own child for almost an entire YEAR!
He knew nothing of the fact that his autistic brother could not participate in the AARC program. Or that lack of participation meant he had to be removed from our household for me to remain in AARC and remain in contact with him. Despite the fact that there was no where for his brother to go, including AARC's suggestion that he be placed into the custody of Child Welfare even though he is safe and well cared for with his family.
He progressively grew to hate me, knew nothing of the torment his brother and I went through over the holidays and birthdays and each and every day we knew nothing of his whereabouts or well being.
Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.
His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.
Don't even talk to me about "lies"!!!!!
Anything else you'd like first hand information on?
WOW, here Tami goes now. YOU DID abandon the kid because you, as you keep stating had no intention of participating in treatment because it was too labour intensive for ya. I know moms who went through when your kid did and know how much your kid was helped after your healthy act caused such a problem for him. I hear you have him turned around now, and he's out using again. Maybe you are right, maybe he isn't an addict - his problem is undeniably YOU !!!!
All these things about what your kid believed and did not believe - how much is that coming from your 'healthy' influence on him now that he is out of AARC. Peter choate is not a psychologist !!- be careful with the lies and SO what if the kid thought he was a psychiatrist or psychologist. DO you have any idea how many people get that screwed up - but no . . . AARC is lying again. you are too much. all the things you list there are more a reflection of you screwing with your kid's mind AFTER grad than AARC. I pity that poor kid, he hasn't got a chance with your sick influence in his life.
You blame AARC for 'destroying' your family. you, my dear are the one not AARC.
-
I need to make a couple of things clear based on actual investigation into the facts.
First of all. Vause has credentials. Vause fulfilled the requirements. Not that he needs them to run AARC.
Drug treatment for youth, in Canada, has NO CRITERIA, STANDARDS OR REGULATION regarding the necessity for credentials. It is an unregulated industry.
Vause, the clinical staff, the peer counselors, the host home parents, the oldcomers etc., are not REQUIRED to have credentials. So it really doesn't matter what credentials they do or do not have.
Certain donors require that AARC hold a level of accreditation with the Canadian Accreditation Counsel on Human Services, but upon query, they hold the lowest level of accreditation acceptable to their donors. They COULD be accredited at a higher level, they COULD be accredited as an alcohol and drug treatment center, or a residential facility, as they should be because this is what they claim they are and do, but they did/do not meet the standards for this higher level of accreditation.
Why? If you're a drug treatment center, why not be accredited as one? If you're a residential facility why not be accredited as one? Why only be accredited as a "community based program" right up there with the boys and girls club where kids hang out after school and play fooseball for a couple of hours. Is AARC not providing a higher level of service than that? They sure claim to be.
BECAUSE TAMI - then AARC would have to be as ineffective. It could be another AADAC facilty and there are sure LOTS of parents who said they took their kids to AADAC and things did not get better. Due to the nature of AARC being an innovative program and treatment credentials based on past paradigms (if you knew the literature, which you clearly do not) - makes regulations to fit OLD paradigms that don't work for adolescents.
This is something the average person would not realize, or even think to look deeper into. and you are such a smart cookie . . .or so you are delusioned to thing!
Now, if this was a provincially run program with USER FEES being paid by the province (I'm not saying the province doesn't give them money). That would be another story all together and THEN the issue of accreditation, regulation and credentials would come into play.
No, again, AARC IS NOT A SCHOOL. But AARC does have a classroom, an off campus classroom of the Alternative High School which IS a school. This is supposedly in place so the clients of AARC can receive an education when they reach a certain level in the program and are allowed to attend classes. What bothers me about this, is the coding these students receive to be attending this off campus classroom. It is very severe. High school level of schooling receives a certain amount of money per student and that amount is even higher with the students being "coded".
I was told my son would have to be "coded" to be accepted into the program and the school component. I can't say for certain if this is the case with ALL clients of AARC, especially considering many of those clients are too old to attend high school.
Not only that but my son started in the AARC program summer 2007. He didn't actually attend classes until the last month of the school year and only obtained credits in 2 courses. This is with him being registered as a full time student during the months of Sept - May that he wasn't permitted to attend classes. If this is the case for most of the clients that is a HUGE expense (high school costs plus additional funds for coded students) to our already strained education dollars for students who are not receiving an education.
Perhaps if the clients only attend for a month or two, the fees for one student/client should be applied to 10 clients. Each of them receiving their own portion of the allotted funds/class time.
So Tami, give us a report on how well your kid is doing every 6 mos or so. I bet it will get interesting . . . and you won't be too ready to write in then. I feel so sorry for your kids, you have no idea.
-
So Tami, give us a report on how well your kid is doing every 6 mos or so. I bet it will get interesting . . . and you won't be too ready to write in then. I feel so sorry for your kids, you have no idea.
I would just like to draw attention to the intimidation tactics of AARC and/or it's followers in this thread. We've had legal threats, alleged names dropped (including the alleged full name of Ajax), and all sorts of statements that could reasonably be perceived as implied threats (and were probably intended as such, in my mind). Is this the behavior of a legitimate instituation with ethical followers, or a cult harassing those trying to speak out? Has AARC or their followers no respect for their patient's confidentiality, or that of their families? All AARC and/or it's followers do by this type of stuff is make themselves look bad. It scares nobody. It's rather pathetic, actually.
-
[
He believed his lawyer had no connection to the AARC program and was simply a referral despite the fact that the clinical staff later revealed that this lawyer is a part of the AARC's "legal committee" and in spite of the fact that this lawyer was spotted sitting with the executive director of AARC, Dean Vause, in box seats at a Calgary Hitmen/Swift Current Bronco's playoff game.
uhm, you should have paid for a different lawyer then, why did AARC have to supply on for him???
He believed I abandoned him, and didn't care if he lived or died. He knew nothing of the numerous times I tried to remain in contact with him, but was unlawfully denied access to my own child for almost an entire YEAR!
uh, ya did!
THat is likely because A JUDGE set those terms because it was recognied that posed a threat to you own kids well-being . this was not AARC's doing but falls squarely on you wshoulders.
He knew nothing of the fact that his autistic brother could not participate in the AARC program. Or that lack of participation meant he had to be removed from our household for me to remain in AARC and remain in contact with him. Despite the fact that there was no where for his brother to go, including AARC's suggestion that he be placed into the custody of Child Welfare even though he is safe and well cared for with his family.
Find that highly suspect but it is your world in which to blame AARC because it was obviously too time consuming for you. why didn't he go to a different treament cetre then?
Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.
Why was he taken to AARC and likely AADAAC and in court? because he was having a bad hair day for a couple days running - you my dear are likely the only other reason then
His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.
REALLY and those would be????? do tell .I think I just nailed it above then, if he wasn't an addict
Don't even talk to me about "lies"!!!!!
yes, you like to spin them with the best of them.
Anything else you'd like first hand information on?
yes, what role do you play in this kid's life?
[/quote]
-
He believed his lawyer had no connection to the AARC program and was simply a referral despite the fact that the clinical staff later revealed that this lawyer is a part of the AARC's "legal committee" and in spite of the fact that this lawyer was spotted sitting with the executive director of AARC, Dean Vause, in box seats at a Calgary Hitmen/Swift Current Bronco's playoff game.
uhm, you should have paid for a different lawyer then, why did AARC have to supply on for him???
He believed I abandoned him, and didn't care if he lived or died. He knew nothing of the numerous times I tried to remain in contact with him, but was unlawfully denied access to my own child for almost an entire YEAR!
uh, ya did!
THat is likely because A JUDGE set those terms because it was recognied that posed a threat to you own kids well-being . this was not AARC's doing but falls squarely on you shoulders.
He knew nothing of the fact that his autistic brother could not participate in the AARC program. Or that lack of participation meant he had to be removed from our household for me to remain in AARC and remain in contact with him. Despite the fact that there was no where for his brother to go, including AARC's suggestion that he be placed into the custody of Child Welfare even though he is safe and well cared for with his family.
Find that highly suspect but it is your world in which to blame AARC because it was obviously too time consuming for you. why didn't he go to a different treament cetre then?
Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.
Why was he taken to AARC and likely AADAAC and in court? because he was having a bad hair day for a couple days running - you my dear are likely the only other reason then
His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.
REALLY and those would be????? do tell .I think I just nailed it above then, if he wasn't an addict
Don't even talk to me about "lies"!!!!!
yes, you like to spin them with the best of them.
Anything else you'd like first hand information on?
yes, what role do you play in this kid's life?
-
Any program based on and/or derived from Straight Incorporated's "Large Group Awareness Therapy" brand of Tough Love has got to suck, in many ways and for many reasons; it's pretty much a given! Straight knew how to fuck up kids and their families for years and sometimes forever.
//bump\
-
Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.
Why was he taken to AARC and likely AADAAC and in court? because he was having a bad hair day for a couple days running - you my dear are likely the only other reason then
His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.
REALLY and those would be????? do tell .I think I just nailed it above then, if he wasn't an addict
I'm just going to address this for the moment as I don't have time for the rest. But you've raised an interesting point about how you think. The way you see it, if a person is sent to AARC, they are automatically an addict in your eyes. Lifton calls this all encompassing shtick Mystical Manipulation (http://http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing19.html#Mystical%20Manipulation).
You equate incarceration at AARC automatically with addiction (if this is the case, 98% of the US population would be addicts based on the rate of drug experimentation in college). Hypothetically... If a kid got caught smoking a joint and was sentenced to AARC by a judge with connections to AARC (the fat one), that kid would be deemed an addict. Similarly, if a parent suspected a kid of being involved with drugs, had no proof or evidence, was simply scared, and sent the kid to AARC, that kid would also be an addict (even if he was innocent of the accusations). As you well know, such a kid would not progress in the program until he admitted his "problem", even if he didn't have one.
Basically what you're saying is that the parents (due process?) and/or justice system are infallible in their placement of their kid. Are the parents qualified to diagnose a medical disease (addiction), or is the judge? Answer me this one question: Has there ever been a kid admitted into AARC who was not an addict by your criteria? All encompassing... isn't it?
-
Worst of all he grew to believe he was an addict, and an alcoholic.
Why was he taken to AARC and likely AADAAC and in court? because he was having a bad hair day for a couple days running - you my dear are likely the only other reason then
His real problems and mental health issues that needed professional help were never addressed and he was treated for problems he had to THEN CREATE to ever get out of the program.
REALLY and those would be????? do tell .I think I just nailed it above then, if he wasn't an addict
I'm just going to address this for the moment as I don't have time for the rest. But you've raised an interesting point about how you think. The way you see it, if a person is sent to AARC, they are automatically an addict in your eyes. Lifton calls this all encompassing shtick Mystical Manipulation (http://http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing19.html#Mystical%20Manipulation).
WEll you can 'read' into it and apply several more 'theories' if you like. However, the bottom line is that kids who are not having problems with alcohol use and do not use crack etc. abusively do not get taken to AARC or any treatment centre for substance abuse. Also, I think you assume that ALL kids who come to AARC get admitted and that is NOT true. I should call and ask those numbers because I know for a fact not ALL kids taken to AARC and assessed were found to be chemically dependent. Trust me they have a waiting list so they are not trying to find clients. However, Tami Dearest wants to maintain that her kid wasn't addicted. I find that highly suspect, however then - what is the problem - extremely poor parenting(very likely an add-on in this case)/sexual abuse/ beaten daily/ locked in a closet for 10 years/ all of the about. Why was he not brought to a psychiatric facility not AARC and who brought him to AARC and WHY?? has Tami Dearest told us that . . NO BUT meanwhile I am going to call AARC to find out what percentage of kids taken there are assessed as NOT being chemically addicted and will get back to you.
