Independent Study Shows Success.

[Whooter]

Are you really trying to use the argument that an absence of evidence is the same as proof? To follow that logic allows me to make the following claim: "Whooter attacks rapes and murders small animals. Until he can prove otherwise this remains true."

Are you following?

Exactly.  This is the same as saying the study is invalid.  Unless you are a reader of fornits the words have no impact on the study itself.

Can you point to any posting I have made where I made any such claim? You cannot, and are in fact lying again. What we have establishes is that the marketing tool in question was never published or peer reviewed. We have also concluded that the marketing survey was conducted by a person on a programs payroll representing a major conflict of interest. These are the facts, everything else is just speculation and wishful thinking on your part.

No, you continue to lie here, Bruce.  Who is on the programs payroll?  You have failed to provide this persons name and proof.

If the science behind the marketing survey is sound, then the return on the investment should be quite substantial. Why would that be a deterent to publishing unless the science was not sound?

Lets say they have this study and trying to decide whether to publish it or not.  They need to budget a certain amount to polish up the wording for publication.  Decide which publications to target.  They need to anticipate costs to defend the study etc.  Then they need to assess to see if the costs are justified i.e. they can see a return on their investment.  If they cannot then they would decide to target their present audience and use it in their marketing program.  Why would anyone spend the money?

Conducted by a person with a major conflict of interest and in clear violation of the APA's own standards. Can you explain that?

The study was overseen by a third party review board which looks for conflicts of interest.  That is their job.  If you feel they missed something then you should contact them.  You and I cannot sit here and dictate what was done or not.

I'm aware it's an old conversation, and I'm aware of what your current claim is. What I'm trying to determine is why you changed your mind? Did you at some point discover you were wrong in your estimates?

I might have, I would need to go back and read the conversation we were having at that time, 5 years ago?  Bur for todays conversation I have shown you that you were in error and provided a link to support my estimate.
The American Psychiatric Association - with more than 38,000 members in the U.S., Canada, and worldwide.....
Link



...

[Whooter]

Furthermore, parents and adolescents reported significant adolescent improvement on
communication, family relationships, and compliance by the point of discharge. It seems that
during treatment adolescents experience broad improvement, across many areas of functioning.

I wonder if there's an asterisk with a disclaimer detailing the conflict of interest between the marketing tool conductor and those who sponsored it?

You can check for yourself:

Link

But WIRB would not have approved the study to begin with if there was a conflict which they felt would affect the validity of the study.  So in either case an asterisk would not be needed.  I think we can agree here.



...

[Dysfunction Junction]

Let's keep in mind that Whooter has no understanding of human research when we read his drivel.  His responses are false and intended to mislead readers.

Let's have a look at what constitutes a conflict of interest in the research setting, shall we?

Reportable Interests means any personal interest or relationship that would reasonably appear to affect or be affected by the research, including but not limited to those with monetary value, such as salary or other payments for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria); equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests); and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights), as further described in Section III below.

III. Disclosure of Reportable Interests
Principal Investigators and Key Personnel should disclose the Reportable Interests related to a particular research project involving human subjects not only for themselves, but also for a spouse or domestic partner and dependent children. Reportable Interests include:
a. compensation for services (e.g., consulting fees or honoraria), or in-kind payments, other than from a primary employer, in the prior calendar year and projected over the next twelve months; (EDITOR NOTE: BEHRENS WAS ACTIVELY CONSULTING FOR AEG AT THE TIME OF THIS WORK)
b. royalty income or the right to receive future royalties under a patent, license, or copyright, if the research project is directly related to the licensed technology or work;
c. equity interests (e.g., stocks, stock options, or other ownership interests, including equity holdings the value of which cannot readily be determined by reference to publicly available prices);
d. intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights);
e. gifts or funds available to an investigator from a sponsor of the research in addition to the funding for the current research project;
f. funding expected to significantly exceed the projected costs of conducting the current research project; and
g. another personal interest or relationship that may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Obvioulsy Behrens was in violation of several of these COI rules and did not disclose her COI to the WIRB or they would not have issued certificates for this work.  What a surprise!  Aspen and Behrens lied.  Who woulda thunk it?

Obviously this is why this work has never been reviewed or published.  It fails on its face before you even open the binder!

