Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/

[Troll Control]

There was a third party oversight committee which watched over the study and insured there was no conflict of interest.

No, there wasn't.  There was an outside group that approved the format of the questionaire, nothing more.  If this were true, I'm sure you could post a link and excerpt.

If you see flaws with this you need to contact the oversight committee

There is no oversight committe.

You also have posted numerous times about a fictitious "one year follow-up study."  That doesn't exist either.

[Troll Control]

You have absolutely no evidence or actual on hands on person that can verify what your saying.

I said the "study" wasn't peer-reviewed or published by a reputable journal.  Obviously, if you could provide proof it was, that would make my point unverifiable.  I'll be waiting for your link to its peer review and publication.  Until then, the only evidence available (the "study" itself) says the opposite of what you're saying, so it looks like you just made the rest up.

There appears to be continued confusion around the study conducted by Ellen Behrens. While she and other industry pundits claim it was an Independent Study, nothing could be further from the truth.

1999 Behrens Clinical Director for Youth care
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens

2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html

2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm
 
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml

2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml
"We also tried to eliminate all students discharged from the programs before graduation because the clinical staff thought it was actually an inappropriate placement, or when they felt the program couldn't be helpful to the child. As a result, the operating assumption of the study is that the students included in the analyzed data were those who were appropriately placed."

http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5494.shtml
Comment: ....It would be helpful to know more about Dr. Behren’s research design and methodology. I presume she drew a random sample for the study; otherwise, the results cannot be generalized to the school/residential population at large.
Jerry W Clark
Dba Behavioral Services Ltd
Reno, NV

No Jerry, she didn't. Families from 9 Aspen programs participated in her "study". She and all her staff have links to Aspen programs.
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc
viewtopic.php?p=215887#p215887

Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement:  Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc

2006 Behrens is a contributor to NATSAPs "Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5456.shtml

ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP APPLAUDS STUDY
(April 26, 2007) According to an article on PRNewswire, Elliot Sainer, President of Aspen Education Group (AEG), Cerritos, CA, announced "AEG is extremely pleased to learn of the very positive findings from the final phase of our industry's first long-term, multi-year clinical study on the effectiveness of private therapeutic residential programs for adolescents. AEG will continue to advocate for new industry research that will further illustrate and promote the best practices and methodologies and enhance our industry's abilities to produce positive and long-lasting results in adolescent therapeutic education."

I guess he was pleased. He paid her to present AEG in the best possible light.

This so-called "study" is pure bologna.  Methods are bad, all kinds of conflicts, lead "researcher" failed to disclose working for the study target, etc., etc., etc.  This industry won't allow scientific examination of it because it would then be proven to be totally ineffective and against ethical and professional standards.  Plain and simple.  This is why they try to pass off drivel like Behrens' as "research" rather than have a real study done.

qft, brother.  don't believe the hype.

[Whooter]

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.  If you still feel that the study is invalid then you can speak to the APA and the review board who audited and approved the study.  If they side with you then come back and make your argument here.

A person unaffiliated with the Framingham Heart Study cannot just invalidate a study and say "Phsst, this study is crap, look there was a doctor involved with the research who use to perform heart transplants and another who is a doctor.  This is a total conflict of interest, someone get me a cigarette and a cheeseburger!!!"  lol



...

[psy]

DJ, what Whooter is doing is transparent to anybody with half a brain who reads this.  There is no point in further arguing.  Maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread.

[Whooter]

DJ, what Whooter is doing is transparent to anybody with half a brain who reads this.  There is no point in further arguing.  Maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread.

What is transparent and evident is that I have provided links to the facts.   You know the study is bullet proof so you want to move on.  The study was approved by an oversight committee and presented to American Psychological Association.  A couple of anonymous posters on the internet cant invalidate it.  You would have to try to discredit the committee first and then try to go after the study next and then present your finding to the APA.  You cant do it because it is a valid study.

You or I cant sit here and judge the details or invalidate it. We dont have access to any of the details. That is why they have professionals do it.  If there was a flaw or conflict of interest they would have found it because that is what they do.



...

[Troll Control]

There was a third party oversight committee which watched over the study and insured there was no conflict of interest.

No, there wasn't.  There was an outside group that approved the format of the questionaire, nothing more.  If this were true, I'm sure you could post a link and excerpt.

If you see flaws with this you need to contact the oversight committee

There is no oversight committe.