You equate incarceration at AARC automatically with addiction (if this is the case, 98% of the US population would be addicts based on the rate of drug experimentation in college). Hypothetically... If a kid got caught smoking a joint and was sentenced to AARC by a judge with connections to AARC (the fat one), that kid would be deemed an addict. Similarly, if a parent suspected a kid of being involved with drugs, had no proof or evidence, was simply scared, and sent the kid to AARC, that kid would also be an addict (even if he was innocent of the accusations). As you well know, such a kid would not progress in the program until he admitted his "problem", even if he didn't have one.
WHy do all you people think there is ONE judge in Calgary LOLOLOL That story is highly suspect. Again, AARC is not begging for clients. There are enough kids actually addicted to drugs that they and other treatment programs have their fill. So AARC or any other treatment centre does not need the business. Not like centres in the states, where they like to suck the medical insurance coverage dry or the people with the best medical insurance seem to need the longest treatment! The system is not the same!
Basically what you're saying is that the parents (due process?) and/or justice system are infallible in their placement of their kid. THEY DON"T GET TO PLACE THEM IN AARC Are the parents qualified to diagnose a medical disease (addiction), or is the judge? Answer me this one question: Has there ever been a kid admitted into AARC who was not an addict by your criteria? All encompassing... isn't it?
So, again you assume every kid brought to AARC by their parents OR sent by a judge has been admitted and that, my friend is NOT TRUE either. BUt you want to believe it so you can cry about human rights issues. AND No, I AM NOT saying that parents diagnose kids and Judges diagnose kids. they are assed when they are send or brought there. I think in TAmi Dearest's case they should have just booted the whole lot over to the Foothill Psychiatric Centre and had them locked in.
Nice chatting with you
-
The 'diagnoses' made during the average intake at Straight, Inc. were nothing short of a complete farce; they based the client's "need to be there" on absurd criteria. Straight was anything but professional and of course tried to find reasons where there were none. It was, after all, always about the money...
-
<<< Bump >>>
-
I think in TAmi Dearest's case
You seem to think you know me... and my "case". So who would you be, to know so much about me?
-
I think this is pretty on point. No ad hominems, no personal attacks. Just a mom, looking for answers as to why her child and family was "treated" in such a manner.
I need to make a couple of things clear based on actual investigation into the facts.
First of all. Vause has credentials. Vause fulfilled the requirements. Not that he needs them to run AARC.
Drug treatment for youth, in Canada, has NO CRITERIA, STANDARDS OR REGULATION regarding the necessity for credentials. It is an unregulated industry.
Vause, the clinical staff, the peer counselors, the host home parents, the oldcomers etc., are not REQUIRED to have credentials. So it really doesn't matter what credentials they do or do not have.
Certain donors require that AARC hold a level of accreditation with the Canadian Accreditation Counsel on Human Services, but upon query, they hold the lowest level of accreditation acceptable to their donors. They COULD be accredited at a higher level, they COULD be accredited as an alcohol and drug treatment center, or a residential facility, as they should be because this is what they claim they are and do, but they did/do not meet the standards for this higher level of accreditation.
Why? If you're a drug treatment center, why not be accredited as one? If you're a residential facility why not be accredited as one? Why only be accredited as a "community based program" right up there with the boys and girls club where kids hang out after school and play fooseball for a couple of hours. Is AARC not providing a higher level of service than that? They sure claim to be.
This is something the average person would not realize, or even think to look deeper into.
Now, if this was a provincially run program with USER FEES being paid by the province (I'm not saying the province doesn't give them money). That would be another story all together and THEN the issue of accreditation, regulation and credentials would come into play.
No, again, AARC IS NOT A SCHOOL. But AARC does have a classroom, an off campus classroom of the Alternative High School which IS a school. This is supposedly in place so the clients of AARC can receive an education when they reach a certain level in the program and are allowed to attend classes. What bothers me about this, is the coding these students receive to be attending this off campus classroom. It is very severe. High school level of schooling receives a certain amount of money per student and that amount is even higher with the students being "coded".
I was told my son would have to be "coded" to be accepted into the program and the school component. I can't say for certain if this is the case with ALL clients of AARC, especially considering many of those clients are too old to attend high school.
Not only that but my son started in the AARC program summer 2007. He didn't actually attend classes until the last month of the school year and only obtained credits in 2 courses. This is with him being registered as a full time student during the months of Sept - May that he wasn't permitted to attend classes. If this is the case for most of the clients that is a HUGE expense (high school costs plus additional funds for coded students) to our already strained education dollars for students who are not receiving an education.
Perhaps if the clients only attend for a month or two, the fees for one student/client should be applied to 10 clients. Each of them receiving their own portion of the allotted funds/class time.
-
You seem to think you know me... and my "case". So who would you be, to know so much about me?
Now, who is fishing. You are about as subtle as an atom bomb.
roflmao
You have a VERY wide flappy mouth so don't think AARC gossip or AARC people are responsible for people knowing things about you.
Why don't you go back to tending to your "AARC-destroyed" family? BECAAAAAUSSSEEE - your family was in crisis before AARC and you have gotten it back to status quo and will comfortably go along until the next big crisis but this time, like Elliot and Co., you will blame it on AARC next time. If the Betty Ford Centre had gotten a crack at you and kids, then they would be on the blame line, right.
-
You seem to think you know me... and my "case". So who would you be, to know so much about me?
Now, who is fishing. You are about as subtle as an atom bomb.
roflmao
You have a VERY wide flappy mouth so don't think AARC gossip or AARC people are responsible for people knowing things about you.
Why don't you go back to tending to your "AARC-destroyed" family? BECAAAAAUSSSEEE - your family was in crisis before AARC and you have gotten it back to status quo and will comfortably go along until the next big crisis but this time, like Elliot and Co., you will blame it on AARC next time. If the Betty Ford Centre had gotten a crack at you and kids, then they would be on the blame line, right.
Just answer the question.
-
The answer -
You have a VERY wide flappy mouth so don't think AARC gossip or AARC people are responsible for people knowing things about you.
Just because T. Brown outed herself, doesn't mean everyone else is going to line up and give their nla. LOL
however, if we get a stream, i'll consider it!!!! :moon:
-
No problem. You guys have "outed" yourselves in much more important ways here.
Thanks again!!!
you have no idea how much you've furthered the cause against institutionalized child abuse!!! Especially you and Who!!!!!!!!!!!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
:bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs:
:rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta:
-
ROFLMAO
and you smoked a big fat one today !!!!!
cause, we sure are not going to here how you connect any dots together are we!
Just keep thwoing out your hopes and dreams, you seem to need to :hug:
-
ROFLMAO
and you smoked a big fat one today !!!!!
cause, we sure are not going to here how you connect any dots together are we!
Just keep thwoing out your hopes and dreams, you seem to need to :hug:
I'm sorry. Your substandard use of the English language confuses me.
:D
-
I'm sorry. Your substandard use of the English language confuses me.
oooooo, so abusive. i better get something done about all the abuse and torture you are subjecting me to :cry: . . oh, no that is just for untreatable ex-AARC inmates . . roflmao
-
Honestly. Keep it up. I haven't had this much of an email influx asking for information about a specific program in a long time.
S--a----a-----a-----a--------------lute!
:rasta: :D :D :D
-
I haven't had this much of an email influx asking for information about a specific program in a long time.
...............screeeeeeeeeeeech...........................
Woah! Where'd ya go? We had such a nice rhythm going
-------------chirp chirp-----------------chirp chirp-----------------
Uh, huh. I thought so.
out.
Rhythm. Hehehe.
Can we embed pics? Guess I'll find out.
(requisite Beavis & Butthead picture here)
-
Honestly. Keep it up. I haven't had this much of an email influx asking for information about a specific program in a long time.
Yes, Mommy Dearest, we know you have delusions of grandeur, but you are a wee drip in the ocean of people who know that the "specific program" is effective, professionally run, respected internationally and D. Vause is brilliant!! (well except for smartie pants people like yourself) roflamo
-
Wasn't me, why would I get any email about a program? You'll have to guess again.
Sorry, no illusions of grandeur either.
-
Ajax lives here!
Can you prove that? How do you know he is not a US citizen?
His name is Greg Elliot and he lives in Alberta.
Prove it. (this means what evidence you have and how you can definitively tie the fornits poster "Ajax13" to this "Greg Elliot" fellow.)
See this post:
http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/posting.ph ... 7#pr313530 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=313587#pr313530)
See... What really sucks for AARC trying to identify who said what is that there are (shock horror) MORE THAN ONE persons complaining about your shitpit. Pinning it all on Ajax in an attempt to demonize him and make an "example" of him in the hopes it will scare others WILL fail. All it will do is piss others off, self included. You get rid of him, you'll find me as a regular in his stead. You can't win this through intimidating people into silence, AARC. Let Ajax present his allegations/evidence and you present yours. Let the public decide.[/quote]
Psy, ARE you just a LITTLE co-dependent. :rasta: AND ooooh, you are such a scary dude . . you got me just shakin in my boots, psy.
you make another error assuming that AARC people are responsible for trying to identify people online and whatever else. There are some people who come on here and challenge you because they support Vause and what he does. Doesn't mean they work at AARC or have been a client. They just know alot about the place, Vause and know people from the community over the years and have seen the success stories coming out of there. Vause has lots of friends as a result of the people he has helped. They happen to have alot of respect for AARC and Vause. I think people from AARC quit visiting here a long time ago because they are aware of the outlandish crap posted and know where it comes from and they are more concerned with focusing on what they do rather than a tiny few who can't get over themselves. You included , psy
oh where oh where has little AJAX gone, oh where oh where can he be LOL
some one has nailed it on who he/they are. he left a trail . . .[/quote]
the tiny few who can't get over themselves? are you fucking kidding me? have you paid attention to anything else in this forum besides your own deluded, and may i say, very aggressive attempts to try to get people off this topic? do you think anyone takes you seriously? at least 50-75% of us have been in some kind of program. psy's not co-dependent, he's just trying to make a difference in kids lives. what about you? you've shown NO proof whatsoever on any of the claims you've made, and continue in this downward spiral, now attacking people who counter you. do you really think that that's going to somehow be something that draws parents to your cult...oops, school? it's just ridiculous the lengths you will go to. you should really rethink your strategy.
and then one thing i know about AARC, they want to suck in the entire family, put the rest of the siblings in treatment, suck more money, and if you're not willing to subject your other kids to that then you're cut off. that DOES NOT sound like a supportive family environment to me. sounds awfully culty. and trust me, i know about cults. my program was spawned by synanon. so bring it. you've got nothing. stop attacking people who are speaking their minds.
and while i'm thinking about it, why the hell would ajax or anyone who had a problem with AARC call them to talk about it? that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. "hello? AARC? yeah, i have some issues i'd like to work out with you?" please. and you did not use that stupid rasta banana in your post. fucking stupid.
-
Interesting how the situation gets turned around so easily and now AARC is the bad guy. I have watched for the last several weeks as Ajax slandered and libeled AARC from the shadows of an assumed name. If he had any sincerity at all he would have attempted to get his answers from AARC themselves. Now that AARC wants to know who he is all of a sudden they are the “evil one”. Ha,Ha,Ha
Look at this a different way. Suppose you had someone spreading lies about you. Telling people your professional degree was invalid and acquired from an unaccredited school (when in fact it was accredited). Telling people your friends and family members had diseases or addiction issues (when they did not). This person acquired an alias and went on line and started posting this information also. Wouldn’t you be a bit curious as to who this person is and why they have never contacted you personally? Would you be considered the “Evil one here?
A little different when you put it in perspective. People want to hate programs so much here that facts really don’t play a big part in it anymore....
do YOU want to come clean who? their school is NOT accredited. "people want to hate programs so much here that facts don't play a big part in it anymore"? really??? you think we all come here, not to connect with people who've been through what we've been through, but to just talk shit for the fun of it??? trust me...NOT FUN. but we all have to deal with it at some point.
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THROUGH ONE OF THESE PROGRAMS?
you acquired an alias. you started posting lies as well. i'm curious as to who you are. do you want to disclose that? prolly not. if you can't have even an ounce of empathy for what most of us went through in our teenage years than you have no business being here. you're useless.