It's apparent that this information bout Behrens' financial ties to Aspen was not disclosed.

This is also likely why Behrens used an IRB from another country.

The IRB cannot act on what it doesn't know. Whooter's argument falls flat because, using his logic, we can safely say that no underaged drinkers have ever imbibed at bars because the bartenders check their IDs.  Clearly this leaves out the fact that kids use fake IDs, just like Behrens did not provide proper documentation for the IRB.  They didn't know the financial ties because nobody told them and they aren't even based in the US.

I see now that Whooter is lying again about the American Psychiatric Association whom he claims this work was presented before.  That's an outright lie that he has been caught in already in another thread where he was forced to admit he was lying about it.

[Whooter]

It's apparent that this information bout Behrens' financial ties to Aspen was not disclosed.

This is also likely why Behrens used an IRB from another country.

The IRB cannot act on what it doesn't know. Whooter's argument falls flat because, using his logic, we can safely say that no underaged drinkers have ever imbibed at bars because the bartenders check their IDs. Clearly this leaves out the fact that kids use fake IDs, just like Behrens did not provide proper documentation for the IRB. They didn't know the financial ties because nobody told them and they aren't even based in the US.

Western Institutional Review Board,  3535 SEVENTH AVE SW • OLYMPIA, WA  (The last I checked Olympia Washington was part of the US.)

And, just to satisfy my own curiosity, I have contacted the oversight committee, I am currently awaiting a response. When I get a response from them I will be contacting the APA and I will attempt to get a clearer image of what exactly presenting a study at one of their conferences means, and why they did not see a conflict of interest between Ellen Behrens profiting from this "scientific" study that she conducted. I am also going to find out if anyone there even accepts this study as good, quality science; I've read it, and it seems like a very shoddy analysis of information to me.

Gonzo is going to answer all your questions regarding conflicts of interest on this study, DJ, after he hears back from WIRB and the APA.  You just need to be patient.  Don’t be too tough on him.  In the mean time we need to rely on the facts at hand which is that the study is valid until proven otherwise by an overview board.

I see now that Whooter is lying again about the American Psychiatric Association whom he claims this work was presented before. That's an outright lie that he has been caught in already in another thread where he was forced to admit he was lying about it.

Here is a link you can check for yourself:

Link

Report of Findings from a Multi-Center Study of Youth Outcomes
in Private Residential Treatment

Presented at the 114th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association at New Orleans, Louisiana, August, 2006

lol



...

[RobertBruce]

Exactly. This is the same as saying the study is invalid. Unless you are a reader of fornits the words have no impact on the study itself.

You're still missing it, apparently on purpose. You claimed that the whole world (aside from fornits) had accepted the study as being valid. When I ask you for proof you claim the absence of negative comments proves your claim. You are using a lack of evidence as proof. This is never a valid argument and only shows that you cannot prove your claim.

No, you continue to lie here, Bruce. Who is on the programs payroll? You have failed to provide this persons name and proof.

Ellen Behrens. The links regarding her connections and monies received from Aspen have already been provided. Scroll back a few pages.

Why would anyone spend the money?

Again, because if the science were sound and industry under such constant criticsm would want to broadcast the information as far and wide as possible. What you're talking about is akin to the tobacco industry conducting a study proving that cigarettes are suddenly not harmful, and then deciding not to publish their study. The only reason they wouldn't is if the study was suspect. Which in the case of your marketing tool, it is.

[Whooter]

You're still missing it, apparently on purpose. You claimed that the whole world (aside from fornits) had accepted the study as being valid. When I ask you for proof you claim the absence of negative comments proves your claim. You are using a lack of evidence as proof. This is never a valid argument and only shows that you cannot prove your claim.

It may be but it does not take away from the fact that you have not brought any evidence of negative response to the study outside of fornits.  The study was presented to the APA yearly convention.  We need to stay with what we know as fact until evidence is brought to the table which shows otherwise.

Ellen Behrens. The links regarding her connections and monies received from Aspen have already been provided. Scroll back a few pages.

You keep avoiding this which shows you do not have any evidence of conflict of interest.  You are assuming  WIRB was not doing their job in oversight and/or people not disclosing information about themselves you need to demonstrate proof which you have not.  Unless WIRB pulls their support of this study then it needs to stand as it is, you and I can not overturn the study.  You can personally decide it is invalid and that is okay, we can all decide for ourselves.