You also have posted numerous times about a fictitious "one year follow-up study."  That doesn't exist either.

"Bulletproof"?   That's funny.  ^^Three bleeding bullet holes right there^^ that can't be plugged.

I hear ya, Psy.  It's tedious.  Anytime Whooter would like to post the proof of any of these items, we can come back to it then.  Until then, these items remain to be Whooter's unsubstantiated opinions only.

[Whooter]

Like I said you will have to discredit the review board by stating your case, DJ.  If you feel strongly that they just reviewed a questionnaire then make that challenge... ask them if they do the same thing when reviewing studies for the pharmaceutical industry.  There is an independent study, an oversight committee and a presentation to the American Psychological Association (APA).  You need to get one of these to come forward or back down, but this hasnt happened and the study has been standing 4 years.

Sorry DJ, your singled handed anonymous rant on the internet isnt going to invalidate a study, lol.  But it is fun to watch.

Here lets take another look:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006.  If you still feel that the study is invalid then you can speak to the APA and the review board who audited and approved the study.  If they side with you then come back and make your argument here.

A person unaffiliated with the Framingham Heart Study cannot just invalidate a study and say "Phsst, this study is crap, look there was a doctor involved with the research who use to perform heart transplants and another who is a doctor.  This is a total conflict of interest, someone get me a cigarette and a cheeseburger!!!"  lol



...

[Troll Control]

Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

Funny, I clicked on that link and there's absolutely zero content related to the study you cited.  Zero.  No "approval."  No "audit."  No nothing. This will have to be resolved before we move on to your other claims.

Sorry, Whooter, but you can't fool people like this.

FWIW, the Framingham Heart Study is peer reviewed and published in multiple medical journals, two things that the Behrens whitepaper is clearly not.  You proved my point, Whooter!

Your final line should have said "Someone get me a peer review and a publication!" Lols.  I'm sure you'll come up with something. ; )

[Whooter]

All the links worked for me, I just checked them.  If you dont think the study was conducted by Canyon Research or you feel there was no oversight by WIRB then you can call them.  If you feel that the study wasnt presented at the annual APA conference the feel free to contact them.

I can see that you at least feel the study is bullet proof because you have not been able to dispute the study findings which is a big step, so now you are working to discredit the people who conducted the study and found nothing there so you need to find fault with the review board... good luck with that.  We will all be waiting for the review boards ruling on your findings.

Let us know.



...

[Troll Control]

Oh, the link to WIRB worked, it just doesn't mention the study or even Canyon Research.  Isn't that weird, if they oversaw the study as you claim?  I'm guessing you can't substantiate this claim at all, so you're trying to wiggle out of it.  

Just post the link to the WIRB page/content that says they "oversaw" and "audited" the Behrens "study."  Looking at their site, it seems they never even heard of this study, much less had "oversight" or "audited" it.  You just made that up and now you're flailing.  

When you can support your claim about the WIRB and can provide the "one year follow-up" you keep touting, then we can move on to whatever else you want to explore.  Until then, here we stay.  You made a lot of claims, so let's just go one by one.  I'm sure you have the proof.  Don't hold out on us, lol.

[Whooter]

Oh, the link to WIRB worked, it just doesn't mention the study or even Canyon Research.  Isn't that weird, if they oversaw the study as you claim?  I'm guessing you can't substantiate this claim at all, so you're trying to wiggle out of it.  

Just post the link to the WIRB page/content that says they "oversaw" and "audited" the Behrens "study."  Looking at their site, it seems they never even heard of this study, much less had "oversight" or "audited" it.  You just made that up and now you're flailing.  

When you can support your claim about the WIRB and can provide the "one year follow-up" you keep touting, then we can move on to whatever else you want to explore.  Until then, here we stay.  You made a lot of claims, so let's just go one by one.  I'm sure you have the proof.  Don't hold out on us, lol.

lol sorry DJ, you are all over the place.  You will just have to call them I am sure they dont want to publish a list of their clients on the internet or competitors to see.

click here

Down at the Bottom you will read:

To read more about this study, visit Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study

Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.



...

[DannyB II]

Whooter.  Once again you claim to have posted independent, peer reviewed studies without actually having done so.  No program can honestly claim a 80% success rate and any one that does is lying.  Any honest addiction professional will tell you that.