-
have you been through AARC?
no . . . . then go bark up some other tree, poor baby
truth would be handy for anyone needing the help of AARC. :moon:
-
have you been through AARC?
no . . . . then go bark up some other tree, poor baby
truth would be handy for anyone needing the help of AARC. :moon:
have YOU been through AARC? you're a moron.
-
have you been through AARC?
no . . . . then go bark up some other tree, poor baby
truth would be handy for anyone needing the help of AARC. :moon:
Wow - If all comparable programs have been shut down in the US (and have had to either be renamed or re-established to continue making money) - then why is AARC and the people employing the same methods immune from criticism?
I haven't seen AARC opening its doors and being transparent to the public for an outside review of its methods.
I haven't seen them letting someone to advocate for the kids come in and talk to them *alone*
I haven't seen them able to sit in the back of a "rap" and observe (because there would be no way that Vause could conceivably reign the kids in from the brainwashed behaviour, and the confrontation "therapy" would be - obvious)
Until then, I'll believe that AARC is up to the same hold shit that Straight Inc, and KIDS were up to.
I don't believe that Vause can change his stripes after all these years.
-
I think the fundamental point here is not really whether this particular program is perpetrating abuses currently or not. Its been long since proven, and there are thousands of pieces of information that comprise this proof (not to mention solid flesh and blood witnesses)....that the modality advocated by this program (AARC) does not work, and has repeatedly failed throughout the decades and its various incarnations. You can have degreed professionals bleeding from the walls of the group room and that will never change that the very basic ideas put to use by the methodology are corrupt and lead to eventual misuse and improper interpretation. That debate has really long since been put to rest.
If someone is advocating the success of this program, it becomes their responsibility to cooperate with any person or persons who experienced abuse or mistreatment on their watch....not threaten or brow beat them with claims that cannot be backed up. The people on this site advocating AARC strongly sound much the same as others in the past with the "you must break a few eggs to make an omelette" attitude. Bully the naysayers and deny, deny, deny. Thats not a responsible attitude to present to a person who was mistreated at the hands of any facility.
Theres talk about how if you were running a business, would you be concerned about someone speaking publicly in a false manner about it....well, as a business, customer service is key right? So why isnt AARC attempting to make good on the negative backlash? A good business says the customer is always right, right? Even Jack in The Box has a hot-line to call if theres a problem. For a program that has direct ties in to a notoriously unsound method, youd think they'd have a policy in place to distinguish themselves. A policy outside of the inner circle. Its because the very nature of the program is isolation and reality deprivation, so what would pass in the everyday world as common sense becomes positively impossible.....because if an outsider were to look in, well....we all know what THAT would look like! Its akin to Scientology hiring a complete non-practitioner civilian to work at upper levels of management for the Church. Never happen...doesnt fit, end of story. The program is the all-time master at making "them" into "them".
-
very good points. the reason that they're not questioned as much as they were before is because they're in a different country (canada). move to a country that doesn't have the questions being asked or the oversight (not that we even really have it here yet) and you're golden, especially if you're "giving back to the community". i know first hand that it's the same old bullshit. and what i don't get...they see dollar signs...i see kids fucked up during & afterwards (and now i'm talking ALL programs, including my own) no sense of self, using every drug, or alcohol to numb the shit that got stuck in their brains there. feeling like a failure and using every means possible to forget about it, if only for a night. it may be a different school but it's the same model and it pisses me off that they seek to change the way we think and feel without giving us an "out button". i'm upset. i'm sad. and i'm fucked up. i could say that i've gotten things from the program i was in...but...
i've always been empathetic
i've always looked out for the underdog
i've always had judgments on myself (not quite as harsh)
i've always loved the people i loved as if they were my family
i never did myself harm
i never did others harm
i was simply trying to survive. and, at least for me, rma gave me "tools" to survive (i guess...not that they meant shit in the real world) but they also gave me way more worries and concerns than i ever had before.
i'm just bitching now. but for me, at this point, it's very real. 15 years later. not much faith in myself. or anyone else.
forgive me...i'm sad and unleashing it all here. i know i'm not a victim. i'm not a victim. but those goddamn schools maybe could have supplied like the staples button...you know that great big red button in the staples commercials...the easy button. i want one of those.
-
For Stina
:hug:
-
So basically based on stats AARC releases, the program goes on to have a majority of its youth relapse? What a great program....
-
So basically based on stats AARC releases, the program goes on to have a majority of its youth relapse? What a great program....
ya, the youth relapse, but they retain the parents. and their money. fabulous.
-
ya, the youth relapse, but they retain the parents. and their money. fabulous.
I think a very great MANY of these programs have started some sort of parental aftercare or post-graduate outreach or the like by which folks sucked into these endeavors get strung along for years afterwards, still under the spell (and still bleeding monetary support), believing themselves succored by the program, but being, in fact, suckered by the program... a reality that gets more difficult to wake up from, the more the time and money invested becomes...
-
So basically based on stats AARC releases, the program goes on to have a majority of its youth relapse? What a great program....
ya, the youth relapse, but they retain the parents. and their money. fabulous.
There are those who relapse like an other treatment center, but AARC has been able to reduce it to a very impressive level. No rebates for people not willing to follow thru after they leave.
1. Dr. Vauses education
Conclusion: Dr. Vause continues to be active in the program and dedicated to a continuous life of learning and self improvement. Acquiring his PhD from Union University, an accredited University that has been open since 1964 and works under the provisions of APA guidelines and ethics(American Psychological Association).
2. AARC Outcome Study
Conclusion: The outcome study of AARC was found to be conducted by an independent professional in the area of addiction. To assist with the data collection and computation AARC had one of the Directors of Hazelden and their assistants oversea and help author the study. So the study is rock solid credible with some of it findings being:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
3. Transparency:
AARC has shown it has opened its doors to independent studies and reveals its people qualifications openly.
-
There are those who relapse like an other treatment center, but AARC has been able to reduce it to a very impressive level. No rebates for people not willing to follow thru after they leave.
Citation needed.
1. Dr. Vauses education
Conclusion: Dr. Vause continues to be active in the program
Wait, now we've had other AARColytes here saying he really doesn't have anything to do with the running of the program.
Acquiring his PhD from Union University, an accredited University that has been open since 1964 and works under the provisions of APA guidelines and ethics(American Psychological Association).
The "university" may be accredited now, but I don't believe it was at the time that Vause "attended". Sure, it's been open since '64, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a diploma mill for quite a number of years, including those when Virgil Miller Newton (Vause's mentor) got his bogus 'degree' from them.
2. AARC Outcome Study
Conclusion: The outcome study of AARC was found to be conducted by an independent professional in the area of addiction. To assist with the data collection and computation AARC had one of the Directors of Hazelden and their assistants oversea and help author the study. So the study is rock solid credible with some of it findings being:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
If it is so 'rock solid' then it shouldn't be difficult to provide a citation for the study.
3. Transparency:
AARC has shown it has opened its doors to independent studies and reveals its people qualifications openly.
Bwahhahahhahaha! Now that's just laughable.
-
Pack it up and go home; this entire debate is moot.
It's a no-brainer: AARC is a Straight spin-off.
DANGER! DANGER! Will Robinson! :bs:
-
So basically based on stats AARC releases, the program goes on to have a majority of its youth relapse? What a great program....
ya, the youth relapse, but they retain the parents. and their money. fabulous.
There are those who relapse like an other treatment center, but AARC has been able to reduce it to a very impressive level. No rebates for people not willing to follow thru after they leave.
1. Dr. Vauses education
Conclusion: Dr. Vause continues to be active in the program and dedicated to a continuous life of learning and self improvement. Acquiring his PhD from Union University, an accredited University that has been open since 1964 and works under the provisions of APA guidelines and ethics(American Psychological Association).
2. AARC Outcome Study
Conclusion: The outcome study of AARC was found to be conducted by an independent professional in the area of addiction. To assist with the data collection and computation AARC had one of the Directors of Hazelden and their assistants oversea and help author the study. So the study is rock solid credible with some of it findings being:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
3. Transparency:
AARC has shown it has opened its doors to independent studies and reveals its people qualifications openly.
uh oh...here we go again with the guests and their independent and conveniently unattainable studies. hide your children. hide your animals too.
:blabla: :bs:
-
Hmmm "Hazelden" sounds familer
Oh ya! There were at KIDS Of North Jersey alot!
Thats how I know them!
Just something to think about....
-
How can you "still" be living a clean and sober life after four years if you have relapsed during that four years? Is there an alternate meaning to the word "still"?
-
2. AARC Outcome Study
Conclusion: The outcome study of AARC was found to be conducted by an independent professional in the area of addiction. To assist with the data collection and computation AARC had one of the Directors of Hazelden and their assistants oversea and help author the study. So the study is rock solid credible with some of it findings being:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
3. Transparency:
AARC has shown it has opened its doors to independent studies and reveals its people qualifications openly.
How does a study of 85 out of 218 graduates demonstrate that 85% of all graduates are living a clean and sober life after 4 years?
How does a study that included only 14 graduates who had been graduated longer than 4 years demonstrate that 85% of all grads are living a clean and sober life after 4 years?
How does a study that indicated that only 48% of sampled graduates remained sober since graduation indicate that 85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years?
How does a study of 85 out of 218 graduates demonstrate that 52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating?
How does a study that questioned 85 graduates in one three month period with times subsequent to graduation ranging from 8 months to 5.5 years demonstrate that 93% of all graduates are still living clean and sober lives after 12 months?
What makes a study conducted by the Centre's Executive Director; the Clinical Director: a Board Member whose son is an employee of the Centre; a paid consultant of the Centre; and a faculty member of the Executive Director's alma mater; rock solid credible?
-
Meatwad, I can see that you are struggling trying to understand the results of the study. The results are geared towards middle to highly educated adults. Most college curriculums require a basic statistics course.
Check out this link for starters or ask a friend to explain it to you.
http://http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html
-
"There are LIES,
There are DAMN LIES,
And there are STATISTICS."
-
Why don't you explain it to me Filet Mignon? I just can't wrap my head around how one deduces that 85% of all graduates are still living clean and sober lives after four years, from a study that only included 14 people who had been graduated for four years, out of a total graduate population of 218. I would be ever so grateful if you could fill me in on that.
-
Why don't you explain it to me Filet Mignon? I just can't wrap my head around how one deduces that 85% of all graduates are still living clean and sober lives after four years, from a study that only included 14 people who had been graduated for four years, out of a total graduate population of 218. I would be ever so grateful if you could fill me in on that.
Nah. It's much easier to accuse you of being ignorant in an attempt to draw everyone's attention away from the fact that he can't explain that^^^ away. Typical spin tactics.
-
Why don't you explain it to me Filet Mignon? I just can't wrap my head around how one deduces that 85% of all graduates are still living clean and sober lives after four years, from a study that only included 14 people who had been graduated for four years, out of a total graduate population of 218. I would be ever so grateful if you could fill me in on that.
Well, I’ll take a shot at this, …… people spend 4 years studying statistics to get a degree. Explaining it to someone in a paragraph or two on fornits would be difficult at best. But basically the statistician looks at the sample size (14), total population (218) and the degree of confidence they need to have. This information is taken to sample tables and from these you can draw your conclusions, make predictions etc.
So the person would look up under total population range(200 – 225) and a sample size of 14. Based on the results of the survey the tables would be able to predict that (for example purposes only) that:
We are 99% confident that 75 % of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years
We are 98% confident that 85% of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years
We are 95% confident that 89% of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years
We are 60% confident that 99% of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years etc.
So depending on the confidence level you are willing to have or report on you can predict how many graduates will be clean and sober. The tables are non linear so a very small movement in sample size or population could translate into a very large swing in results. So the table allow for the added dimension of confidence level to compare results. This is nice to have because it allows future studies to be compared more easily to track trends.