Again, because if the science were sound and industry under such constant criticsm would want to broadcast the information as far and wide as possible. What you're talking about is akin to the tobacco industry conducting a study proving that cigarettes are suddenly not harmful, and then deciding not to publish their study. The only reason they wouldn't is if the study was suspect. Which in the case of your marketing tool, it is.

Actually they would probably want to get the information out to the smokers.  The smoker market would not be those who read medical journals.  They would start marketing the findings targeting their customers who are the lower class to lower middle class.  This would be the best return on their investment, I think we can all agree here.



...

[RobertBruce]

The study was overseen by a third party review board which looks for conflicts of interest. That is their job. If you feel they missed something then you should contact them. You and I cannot sit here and dictate what was done or not.

What we can do is view the standards the APA uses to determine conflict of interest. We can also view the connection Ellen had to Aspen and clearly see she was in violation of those same standards. DJ's analogy regarding kids in bars is correct. According to you, because the drinking age in the US is 21, no one under that age ever drinks in a bar. Given that Ms. Behrens has several connections to Aspen, and given that the standards show it's a violation, and given that you have lied about it in an attempt to cover it up, chances are there was a violation, and she did not fully disclose. Do you have any evidence that suggest otherwise?

I have shown you that you were in error and provided a link to support my estimate

What was I in error regarding Whooter?

But WIRB would not have approved the study to begin with if there was a conflict which they felt would affect the validity of the study. So in either case an asterisk would not be needed. I think we can agree here.

Not at all. Once again you are incorrect. Let me ask you, if Ms. Behrens had not disclosed would there have been an issue?

[RobertBruce]

It may be but it does not take away from the fact that you have not brought any evidence of negative response to the study outside of fornits

You keep trying to make this about others Whooter. It's about you, and your claim that you have yet to back up. You claimed that the whole world, aside from fornits, had accepted this marketing tool. Can you prove it? Remember, an absence of evidence is not the same as proof.

You keep avoiding this which shows you do not have any evidence of conflict of interest.

What do you believe I'm avoiding? It's been firmly established that Ms. Behrens has several connections to Aspen prior to the marketing tool being conducted. According to the APA's standards there can only be two explinations. She either didn't fully disclose, or an exception was made. Do you have any supporting links showing why an exception would be made?

Actually they would probably want to get the information out to the smokers. The smoker market would not be those who read medical journals. They would start marketing the findings targeting their customers who are the lower class to lower middle class. This would be the best return on their investment, I think we can all agree here.

You keep attempting to speak for others. Why is that? As for your response, you prove our point. By not publishing it and only releasing it to their existing customers, they avoid peer review and criticsm. Since the science is junk that's their intended goal anyway. Same situation with this marketing tool. Thank you for proving that Aspen is afraid of publishing it because they know it won't hold up.

[Whooter]

What we can do is view the standards the APA uses to determine conflict of interest. We can also view the connection Ellen had to Aspen and clearly see she was in violation of those same standards. DJ's analogy regarding kids in bars is correct. According to you, because the drinking age in the US is 21, no one under that age ever drinks in a bar. Given that Ms. Behrens has several connections to Aspen, and given that the standards show it's a violation, and given that you have lied about it in an attempt to cover it up, chances are there was a violation, and she did not fully disclose. Do you have any evidence that suggest otherwise?

Chances are isn’t good enough.  According to your logic chances are there was a person on the smoking study that smoked cigarettes and therefore we can conclude that smoking is not harmful.

We are a few people from fornits,Bruce, we cannot validate or invalidate any study.  Gonzotherapy is contacting WIRB with the information you are speaking of and we will see what WIRB has to say.  They have the power to pull the plug on the study, not you or I.  I don’t see any conflict of interest and as far as my searches go outside of fornits no one else does either.  The only ones who I have heard that have a problem with it are here on fornits.

Not at all. Once again you are incorrect. Let me ask you, if Ms. Behrens had not disclosed would there have been an issue?

If she had not disclosed her financial statements then WIRB would not have approved the study.  The oversight committee doesn’t take peoples word for anything they check their financial records.  If she was getting an income from Aspen then the oversight committee would have seen it.  That’s what they do.