And you keep posting the Behrens study.  Jesus christ.  That's been blown to shreds time and time again.  It wasn't independent.  It was a study that was funded by Aspen and conducted by a former staffer who currently refers to Aspen programs.  Can that get any further from independent?

Here's a post I have bookmarked blowing the study away:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0

And let's get back to Maia. Great article. I don't agree with everything she said but mostly I agree. Programs can easily make bad habits worse by indoctrinating kids into the idea that such bad behaviors are a part of their being, a disease, and cannot be changed.  It teaches that whatever you do in life, your ability or inability to avoid drugs/alcohol is not a choice but something that is fated to be by a higher power.  It's a doctrine that teaches the futility of the exercise of free will.  Like Maia says "fatalism".  One is supposed to "let go and let god (interpreted through your program representative)" because the exercise of free will is futile.  It gives kids an excuse to give into their desires because they are told they are beyond their control (without the holy program).

Because they're also told those who are on drugs cannot control their behavior and are not responsible (it's the disease), they're also encouraged to act out, knowing that later they can simply follow the steps and be absolved of their sins.  Personal responsibility goes out the window.  Healthy feelings of guilt over hurting others goes out the window.  Any amends are a selfish act of self "healing" or self preservation rather than out of genuine remorse.  It's sick.  It's bad enough when people are duped into it.  It's even worse when kids are forced into it and have this crap shoved into their heads which, as Maia points out, is causing very very real damage.  The philosophy is poison.


**which no matter how much Maia wants to pretend, is fundamentally inseparable from AA and it's relatives.

Psy,
this is where you are wrong, the only place where it is mentioned that Alcohol is a disease is in "The Doctors Opinion" by Dr. Silkworth. Bill Wilson actually had conflicting ideas about this study because he felt that people would not take responsibility for there problem, as you are saying.
Another thing Psy that I would like to explain, many folks"I" know do not believe in this "disease thought process" it is fatalistic, you never get better. We are not talking cancer necessarily but we are talking about a affliction that if used again can cause problems even death. This is very separable out in the real world concerning AA but I guess as I'm learning more it is not inseparable, the way it is being taught in 12 step programs.

[DannyB II]

DJ, what Whooter is doing is transparent to anybody with half a brain who reads this.  There is no point in further arguing.  Maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread.

Thank you. I asked this several posts ago, though I don't agree with you on your assessment of what Whooter is doing.
I still think we need to get back to the topic.

[Troll Control]

Oh, the link to WIRB worked, it just doesn't mention the study or even Canyon Research.  Isn't that weird, if they oversaw the study as you claim?  I'm guessing you can't substantiate this claim at all, so you're trying to wiggle out of it.  

Just post the link to the WIRB page/content that says they "oversaw" and "audited" the Behrens "study."  Looking at their site, it seems they never even heard of this study, much less had "oversight" or "audited" it.  You just made that up and now you're flailing.  

When you can support your claim about the WIRB and can provide the "one year follow-up" you keep touting, then we can move on to whatever else you want to explore.  Until then, here we stay.  You made a lot of claims, so let's just go one by one.  I'm sure you have the proof.  Don't hold out on us, lol.

lol sorry DJ, you are all over the place.  You will just have to call them I am sure they dont want to publish a list of their clients on the internet or competitors to see.

click here

Down at the Bottom you will read:

To read more about this study, visit Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study

Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.



...

Soooo...now you're linking to Aspen Education to show that the WIRB "oversaw" a Canyon Research study?  Lols.  I guess now that you have been shown to be making it up you have to try to change gears.  The WIRB never "oversaw" or "audited" the Behrens work, period.  I think we both knew this, but you keep hacking away when you're pinned down.

I did call the WIRB and asked if they were a third party auditor for this study and they said "No, we weren't."  I asked if their website reflected all of the projects they've untertaken and they siad "Yes, it does.  Just use the search feature to pull up any of our research."

Go to their site and search for "Canyon" or "Behrens" and guess what you get?  "Your search returned 0 results."

Ha, Ha, Ha...  Nice try, Whooter, but you're not fooling anyone here.  Just provide the proof where the WIRB states they "audited" or "oversaw" this project as you keep claiming and we can move on.  A link to Aspen Education just doesn't suffice.  They make a lot of false claims, as we all know.

As I said before, the WIRB seems never to have even heard of this study.

[Froderik]

This THREAD is increasing my drug "risk."