There are many ways to approach this also. You can work backwards and choose the confidence level you want and have that predict (or drive)your sample size. So if you want to be 99% confident in your results the table would tell you that you need to increase your sample size from 14 to 21 for example. So it depends on how the research was structured from the beginning.
Hope this helps a little. Another thing you can do is ask a friend who has taken a few stats courses in college. Sometimes this helps to answer some of the more general questions.
...
-
Well, I’ll take a shot at this, ……
Oh god no!!!!!
Damn, too late.
This information is taken to sample tables and from these you can draw your conclusions, make predictions etc.
So the person would look up under total population range(200 – 225) and a sample size of 14. Based on the results of the survey the tables would be able to predict that (for example purposes only) that:
We are 99% confident that 75 % of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years
We are 98% confident that 85% of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years
We are 95% confident that 89% of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years
We are 60% confident that 99% of the graduates are clean and sober after 4 years etc.
So depending on the confidence level you are willing to have or report on you can predict how many graduates will be clean and sober.
Hope this helps a little.
Nope. Bullshit that's pulled directly out of your ass helps no one.
-
No, that answer didn't help me at all. Since there is no indication of how many of the 14 clients graduated for over four years were still sober after four years, there was no figure from which you derived those probabilities. The only figure indicating a probability of still being sober after 4 years was the 48% of the sample group reporting continuous sobriety. Since 93.1% of those graduated one year or less, or 26 clients, reported being sober for 12 months or more, that leaves only 12 clients, or 12%, who are still continuously sober since graduation. That's only 12 out of 59 clients graduated for one year or more. There is a very curious detail in the table. Now those figures were derived from the table indicating the longest period of sobriety, which grouped grads with a time since of graduation of up to two years into the group "one year or less". There are no figures that indicate total length of continuous sobriety since graduation, other than the 48% of the total sample of 100.
The mean time since graduation for the sample was 2 years and 3 months. Thus, probablities of grads still living a clean and sober life after 2 years and 3 months could be calculated.
Here is an interesting statement from the study:
"If it was projected the 15 clients not available for interview were not abstinent, then the result for the entire population of 100 would result in an abstinent rate of 85% at the time of interview."
According to this, if all 15 non-respondent grads were not abstinent, 85%, or the entire 85 responding population, were abstinent. Since only 48% of the sample reported being continuously sober, what is the significance of this?
So back to my question. Since the study used only 14 people graduated more than 4 years, from a sample of 100 grads with a mean time since graduation of 2 years 3 months, with a reported 48% rate of continuous sobriety, how does this show that 85% of all grads are living a clean and sober life 4 years after graduation?
-
>YAWN< :blabla: ::poke::
-
So back to my question. Since the study used only 14 people graduated more than 4 years, from a sample of 100 grads with a mean time since graduation of 2 years 3 months, with a reported 48% rate of continuous sobriety, how does this show that 85% of all grads are living a clean and sober life 4 years after graduation?
Hey Meatwad, you truly seem interested in learning. This is great. You seem to be getting a little closer to understanding. With a mean of 2 years 3 months the entire population runs from less than a year to better than 4 years. This particular part of the study focused on the 14 people who were graduated 4 years or more (of the upper end of the tail assuming a normal distribution) and used this sample of the population to predict how “all” graduates will fair after leaving AARC (These 14 hold the key to making predictions for how people will fair after the 4 year mark). If they chose greater than 3 years then the poplulation would be larger.
What we don’t know is the confidence interval that was chosen. This would tell us what tables they used to come up with the 85% number. Now remember, the study isn’t just predicting the outcome of the 100 people sample but is predicting the success rate of all people who have and will graduate. They were also able to predict that not only will 85% be living a clean and sober life after 4 years but 48% of them will experience a continuous sobriety level as well.
I believe the study also showed a better than 93% of the graduates were clean after their first year. To me this was a key indicator of the success of AARC. The first year is usually the most critical and toughest to get thru.
...
-
TheWho - ????????? ???????. ?? ??????????? ??? ??????????? ????. ? ???? ???, ?????? ??? ??? ???? ? ????????? ?? ???? ? ??????? ??? ???. ?? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?????. ?? - ????? ??????? ? ?????? ??????????. ?? ?????? ??? ???????????????, ??? ?? ??????????? ??? ??????????? ????, ? ? ??????? ???, ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ???????.
-
Thanks very much, but I'm still trying to find out how the poster came to the conclusion that 85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years. You haven't helped me with that at all. Since the mean length of time since graduation for the study sample was 2 years 3 months, and only 48% reported continuous sobriety, by definition 52% are not still living a clean and sober life after a mean time of 2 years and 3 months since graduation. I don't know if the first year is the most critical and hardest to get through, but if that is the case, then why would the rate of continuous sobriety go down from 93% after one year, to a mean of 48% after 2 years and 3 months?
By the way, that was tremendously helpful of you to explain that the population would be larger if more people were included in it.
-
Meatwad wrote:
Thanks very much, but I'm still trying to find out how the poster came to the conclusion that 85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years.
That number comes off the “Confidence interval tables”,..."Sample/ prediction tables"... (see previous post)
You haven't helped me with that at all.
Sorry, I have received good feedback from others. It is a little bit more of a challenge not knowing a persons mathematical background.
Since the mean length of time since graduation for the study sample was 2 years 3 months, and only 48% reported continuous sobriety, by definition 52% are not still living a clean and sober life after a mean time of 2 years and 3 months since graduation.
Continuous indicates “Uninterrupted”. So 48% have lived an uninterrupted clean and sober life. 52% of the people had a period or periods where they were not clean and sober since graduation. The mean time is an indicator of the population “center point”. It is not related to length of sobriety. This can sometimes be confusing.
I don't know if the first year is the most critical and hardest to get through, but if that is the case, then why would the rate of continuous sobriety go down from 93% after one year, to a mean of 48% after 2 years and 3 months?
It doesn’t. The 2 years 3 months is the “center point” of the distribution. There is no mean of 48% in the study that I have seen. The tables provided will indicate the sobriety at each interval. The continuous rate of sobriety will always either stay still or go down. It cannot increase from the 93% point. My point with the success rate of 93% for the first year was that many people struggling with addiction would be attracted to the possibility that if they attended this program they would have a 93% chance of staying sober for their first year. If you have ever struggled with addiction this is huge. Many cannot fathom getting thru a day without using let alone a year. So this was my thinking there.
By the way, that was tremendously helpful of you to explain that the population would be larger if more people were included in it.
Ha,Ha, I note a hint of sarcasm. Sorry if I sounded condescending. My point with that comment is that if they chose a study point of 3 years instead of 4 then the population would rise from the 14 and the larger sample size would lend itself to a higher confidence interval...ie the higher the confidence the better the probability.
...
-
I had never heard of AARC before comeing to this site. Do they have anything like that in the united states? I am from the midwest and Hazelden has a great reputation but is expensive and my insurance woud not cover hardly any of it. Has anyone from the US gone to AARC or is it just for canadians? Thank you in advance. the information so far from reading here has been helpful.
-
I had never heard of AARC before comeing to this site. Do they have anything like that in the united states? I am from the midwest and Hazelden has a great reputation but is expensive and my insurance woud not cover hardly any of it. Has anyone from the US gone to AARC or is it just for canadians? Thank you in advance. the information so far from reading here has been helpful.
AARC, formerly called "KIDS of the Canadian West", is a direct derivative of Miller Newton's KIDS of North Jersey (http://http://www.rickross.com/reference/straight/straight55.html), a branch of Straight Inc. (http://http://www.rickross.com/groups/straightinc.html), a Synanon based cult that originated in the United States. The movie, Over the GW (http://http://www.overthegw.com/) is based on KIDS of North Jersey. The closest US facility currently in operation would be Kids Helping Kids (http://http://www.isaccorp.org/kidshelpingkids.asp) (Pathway Family Center), one of the last surviving Straight based facilities in the United States (the rest of which have been shut down). I recommend reading the links I provided if you wish to know more about these types of facilities.
-
TheWho - ????????? ???????. ?? ??????????? ??? ??????????? ????. ? ???? ???, ?????? ??? ??? ???? ? ????????? ?? ???? ? ??????? ??? ???. ?? ???? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ? ????????? ??? ???? ?????. ?? - ????? ??????? ? ?????? ??????????. ?? ?????? ??? ???????????????, ??? ?? ??????????? ??? ??????????? ????, ? ? ??????? ???, ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ???????.
TheWho ????
-
@psy ???????????
-
I'm afraid I don't understand how that number could come off of confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables. There is no figure given in the study for the number of grads in the sample who are still living clean and sober lives four years after graduation. One would require this number in order to use confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables. Although the number of graduates in the sample who have been graduated for over four years is given in the study, you had no number to use to predict any probabilities with regard to the number of graduates who are still sober after 4 years.
One could take the 48% of the sample who did not report continuous sobriety, using the average time since graduation of 2 years 3 months, and determine the probability that graduates who had been graduated for 2 years 3 months were still sober, or the probability that they were not clean and sober.
The study does not, in fact show that 93% of graduates were still clean and sober after one year. The study does show that 93.1% of graduates who had been graduated for less than two years had maintained continuous sobriety for a period of 12 months or more. There is no figure given indicating how many graduates were still living clean and sober lives one year after graduation.
I'm not interested in what your thinking was, but rather in your claim that the first year is the most difficult. The evidence from the AARC study would indicate that the first year is in fact the easiest, since, as you puport, the grads have a 93% chance of staying sober their first year, but only a 48% chance of staying sober until the 2 years three months mark. If 93% of grads are in fact sober for the first year, then they are over 7 times as likely to use drugs or alcohol in the 15 months after their first year than they are during the first year after graduation, since 52% of the sample graduates had resumed drug and or alcohol use after a mean time of 2 years 3 months.
So, after ten to fourteen months of six days of continuous indoctrination per week, 93% of graduates stay sober for a year, after which time it can be expected that most resume drug and alcohol use.
-
I'm afraid I don't understand how that number could come off of confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables.
Thats okay, it takes some many years to fully understand statistics. It is not something that can easily be picked up thru casual conversation.
There is no figure given in the study for the number of grads in the sample who are still living clean and sober lives four years after graduation. One would require this number in order to use confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables. Although the number of graduates in the sample who have been graduated for over four years is given in the study, you had no number to use to predict any probabilities with regard to the number of graduates who are still sober after 4 years.
You would have to get your hands on the raw data to determine what the individual results and responses were.
One could take the 48% of the sample who did not report continuous sobriety, using the average time since graduation of 2 years 3 months, and determine the probability that graduates who had been graduated for 2 years 3 months were still sober, or the probability that they were not clean and sober.
Yes, this is all done in the design phase of what needs to be reported. If it was determined that they wanted to present the percentage of graduates who were still clean and sober after 2 years 3 months they could have done that. But typically you choose yearly increments like 1,2,3, or greater than 4, 5 years etc.
The mean that you speak of is just the average of the sample population (median being the halfway point). It has no real significance other than defining the sample. If they choose to redo the study at another time they may get the same results but their sample population may have a mean of 3 years 4 months. Think of it as a “snap shot in time”. Another way to look at it is if they had used the same population but conducted the test a few months later then the mean or average time from graduation would shift from 2 years 3 months, but it would be the same group of people.
The study does not, in fact show that 93% of graduates were still clean and sober after one year. The study does show that 93.1% of graduates who had been graduated for less than two years had maintained continuous sobriety for a period of 12 months or more. There is no figure given indicating how many graduates were still living clean and sober lives one year after graduation.
Yes there is. If you look at table 2 you will see that for those graduates who were out for a year 93.1% were still clean and sober.
For those who have been out 2 to three years 92.9% have been continuously clean and sober for 12 months or more.
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%
I'm not interested in what your thinking was, but rather in your claim that the first year is the most difficult.
That was a personal observation and feedback I have incurred speaking with others who have struggled with addiction. The first milestones are typically the hardest...first week,.... first month..... first year
The evidence from the AARC study would indicate that the first year is in fact the easiest, since, as you puport, the grads have a 93% chance of staying sober their first year, but only a 48% chance of staying sober until the 2 years three months mark.
No, the mean is not a milestone.... here is what the report said:
Since graduation 48% of the sample reported continuous sobriety. The report is speaking to the entire population of the study.
If 93% of grads are in fact sober for the first year, then they are over 7 times as likely to use drugs or alcohol in the 15 months after their first year than they are during the first year after graduation, since 52% of the sample graduates had resumed drug and or alcohol use after a mean time of 2 years 3 months.
Again you seem to be hung up on the 2 year 3 month mark. What I find useful is to go back and reference the study each time just to clarify and recalibrate . This mid point wasn’t mentioned here that I could see.
So, after ten to fourteen months of six days of continuous indoctrination per week, 93% of graduates stay sober for a year, after which time it can be expected that most resume drug and alcohol use.
I remember my first year stats course and it can be difficult to get a handle on the logic and how the data is presented. What I always found useful is to keep going back and rereading the study. Each time you read it it becomes a little clearer. The important part is that you have an interest for numbers and the studies which is good. Stats is fascinating if you enjoy mathematics and are analytical.
Going back to the study what it says is at:
1 year 93.1% were continuously sober for 12 months
2 to 3 years it dropped to 92.9%
4 or more years it goes down to 85.7%
48% of the entire population stayed continuously clean and sober the whole time since graduation.
-
This has been an interesting exercise. I originally asked how the poster determined that 85% of all AARC graduates were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years after graduation, and how the poster determined that 93% of all grads were living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation. Since there is no data given in the study indicating how many grads in the sample were still living clean and sober lives 4 years after graduation, nor how many grads were still living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation, the poster could not given a logical answer. Instead, the Who claimed that somehow confidence intervals could be used to determine such numbers, even though no observed data from the study was available to make such calculations. So immediately the Who had to lie, claiming that this figure was somehow "came off" confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables. Which is impossible, given the absence of a figure representing the proportion of grads in the sample groups who were still living clean and sober lives after either 1 or 4 years. The Who simply chose, arbitrarily, the figure of 85% to represent the proportion of grads who were still sober after 4 years, in spite of the fact that this data is not in the study. Why you mentioned obtaining the individual results and responses is unclear, as these have no bearing on the question, which is how the poster determined that 85% of all grads were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years. No mention was made by the poster, or me, or anyone else of the median, which begs the question as to why you mentioned it. And of course, the mean time since graduation is certainly as significant as one wishes to observe a "snapshot in time". If the study had been conducted a few months later, then one could see how many sample grads reported continuous sobriety at the time of the study, and calculate the probability that grads are still living clean and sober lives at the mean length of time since graduation. In the case of the actual study, 52% of grads in the sample had resumed using drugs and alcohol after a mean time since graduation of 2 years 3 months.
Unfortunately, table 2 does not show how many graduates were out for a year. Rather, perhaps for the sake of convenience, all grads in the study who had been out for less than two years were included in the group whose time since graduation was "one year or less". As this group includes those graduated for over one year but less than two, it does not provide a subject for observation of continuous sobriety for one year after graduation. It includes grads who have been continously sober for 12 consecutive months, but as they have been graduated for up to 24 months, there is no way to tell when that 12 month period of consecutive sobriety occurred. You will notice that from the same sample group of 85 respondents, in table 1 there are only 10 graduated 1 year or less, but in table 2 there are 29. Stick with it Who, and one day you will be able to add something to the discussion.
I don't know who said that the mean was a milestone, but since it wasn't me, I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Nor the midpoint, which was not mentioned either. Your claim that the first year is the most difficult still appears to be unfounded based on the observations of the study.
So 52% of the sample had resumed using drugs or alcohol after an average of 2 years 3 months since graduation.
-
Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant. Plus: I'd trust the statistics coming from a program about as much as any other piece of spam. Independently conducted studies? Double blind? Then STFU and jam your "statistics" up where they came from.
-
Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical?
We do! We (SIBS) are here to get druggies Straight!
The ends justify the means!
http://fornits.com/SIBS (http://fornits.com/SIBS)
-
This has been an interesting exercise. I originally asked how the poster determined that 85% of all AARC graduates were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years after graduation, and how the poster determined that 93% of all grads were living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation. Since there is no data given in the study indicating how many grads in the sample were still living clean and sober lives 4 years after graduation, nor how many grads were still living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation, the poster could not given a logical answer. Instead, the Who claimed that somehow confidence intervals could be used to determine such numbers, even though no observed data from the study was available to make such calculations. So immediately the Who had to lie, claiming that this figure was somehow "came off" confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables. Which is impossible, given the absence of a figure representing the proportion of grads in the sample groups who were still living clean and sober lives after either 1 or 4 years. The Who simply chose, arbitrarily, the figure of 85% to represent the proportion of grads who were still sober after 4 years, in spite of the fact that this data is not in the study. Why you mentioned obtaining the individual results and responses is unclear, as these have no bearing on the question, which is how the poster determined that 85% of all grads were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years.
Wow, I am sorry, you seem very frustrated with all of this. I apologize if I am moving too fast. It is difficult to know everyone’s background. Maybe you should consider taking a break. But for clarity lets go back and look at the Tables again and I will try to clarify some of these points for the other readers.
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%
Lets look at the “four or more years” which has a population of 14. Of this population of 14... 12 of the graduates experienced a continuous sobriety for “12 months or more” which is how they came up with the 85.7% (12/14 = 85.714%)
Lets look at the one year milestone which has a population of 29. Of this population of 29 people, 27 of them were still continuously sober after one year which is how they came up with the 93.1% figure... (27/29 = 93.103%).
No mention was made by the poster, or me, or anyone else of the median, which begs the question as to why you mentioned it. And of course, the mean time since graduation is certainly as significant as one wishes to observe a "snapshot in time". If the study had been conducted a few months later, then one could see how many sample grads reported continuous sobriety at the time of the study, and calculate the probability that grads are still living clean and sober lives at the mean length of time since graduation. In the case of the actual study, 52% of grads in the sample had resumed using drugs and alcohol after a mean time since graduation of 2 years 3 months.
If this is your belief that is okay.
Unfortunately, table 2 does not show how many graduates were out for a year. Rather, perhaps for the sake of convenience, all grads in the study who had been out for less than two years were included in the group whose time since graduation was "one year or less". As this group includes those graduated for over one year but less than two, it does not provide a subject for observation of continuous sobriety for one year after graduation. It includes grads who have been continously sober for 12 consecutive months, but as they have been graduated for up to 24 months, there is no way to tell when that 12 month period of consecutive sobriety occurred.
Exactly, they broke it out into 3 categories “1 month”... “6 Months”....”12 months”. If they broke it out into “1 month”.. “6 months” ...”24 months” then I am sure some people would ask why they didn’t do 12 months etc. It is difficult to foresee or please everyone.
If we wanted to create our own category of say “2 years 3 months” or “24 months” or “36 months” We would have to obtain the raw data from Hazelden or AARC. Or if we wanted to examine when each person’s 12 month period or more occurred we would have to look at the raw data also for this.
You will notice that from the same sample group of 85 respondents, in table 1 there are only 10 graduated 1 year or less, but in table 2 there are 29. Stick with it Who, and one day you will be able to add something to the discussion.
Hey that wasn’t very nice. I have spent time trying to help you understand all of this. That wasn’t called for at all. I understand this can be difficult and these statistician people are not always clear. Each one of them likes to set up their tables differently but we need to understand that we don’t have access to the raw data which makes it difficult to impossible to break down the categories differently then how they are presented.
I don't know who said that the mean was a milestone, but since it wasn't me, I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Nor the midpoint, which was not mentioned either. Your claim that the first year is the most difficult still appears to be unfounded based on the observations of the study.
That is my feeling, yes. Sometimes in discussions people inject their own experiences or feelings on the subject. I was clear that this was a personal believe and not part of the study. The study doesn’t address the level of difficulty for each milestone, although, I think this would make for an interesting added dimension if the study were to be repeated.
So 52% of the sample had resumed using drugs or alcohol after an average of 2 years 3 months since graduation.
This is something that you believe in and that is okay. It is important to differentiate between what the report says and our personal beliefs.
...
-
Hey who. Ever heard of "GIGO (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out)". It means that if you feed bullshit in, you get bullshit out.
Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO) is a phrase in the field of computer science or ICT. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output
Another analogy would be to say that you can't turn shit into gold.
So who is verifying the purity of the input data here? I really don't care how you interpret it. I want to know how it was collected and whether the data is accurate. This means independently conducted studies and double blind control groups (otherwise, it's just marketing). I'd also like to see whether AARC's rate of "success" is any higher (or lower) than the spontaneous rate of recovery.
So tell me, Who, and stop spinning around in circles: why exactly am I supposed to trust this data given by a biased party as impartial and accurate?
Furthermore, as I stated above: "Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant."
-
TheWho is a fucking liar! Don't ever make the mistake of trusting this guy! He LIES, LIES, LIES!!!!
-
Hey who. Ever heard of "GIGO". It means that if you feed bullshit in, you get bullshit out. Another analogy would be to say that you can't make shit into gold.
I am very familiar with GIGO. This was an old saying which was used when some of my people were sending me data via “Quattro Pro” and “Lotus 123” spread sheets which we managed to program using “Basic” (before visual basic) to collect and present data for quarterly and annual reporting in the manufacturing sector. Way before your time, sure you never heard of it.
So who is verifying the purity of the input data here. I really don't care how you interpret it. I want to know how it was collected and whether the data is accurate. This means independently conducted studies and double blind control groups.
Trusting the data is a different discussion. The person was having difficulty understanding the layout and presentation of the data, which it seems I have clarified to a larger extent.
I trust the Calculation, presentation and layout because I recognize the work and know that Hazelden has a good reputation in the field. How the data was controlled and collected I do not have a handle on. Was it made up? Or Bogus? Don’t know.
. I'd also like to see whether AARC's rate of "success" is any higher (or lower) than the spontaneous rate of recovery.
I don’t know the answer to that. But I can tell you that the study results would tempt anyone to place a second mortgage on the barrel head for a chance to get a loved one clean and sober with a chance of 90% or better. Hazelden cannot clam this and I consider them on the leading edge and are backed by some of the better minds in the Recovery industry.
So tell me, Who, and stop spinning around in circles: why exactly am I supposed to trust this data given by a biased party as impartial and accurate?
I don’t consider myself as one who spins, I understand that others see me this way and I don’t know why. I cannot vouch for any of the data collection accuracy. I don’t know how much the Hazelden folks were involved in this, whether they were handed a stack of paper with data on it or if the over saw the data collection themselves prior to crunching it.
Furthermore, as I stated above: "Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant."
I have not read much here on AARC (I know you asked me to in the past, but I have been busy, so my knowledge is zilch on whether it is a safe place to be or not). I understand it is a straight spin off of some type. But I am not convinced this to be a total clone of the same ideals or practices based on this fact alone.
@Zelma.... Sorry you feel that way. I am just sharing my knowlege here. I was not part of the study
...
-
Note to parents regarding the 90% sucess rate claim: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Use your common sense. If it walks, talks and sounds like a con...
@thewho:
If you haven't read up on AARC, admit you can't verify the accuracy of the data, and aren't sure about it's safety and practices, how can you in good conscience imply an endorsement*? because that's what I read, and i'm quite sure that's how the parents see it. Seems pretty reckless to me. Maybe you should actually read something about a place even you might not be able to stomach endorsing.
*note that I consider any program endorsement to be reckless.
-
Sorry, Who, but 85.7% sober for 12 months or more simply is not 85% still sober 4 years after graduation. You've danced and danced around that fact, but it won't change. With 52% of the sample resuming the use of drugs and or alcohol after a mean time of 2 years 3 months since graduation, it is impossible for 85% to still be sober 4 years after graduation. And of course, there is no one year milestone in the study, with or without a sample size of 29. In the group of 29 referred to as "one year or less", 93.1% had experienced one year or more of continuous sobriety. 27 were sober for one year, but there is no indication that this one year commenced at the time of graduation. Looking at table 1 we see that in fact only 10 grads in the study were graduated for one year or less, as a second category in this table includes those graduated for 13-24 months. So milestones, medians etc. aside, there is no data in the study indicating length of continuous sobriety for any length of time after graduation. It simply isn't in the study. A rate of resumption of drug and or alchol use is in the study, this being 52%. A mean time for the sample since graduation is also included in the study, 2 years 3 months. As 52% are back drinking or taking drugs within an average of 2 years 3 months after graduation, it is impossible for 85% to still be living clean and sober lives 4 years after graduating. While the data in the study does not disprove that 93% of graduates in the study were still living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation, definitive data supporting this is not included. If however, 93% are indeed still sober 1 year after graduation, then most AARC graduates are unwilling to to remain abstinent beyond one year. An increase from 7% of clients resuming drug and alcohol use within 1 year after graduation to 52% resuming drug and alcohol use within an average of 2 years 3 months after graduation points to an abysmal failure on AARC's part to provide a long-term positive outcome. In fact, in view of AARC's doctrine that embodies the notion that addiction is progressive and fatal, this high rate of self-destructive behavior on the part of AARC graduates is highly alarming. It would indeed be interesting to know what percentage of AARC grads are still living clean and sober lives 4 years after graduation, but alas, this information was not included in the study.
-
For Christ sake Ajax, everyone in the US and Canada knows AARC has a 93% success rate now. We dont need to advertise it any further do we?
-
For Christ sake Ajax, everyone in the US and Canada knows AARC has a 93% success rate now. We dont need to advertise it any further do we?
Citation needed.
AARC keeps saying it, but it doesn't make it true.
-
Note to parents regarding the 90% sucess rate claim: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Use your common sense. If it walks, talks and sounds like a con...
@thewho:
If you haven't read up on AARC, admit you can't verify the accuracy of the data, and aren't sure about it's safety and practices, how can you in good conscience imply an endorsement*? because that's what I read, and i'm quite sure that's how the parents see it. Seems pretty reckless to me. Maybe you should actually read something about a place even you might not be able to stomach endorsing.
*note that I consider any program endorsement to be reckless.
Yep. Notice he avoids the Aspen threads like the plague now.
-
Meatwad, this is good. It seems like you are starting to get your arms around all these stats, it can be daunting at times, I agree. One of the challenges of reading these reports is trying to separate the findings of the study from individual interpretations. What is typically suggested when the conversation gets bogged down with questions of what” was” or “was not” included in the study is to go back to the study itself and review the findings. This avoids confusion and can get the readers back on track.
From AARC Study, lets take a look at Table again:
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%.
1. So for those who finish the program at AARC the graduates can expect a 93.1% chance of staying clean and sober for the first year out.
2. After 4 years the graduates can expect an 85.7% probability that they will be living a clean and sober life.
3. 48% of the entire population stayed continuously clean and sober the whole time since graduation.
...
-
Meatwad, this is good. It seems like you are starting to get your arms around all these stats, it can be daunting at times, I agree.
Just stop with the verbal vomiting all over things and programs you know precisely DICK about. Isn't it about time you got back to defending Aspen Ed instead? Better yet, how 'bout your daughter come over and tell us HER version of events and how much she 'learned' at Aspen? Somehow I have a feeling it might be just a tad different from your viewpoint.
-
The poster claimed that 85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years. This is contradicted by the study, which showed that in fact 52% of grads in the sample were not still living a clean and sober life after an average of 2 years 3 months. Here's where you are forced to break down, Who. There is no information in the study showing how many of the sample were still sober 4 years after graduation. The only figure related to length of sobriety at the 4 years from graduation mark indicates the number who have maintained a period of continuous sobriety of at least 12 months, 85.7%. Nothing whatsoever about how many of the 14 grads out for over 4 years are still sober. Based on data from the study, graduates can expect that at least a 52% chance that after 4 years they will resume drug and or alcohol use. After 4 years grads can expect an 85.7% chance that they were sober continuously for over 12 months of that 4 years, or 25% of the time. If in fact 93% of grads are still sober after 1 year, these grads can expect a 44% chance that they will resume drug and alcohol use in the ensuing 15 months after the one year milestone from graduation. Thanks Who, for allowing us to watch a truly degenerate mind at work. Forewarned is forearmed and all that.
-
Summary:
Ajax was addressing 3 areas:
1. Dr. Vauses education
Conclusion: Dr. Vause continues to be active in the program and dedicated to a continuous life of learning and self improvement. Acquiring his PhD from Union University, an accredited University that has been open since 1964 and works under the provisions of APA guidelines and ethics(American Psychological Association).
2. AARC Outcome Study
Conclusion: The outcome study of AARC was found to be conducted by an independent professional in the area of addiction. To assist with the data collection and computation AARC had one of the Directors of Hazelden and their assistants oversea and help author the study. So the study is rock solid credible with some of it findings being:
85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years
93% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 12 months
52% of all graduates have had at least one relapse since graduating.
3. Transparency:
AARC has shown it has opened its doors to independent studies and reveals its people qualifications openly.
ajax or whoever you are, If there are issues which you do not understand then contact AARC directly. You live in town so it is not a toll call. If you continue to post false information under an assumed name then it will be understood that you are just out to harm AARC and/or their interests and the next communication will be taken off line from fornits.
Rock solid credible? A strange mishmash of terms to describe a scientific study of a health care facility. There's only one person so desperate to be heard that he would embarass himself like this. Still at it, Joshy?
I assume that the next communication won't be by telephone. My Special Lady Friend left several messages for Natalie Oldcomer, in an effort to acquire her records from AARC. Never did get a call back. So, I'm hoping that the next communication comes in the form of a singing telegam. Do they send singing telegrams out to Langdon, Joshy?
Glad to see that you're able to gain access to AADAC's vast compilation of personal data on the citizens of Alberta. Funny stuff.
In a way, I admire your pluck. You're willing to shit yourself in an effort to get attention, and you appear to have no qualms about doing it.
-
When in doubt go back to the original study. Lets break down table 2 again:
From AARC Study, lets take a look at Table again:
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%.
There were 29 graduates who were graduated for one year or less... if you take 93.1% of them that equals 27 graduates (27/29 = .93103)
There were 14 graduates who were graduated for 4 years or more.... if you take 85.7% of them that equals 12 graduates (12/14 = .857143)
There were 48 graduates who maintained a continuous sobriety since graduation.
So what does this tell us?
If you attend AARC you have a 93.1% chance of maintaining your sobriety for the first year.
You have an 85.7% chance of living a clean and sober life after 4 years.
You have a 48% chance of living a continuously sober life past 4 years.
The rest we can all speculate to one degree or another or draw "off tangent" conclusions but the above is what we do know.
If anyone has any questions I suggest you review the study and the tables provided in the study. (I will add a link for everyone below.)
AARC Study Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=312005&sid=010042a5f3442810a0753138d89cc8e5&sid=960c0a6569ddbfbfe807a0ec79bc1fc7#p312005)
...
-
Natalie Oldcomer
:D That's her name, for real?
-
I am theWho and I am talking to myself. ::poke::
-
When in doubt go back to the original study.
You already admitted you couldn't verify the accuracy of the source data, so what exactly do the statistics mean?
-
Hey who. Ever heard of "GIGO (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out)". It means that if you feed bullshit in, you get bullshit out.
Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO) is a phrase in the field of computer science or ICT. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output
Another analogy would be to say that you can't turn shit into gold.
So who is verifying the purity of the input data here? I really don't care how you interpret it. I want to know how it was collected and whether the data is accurate. This means independently conducted studies and double blind control groups (otherwise, it's just marketing). I'd also like to see whether AARC's rate of "success" is any higher (or lower) than the spontaneous rate of recovery.
So tell me, Who, and stop spinning around in circles: why exactly am I supposed to trust this data given by a biased party as impartial and accurate?
Furthermore, as I stated above: "Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant."
Recap for parents on this page, read above.
-
I found it frustrating that our society equates abuse with sexual and physical contact. If there is no bodily sexual contact or violent physical contact - it's not seen as abuse.But all survivors of abuse deal with one main element, the emotional/mental scars.A person can be raped, and beaten....and their bodies can mostly repair the damage.....but it's living with the emotional impact of that abuse that makes it a long time struggle. It's society's way of not speaking about bad or negative things. Unless you have physical wounds you aren't hurt.
In a way our society works with the abusers to hide the emotional and mental impact by denying it's importance. Survivors of abuse are eventually told to 'get over it'. There is supposed to be some deadline for survivors to deal with the abuse. And when abuse comes in a pure mental/emotional form (no sexual or physical attack) - it so much easier for the abuser to hide and or also to deny that it exists. Children can live in a mental prison that their abusive parents create. Much like the elephant being chained to the ground and eventually only requiring a small rope. It's learnt to be submissive and not escape or fight back. That's also why we repress most of the abuse and don't deal with it...because we are taught by the larger world to do that.
The world wants hard working people that read success books and practice positive thinking mantras so they can be good little machine workers. Don't say anything negative, don't talk about the past. Just get over it already. But the impact of the abuse doesn't go away if it's ignored.The worst culprits for denying the emotional/mental impact of our past abuse is ourselves.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
...
-
When in doubt go back to the original study.
You already admitted you couldn't verify the accuracy of the source data, so what exactly do the statistics mean?
I was trying to help this poster "meathead" understand the study results. There were obviously portions of the study (in particular the Tables design) which he struggled to understand. As far as how the study was controlled or the accuracy of the raw data collection I cannot speak to that. I am reading the results of the study like everyone else. But that doesn’t mean there is a problem with it. I do know that Hazelden was involved and that adds a very high level of credibility and confidence in my mind.
I am not an AARC supporter because I know very little about the program, but saw an opportunity where I could help a fellow poster understand the study.
...
-
The Best Advice to a Family Member...
....of an abused person?
An incident concerning my sister has been troubling me since Friday and though I've surrendered it to the Lord I thought I'd also ask those of you who have escaped from abusive relationships.
I have been a shoulder to cry on for my sister, early in her relationship I was the only family member to confront the abusive man and lost contact with my sister for nearly a year, I was privy to her account of him being in the care of their little one (about two years ago) and him threatening to kill himself where I felt the need to contact a child protection agency and she nearly had a melt down as a result of me conveying what the agency had said. I've given her numbers for refuge shelters which she has not taken up. Our family have offered to pay for a lawyer to sort out their house so that she and my nephew could separate from him. Her response to our offer was that she does not want to lose where she lives and her house and start over again. The one incident on Friday had me hear (on speakerphone) her bf screaming at her to come and fix a soft drink for him. I have never heard a human being scream like that before.
This man has been a diabetic all his life - only when they are together does his diabetes get to a point where his blood sugars drop (when he is working abroad he is fine) and he "loses it". I was at my other sister's house when the phonecall was made. The abused sister had ran into the garden because she said that he had picked up a knife and was coming towards her. My older sister had motioned me over to her and put the conversation on speaker phone and this was when I heard the man angrily screaming at my sister. The abused sister had already called an ambulance prior to the phone call and the paramedics and two police officers finally arrived.
This week, she is still in the environment with my nephew. She has remained with this man since 1992.
I've bounced it off another family member who also works with children and social services and she basically said that social services in the UK are so swamped with more serious cases that they will not bother with a man coming to a woman with a knife and screaming at her. Basically the mother or child would have to be physically hurt - with the knife - before they can intervene!
For those of you who have survived physical and verbal abuse, what advice can you offer?
Do we still stand far off from the situation due to the fact that she would go into denial, defend him and even cut herself off from us if she knew that we got the authorities involved?
Would you suggest we give her more time to do something herself?
Or is it time for us to intervene?
Any advice from those of you who have actually been there would be greatly appreciated.
...
-
I found it frustrating that our society equates abuse with sexual and physical contact. If there is no bodily sexual contact or violent physical contact - it's not seen as abuse.But all survivors of abuse deal with one main element, the emotional/mental scars.A person can be raped, and beaten....and their bodies can mostly repair the damage.....but it's living with the emotional impact of that abuse that makes it a long time struggle. It's society's way of not speaking about bad or negative things. Unless you have physical wounds you aren't hurt.
In a way our society works with the abusers to hide the emotional and mental impact by denying it's importance. Survivors of abuse are eventually told to 'get over it'. There is supposed to be some deadline for survivors to deal with the abuse. And when abuse comes in a pure mental/emotional form (no sexual or physical attack) - it so much easier for the abuser to hide and or also to deny that it exists. Children can live in a mental prison that their abusive parents create. Much like the elephant being chained to the ground and eventually only requiring a small rope. It's learnt to be submissive and not escape or fight back. That's also why we repress most of the abuse and don't deal with it...because we are taught by the larger world to do that.
The world wants hard working people that read success books and practice positive thinking mantras so they can be good little machine workers. Don't say anything negative, don't talk about the past. Just get over it already. But the impact of the abuse doesn't go away if it's ignored.The worst culprits for denying the emotional/mental impact of our past abuse is ourselves.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
...
I would like to add that when it was said “the world wants hard working people that practice positive thinking”. There is a place and time for everything, no one wants to hear about your current swollen hemorrhoids, how you were abused as a kid or the number of abortions your sister has had or removing your shoe to display your missing three toes due to your fathers drunken rage. It just makes everyone uncomfortable when in the midst of a brain storming session and can play havoc on your upcoming review or promotion. There are plenty of opportunities outside of work when you can surely talk about these things, but chose a friend with a sympathetic ear and/or talk about it during lunch. Many people may not tell you to “Get over it” but they may tell you it is not appropriate conversation at work.
...
-
Did someone mention that MP is no longer on the DSM list?
-
I do not think spanking is either mandated or forbidden by the Bible. I'm not 100% sure whether the rod referred to in the Bible is meant as a guidance tool, a comforting tool or a punishment tool, or perhaps a combination of all 3.
We do spank but only for outright defiance/disobedience and lying. We do not ALWAYS spank for those things, but usually do. We never spank without letting our kids be able to predict the consequences of their actions. (ie they know they will get a spanking for doing something before they do it). Spankings do not occur very often in our household. We do lightly swat babies as a training tool.
We stopped spanking around the age of 7 - after that, my personal opinion is that there are other more effective means of disciplinary action that can be used instead. Spanking should never be done in anger.
I do not think parents HAVE to spank in order for their children to turn out well. I do think spanking is the most effective method of discpipline SOME of the time, but not for all children. Different things work for different kids. I think consistency and love in any type of discipiline is the key no matter which type of "punishment" is used - be it spankings, time outs, natural consequences, etc.
...
-
I was trying to help this poster "meathead" understand the study results. There were obviously portions of the study (in particular the Tables design) which he struggled to understand.
Oh just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs help seeing through your bullshit statistics that you manipulate (pun intended) the hell out of.
As far as how the study was controlled or the accuracy of the raw data collection I cannot speak to that.
Yeah, no shit. So again, shut the fuck up about it then.
I am reading the results of the study like everyone else. But that doesn’t mean there is a problem with it. I do know that Hazelden was involved and that adds a very high level of credibility and confidence in my mind.
No, the fact that Hazelden was involved makes it more suspect, IMO.
I am not an AARC supporter because I know very little about the program, but saw an opportunity where I could help a fellow poster understand the study.
Yeah, well thanks but no thanks. "We" don't need your brand of help. In fact, some of us have been "helped" nearly to death in the literal sense.
-
All good points, but you don't have to cuss.
-
Unfortunately Who, you've made a grave error in stating that graduates have a 48% chance of living a continuously sober life past 4 years, based on the results of the study. The average time since graduation for the sample was 2 years 3 months, not 4 years. For the sake of argument, accepting your claim that 93% of grads are continuously sober for one year from the time of graduation, the proportion of grads continuously sober after an average time since gradation of 2 years 3 months had declined to 48%. Nothing whatsoever included in the study about living a continuously sober life after 4 years. Again, the only information in the study pertaining specifically to those grads in the study who were graduated 4 years or more is the fact that 85.7% of them had maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety some time since their graduation. The first fact that you stated may or may not be true. The fact that most of the individuals in the respondent 85% of the sample were included in the second and third groups of table 2, and both of these groups had a propotion of individuals whose longest period of continuous sobriety since graduation was under 93.1%, the probability of your first statement being true is dubious. Your second statement may be true, but is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever from the study. Your third statement cannot be proven with data from the study, as the length of time since graduation varies greatly from eight months to over 5 years, with an average of 2 years 3 months. Who, responses like this from you are what makes this fun. It's entertaining to speculate as to whether you're stupid but arrogant, or an extremely clever deviant. Either way, I do hope that you'll carry on!
-
All good points, but you don't have to cuss.
Why, no. No I don't.
:rasta: ;D :moon:
-
Unfortunately Who, you've made a grave error in stating that graduates have a 48% chance of living a continuously sober life past 4 years, based on the results of the study. The average time since graduation for the sample was 2 years 3 months, not 4 years. For the sake of argument, accepting your claim that 93% of grads are continuously sober for one year from the time of graduation, the proportion of grads continuously sober after an average time since gradation of 2 years 3 months had declined to 48%. Nothing whatsoever included in the study about living a continuously sober life after 4 years. Again, the only information in the study pertaining specifically to those grads in the study who were graduated 4 years or more is the fact that 85.7% of them had maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety some time since their graduation. The first fact that you stated may or may not be true. The fact that most of the individuals in the respondent 85% of the sample were included in the second and third groups of table 2, and both of these groups had a propotion of individuals whose longest period of continuous sobriety since graduation was under 93.1%, the probability of your first statement being true is dubious. Your second statement may be true, but is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever from the study. Your third statement cannot be proven with data from the study, as the length of time since graduation varies greatly from eight months to over 5 years, with an average of 2 years 3 months. Who, responses like this from you are what makes this fun. It's entertaining to speculate as to whether you're stupid but arrogant, or an extremely clever deviant. Either way, I do hope that you'll carry on!
Why? All he's doing is distracting from the discussion, derailing threads and spreading bullshit information in a manner that appears to be sensible. He's good at it and everyone, including myself at times, gives him the opportunity to do it.
-
Again meatwad, you seem to be hung up that these are my personal conclusions. They are not. I dont have access to the raw data and therefore cannot conclude anything other than what the study states. So each time you misinterpret my posts we will have to go back to the study and look at the original tables.
It is important to stick with what the study says and concludes. If you want to create your own data sets then I suggest you speak with the AARC or Hazelden people, what you are trying to do cannot be done without the raw data. I do think you have come a long way in understanding the study and in the midst of our disagreements I think we can both agree that the more people we get to review the study the better.
Lets go back and take a look at what the AARC study says again to refresh our memory:
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%.
1. So for those who finish the program at AARC the graduates can expect a 93.1% chance of staying clean and sober for the first year out.
2. After 4 years the graduates can expect an 85.7% probability that they will be living a clean and sober life.
3. 48% of the entire population stayed continuously clean and sober the whole time since graduation.
AARC Study Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=312005&sid=e0935b42c10d5e208b1222af2cd80d2e&sid=e0935b42c10d5e208b1222af2cd80d2e#p312005)
...
-
Meatwad
:D :D :D :D :D
-
Why?
Meatwad is TheWho. :guesswho: Talking to himself is something he does a lot, and surprisingly people continue to fall for it. :jerry:
-
A recap for parents on this page:
Hey who. Ever heard of "GIGO (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out)". It means that if you feed bullshit in, you get bullshit out.
Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO) is a phrase in the field of computer science or ICT. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output
Another analogy would be to say that you can't turn shit into gold.
So who is verifying the purity of the input data here? I really don't care how you interpret it. I want to know how it was collected and whether the data is accurate. This means independently conducted studies and double blind control groups (otherwise, it's just marketing). I'd also like to see whether AARC's rate of "success" is any higher (or lower) than the spontaneous rate of recovery.
So tell me, Who, and stop spinning around in circles: why exactly am I supposed to trust this data given by a biased party as impartial and accurate?
Furthermore, as I stated above: "Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant."
-
Well actually those claims you made do not come from the study at all.
1. The only figure given in the study for length of time continuously sober since graduation is 48%, and this is dervived from the entire sample, whose length of time since graduation is 2 years 3 months. Nothing in the study at all showing that 93.1% are still sober after 1 year. 93.1% of those graduated under 2 years maintained 12 months or more of continuous sobriety sometime after graduation.
2.85.7% of those graduated 4 years or more experienced 12 months or more of continuous sobriety. No figure is included in the study indicating that grads can expect to live a clean and sober life after 4 years. This is where you've been caught in an outright lie as opposed to a manipulation, as you claimed that your information came from the study when it doesn't. 100% of graduates could be regualar users of drugs and alcohol after 4 years, as there is nothing in the study to disprove this assertion.
3. Looking at table 1, we see that in fact only 10 individuals in the study had been graduated for one year or less. Taking the Who's rate of continuous sobriety for this group, 93.1%, we see that less than 1 indivual out of the 10 in the sample group has resumed drug and alcohol use. Thus 51 individuals out of the total number who have resumed drug and alcohol use, 52% or 52 out of 100 individuals, come from the group of 90 individuals who were graduated more than 1 year. Thus for those in the study graduated more than one year, 51 out of 90 had resumed drug and alcohol use. So 56% of those graduated more than one year were resuming drug and alcohol use, making the Who's claim of a 48% chance of continuous sobriety after 4 years quite false. While no information is included in the study to indicate what probability of continuous sobriety since graduation can be expected for those grads out 4 years or more, it is 46% or less. Didn't make any mention of the probability of your statements being true, but rather the possibility. I'm really starting to lean heavily to my first assessment of you Who, that you're stupid and arrogant rather than a clever deviant. Pull up your socks, old chum!
-
Again meatwad, you seem to be hung up that these are my personal conclusions. They are not. I dont have access to the raw data and therefore cannot conclude anything other than what the study states. So each time you misinterpret my posts we will have to go back to the study and look at the original tables.
It is important to stick with what the study says and concludes. If you want to create your own data sets then I suggest you speak with the AARC or Hazelden people, what you are trying to do cannot be done without the raw data. I do think you have come a long way in understanding the study and in the midst of our disagreements I think we can both agree that the more people we get to review the study the better.
Lets go back and take a look at what the AARC study says again to refresh our memory:
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%.
1. So for those who finish the program at AARC the graduates can expect a 93.1% chance of staying clean and sober for the first year out.
2. After 4 years the graduates can expect an 85.7% probability that they will be living a clean and sober life.
3. 48% of the entire population stayed continuously clean and sober the whole time since graduation.
AARC Study Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=312005&sid=0bb8b6266497903ec9b4550f6c3cb10d&sid=0bb8b6266497903ec9b4550f6c3cb10d#p312005)
...
-
Meatwad is thewho talking to himself. :jerry:
-
Meatwad is thewho talking to himself. :jerry:
Could be. But then again, i've seen people dumb enough to go 200 pages with him debating "statistics" collected in dubious ways.
-
You've posted table 2 a number of times now, presumably in an effort to demonstrate that 93.1% of the group "one year or less" has been continuously sober since the time of graduation, based on the premise that because 93.1% of this group maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety and the individuals had been out of AARC for one year or less. This however, is incorrect as the group in fact contains 19 individuals who had been graduated for more than one year. This inconsistency renders it impossible for you to ascertain how many of the the 93.1% were sober for one year from the time of graduation, or at some other time during the two years subsequent to their graduation. Additionally, in examining the two other groups in table 2, those graduated for 2 to 3 years, and those graduated 4 or more years, we see that the rates for graduates continuously sober for a period of one year or more is 92.9% and 85.7%, respectively. As less than 93.1% of each of these two groups maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety, it is impossible that that 93.1% of either of these groups were continuously sober for one year after graduation. It's as if you didn't even put any effort into putting together your first claim. As for your second claim, that 85.7% of graduates can expect to live a clean and sober life after 4 years, with 52% of graduates already relapsed at an average time of 2 years 3 months after graduation, it is nonsensical.
After 4 years graduates can expect a 52% chance that they will have resumed drug and alcohol use already. Your third statement isn't even a conclusion based on observations of the study, it's just a regurgitation of a fact stated in the study. You're getting lazy.
Keep it up, though Who. You are doing yeoman's service as a lab specimin. Observations of your behaviour help in understanding the behaviour of the various criminals and deviants working for, and supporting AARC. Your small effort will contribute to the demise of AARC. Bless you, Who, for you know not what you do.
-
Meatwad wrote:
You've posted table 2 a number of times now, presumably in an effort to demonstrate that 93.1% of the group "one year or less" has been continuously sober since the time of graduation, based on the premise that because 93.1% of this group maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety and the individuals had been out of AARC for one year or less. This however, is incorrect as the group in fact contains 19 individuals who had been graduated for more than one year. This inconsistency renders it impossible for you to ascertain how many of the the 93.1% were sober for one year from the time of graduation, or at some other time during the two years subsequent to their graduation. Additionally, in examining the two other groups in table 2, those graduated for 2 to 3 years, and those graduated 4 or more years, we see that the rates for graduates continuously sober for a period of one year or more is 92.9% and 85.7%, respectively. As less than 93.1% of each of these two groups maintained one year or more of continuous sobriety, it is impossible that that 93.1% of either of these groups were continuously sober for one year after graduation. It's as if you didn't even put any effort into putting together your first claim.
The 93.1% does not apply to the other two groups, just the first group. Moving to the second and third groups the rate would have to stay the same or go down (which it had), because you cannot improve on the initial 93.1%.
As for your second claim, that 85.7% of graduates can expect to live a clean and sober life after 4 years, with 52% of graduates already relapsed at an average time of 2 years 3 months after graduation, it is nonsensical.
After 4 years graduates can expect a 52% chance that they will have resumed drug and alcohol use already.
Again you are having difficulty understanding the study. There are many people who relapse in life but then continue on to live a clean and sober life. I think the problem you are having is this black and white mentality that seems to be catchy here.
A person can graduate from AARC and relapse along the way and then continue on the rest of their life without using. Or they may relapse a few more times between 5 years and 20 years or at the 30 year mark.
Your third statement isn't even a conclusion based on observations of the study, it's just a regurgitation of a fact stated in the study. You're getting lazy.
It is exactly a regurgitation of the facts stated in the study. That is the point, meatwad. If I wanted to draw my own conclusions then I would need access to the raw data, which presently I do not have. So we are both constricted to the results of the study.
Keep it up, though Who. You are doing yeoman's service as a lab specimin. Observations of your behaviour help in understanding the behaviour of the various criminals and deviants working for, and supporting AARC. Your small effort will contribute to the demise of AARC. Bless you, Who, for you know not what you do.
Sounds like you may have an agenda. Seems we see the results of the study differently and that is why I think we can both agree that we encourage individuals to read it for themselves. The study speaks for itself, but it seems people are hearing or interpreting it a little differently based on this very argument.
...
-
Meatwad, I wouldn’t despair too much on whether you are right or I am right (its not really important) the pure fact that we are having this discussion (or exercise in thinking) is a win win for all of us. It is raising awareness that the study exists and thru our debate we are encouraging people to read the study for themselves. I think we can both agree that there are far too few studies out there and the more information we can get out there to the parents the more informed decisions they will make regarding their family and loved ones.
-
Rock solid credible? A strange mishmash of terms to describe a scientific study of a health care facility. There's only one person so desperate to be heard that he would embarass himself like this. Still at it, Joshy?
I assume that the next communication won't be by telephone. My Special Lady Friend left several messages for Natalie Oldcomer, in an effort to acquire her records from AARC. Never did get a call back. So, I'm hoping that the next communication comes in the form of a singing telegam. Do they send singing telegrams out to Langdon, Joshy?
Glad to see that you're able to gain access to AADAC's vast compilation of personal data on the citizens of Alberta. Funny stuff.
In a way, I admire your pluck. You're willing to shit yourself in an effort to get attention, and you appear to have no qualms about doing it.
I asked several times for copies of records... declined. I was later told it would have to go past their "legal committee" which includes my son's lawyer who is supposed to be and claimed to be independent of the AARC program. How independent is he if he's on the program's "Legal committee"????
So no records. My son also requested his records while he was still in the program and he was told they had been destroyed.
study
Hazelden was contacted. THEY said they "reviewed data provided by AARC" They did not. I repeat... they DID NOT conduct the study.
All parents thinking about placing their child in the AARC program are encouraged to contact me regarding my family's experience with the AARC program.
WYSI "NOT" WYG
-
Rock solid credible? A strange mishmash of terms to describe a scientific study of a health care facility. There's only one person so desperate to be heard that he would embarass himself like this. Still at it, Joshy?
I assume that the next communication won't be by telephone. My Special Lady Friend left several messages for Natalie Oldcomer, in an effort to acquire her records from AARC. Never did get a call back. So, I'm hoping that the next communication comes in the form of a singing telegam. Do they send singing telegrams out to Langdon, Joshy?
Glad to see that you're able to gain access to AADAC's vast compilation of personal data on the citizens of Alberta. Funny stuff.
In a way, I admire your pluck. You're willing to shit yourself in an effort to get attention, and you appear to have no qualms about doing it.
I asked several times for copies of records... declined. I was later told it would have to go past their "legal committee" which includes my son's lawyer who is supposed to be and claimed to be independent of the AARC program. How independent is he if he's on the program's "Legal committee"????
So no records. My son also requested his records while he was still in the program and he was told they had been destroyed.
study
Hazelden was contacted. THEY said they "reviewed data provided by AARC" They did not. I repeat... they DID NOT conduct the study.
All parents thinking about placing their child in the AARC program are encouraged to contact me regarding my family's experience with the AARC program.
WYSI "NOT" WYG
Thank you again for putting things in perspective. If the facility isn't willing to be honest about things like their record keeping, why in the world would anybody give any credence at all to the data provided by them.
Got any other examples why parents shouldn't trust a damn thing AARC has to say? For example, why was your son told you hadn't contacted him? What was the reality? What were you told about contacting him? The reality? What other things did AARC tell you or your son which turned out to be true? See. This all goes to the heart of the cribility of the "witness" providing the data.
Maybe we should ask some former students about AARC's "treatment" and compare it to kids/Straight Inc. From the AARC survivors i've talked to, it seems to almost be a perfect carbon copy. Or maybe we should ask some former students about gang rape... Or about the honesty of the doctor AARC uses to examine the rape cases... Quite a few have come forward with strikingly similar stories about what went on.
You really know who you're defending, Whooter? Is this a fucking game to you?
-
Statistics or no....still the real questions are not being answered as Psy indicated. Sobriety at what price? You see, this is brainwashing, coersive technique we are talking about here. There is no real, honest change made by the individuals placed in these programs....its forced contrition which over a long sustained period becomes viewed as truth by the client. If someone locks you up in a windowless room for 12 hours a day 7 days a week, and proceeds to bludgeon you emotionally and physically about what and who you are....how long before your reality rearranges to the point of believing you are exactly what they say you are? This is why I laugh at people like TheWho because they can never ever truly understand whats so horrific about this program. They dont understand that a greater part of the abuse that occurs physically was actually an escape mechanism from the horror of the methodology. Kids ran for the door and were restrained so they could FEEL something, a break from the monotony of mental torture and isolation......people who havent been there cannot wrap their heads around this idea.
Do you know that when I ran away from that place I was probably the most honest I had ever been? That the brutal honesty I encountered in deciding that death was prefferable to continuing to stay at that horrid place and defile my soul is probably what actually turned my life around forever? Its because I chose to see truth that I found it, not because I was force fed the concept.
There is no stat in this exhaustive exchange that accounts for the number of children placed in these programs who DO NOT actually have a drug problem. How many of these "sober graduates" can be correctly identified as actual addicts? Can you produce a statistic or even a documented single incident of a client refused admission due to the fact that they did not fit the definition of a drug addict upon arrival?
Before you even come near the idea of sober versus using at all, you have to look at the plumbing under the floor...something these advocates have no interest in observing.
As far as paperwork is concerned...of course they are inclined to withhold it....most certainly because the greater part of the documentation available on each client is probably filled out by either an uncertified staff member, or another client. The only useful thing that may be part of an individuals file is probably their intake forms, also probably filled out by other clients, but possibly signed by a staff member. Do you know who did my intake? Two third phasers.....and they kept me in there so long that they already had me admitting to doing drugs I had never even seen before. You wont find those nice tidbits in your marketing brochure. They were going to make me into an addict so they could make me sober.
I strongly urge these advocates to take an honest look at what actual survivors have to say about the experience and try to envision it. I am 33 with a family and a full life, I have no other reason to share my experiences with these methods than to give an honest account of what I was subjected to. What I saw countless countless others subjected to. There is no bone left to pick, only the bare bones truth about the nature of the method, which no matter how you slice it.....will always be flawed.
:hug:
-
ITT: Its funny how this turned out. cant stop laughing.
-
ITT: Its funny how this turned out. cant stop laughing.
in that the people who antagonized AARC people are in hiding. Funny what happens when you might end up having to be accountable for your dishonest lies.
-
ITT: Its funny how this turned out. cant stop laughing.
in that the people who antagonized AARC people are in hiding. Funny what happens when you might end up having to be accountable for your dishonest lies.
Ok, I find this post disturbing and will have to reply later.
-
How did it turn out? I'm in regular contact with former inmates, many of whom were terrified of the consequences of revealing the truth about AARC. The unassailabale truth is that AARC is an offshoot of a phenomenon rooted in criminality. The dismal failure of the alliance of crooks and crazies that tried to launch AARC originally as Kids produced a much more cynical and devious entity, but one that is still rooted in deception. The people with whom I have come in contact who were subjected to the criminal assault on their rights by the Wizard of Vause and his minions have their hands full living their lives, but they know the truth. What is the truth?
A deviant fraud established a program in a facility that operates entirely outside of the law. This program is at it's core anti-human and, lest we forget, illegal. Everyday in AARC hive-minded amateurs break the law by performing activities that are legally restricted to health-care professionals. Every night newcomers are illegally held against their will in the homes of unlicensed de-facto foster parents. AARC is fraud. AARC is medical malpractise. AARC is kidnapping. AARC is a disgrace to the people of Calgary.
-
I am looking to speak to a graduate of AARC
could you email me at [email protected]
I work for a local news agency and would like to hear/document some experiences
It can remain anonymous if you are worried
tx
-
I am looking to speak to a graduate of AARC
could you email me at [email protected]
I work for a local news agency and would like to hear/document some experiences
It can remain anonymous if you are worried
tx
Danger, Bart Simpson!!!!!
-
cxuri is on a fishing trip. This is not a journalist. Just another AARColyte pretending to be something they are not. Like any good AARColyte, this person is sadly lacking in intelligence and ability. The childish egocentrism is immediately apparent in the total lack of capacity to understand that the rest of the world is not as ignorant as the AARColyte.
-
I am suspicious of this. I know Colleen and this isn't the email address I have.
I will speak to her and confirm if this is her email and if she posted on fornits.
Stand by.