...

[RobertBruce]

Chances are isn’t good enough. According to your logic chances are there was a person on the smoking study that smoked cigarettes and therefore we can conclude that smoking is not harmful.

You still aren't getting it, again I believe intentionally. If this were a study done by the tobacco industry it would be akin to the person conducting it being a tobacco farmer, whose crops were sold to cigarette manufacturers. Would that in your mind represent a conflict of interest?

I don’t see any conflict of interest and as far as my searches go outside of fornits no one else does either. The only ones who I have heard that have a problem with it are here on fornits.

What would according to you, (we already know what the APA's standards are) be considered a conflict of interest? As far as other people go you're ignoring that this marketing tool was never published for that exact reason. They only sent it out to people who were already on board with it. They don't want unbiased people viewing this thing because of just how suspect it really is.

If she had not disclosed her financial statements then WIRB would not have approved the study.

[/quote][/quote]

And you know this how exactly? Please cite your source.

[Whooter]

Chances are isn’t good enough. According to your logic chances are there was a person on the smoking study that smoked cigarettes and therefore we can conclude that smoking is not harmful.

You still aren't getting it, again I believe intentionally. If this were a study done by the tobacco industry it would be akin to the person conducting it being a tobacco farmer, whose crops were sold to cigarette manufacturers. Would that in your mind represent a conflict of interest?

I don’t see any conflict of interest and as far as my searches go outside of fornits no one else does either. The only ones who I have heard that have a problem with it are here on fornits.

What would according to you, (we already know what the APA's standards are) be considered a conflict of interest? As far as other people go you're ignoring that this marketing tool was never published for that exact reason. They only sent it out to people who were already on board with it. They don't want unbiased people viewing this thing because of just how suspect it really is.

If she had not disclosed her financial statements then WIRB would not have approved the study.

And you know this how exactly? Please cite your source.

I know it because the study got approved.  If there was any financial conflicts with Aspen it would had turned up on her financial statements.  lol

Court case #239:

Judge: "WIRB, Did Ellen Brehrens have any financial interest with Aspen?
WIRB: "No, your honor"
Judge: "How do you know that"?
WIRB: "We asked her your honor and she said she did not."
Judge:  "Thats good enough for me, you run a tight ship WIRB, good work.   Case closed.... Next on the docket!"

lol



...

[RobertBruce]

I know it because the study got approved. If there was any financial conflicts with Aspen it would had turned up on her financial statements. lol

So again, according to you no teenager in the United States is ever able to buy alcohol. That's a bold statement, I'm not sure it's grounded in much truth though. In your mind is it even possible she didn't disclose?

Court case #239:

Judge: "WIRB, Did Ellen Brehrens have any financial interest with Aspen?
WIRB: "No, your honor"
Judge: "How do you know that"?
WIRB: "We asked her your honor and she said she did not."
Judge: "Thats good enough for me, you run a tight ship WIRB, good work. Case closed.... Next on the docket!"

lol

Prosecuter: Your honor I'd like to request that you recuse yourself due to your gross negligence and overwhelming incompetence. The person on trial simply says so and without looking at a scrap of evidence you take it face value? Is it possible the person is lying? While we're at it are you either on their payroll, or are you simply a moron?

Judge: You're out of order, I haven't seen any evidence suggeesting Ms. Behrens had any connection to or received any compensation from AEG prior to her marketing tool being conducted.....

Prosecuter: Oh you mean like this....

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.

Judge: Oh shucks....case reopened I guess. Clearly Ms. Behrens did have several major conflicts of interests in relation to AEG. Who knew there would be evidence and stuff?

Prosecuter: Idiot.

[Whooter]

So again, according to you no teenager in the United States is ever able to buy alcohol. That's a bold statement, I'm not sure it's grounded in much truth though.

In your mind is it even possible she didn't disclose?

No its not.  It would be on her financial statements, Bruce.  When you file your taxes you dont just jot down a figure on the back of a napkin and send it in.  They need documents 1040's 1099's etc.  WIRB isnt going to just ask if they have a conflict of interest they are going to ask for your records and then they will review them.  These need to match what Apsen claims they paid you on their financial records and what was reported to the IRS.  They all need to add up.

WIRB has guidelines that they go by that defines conflict of interest.  You can receive payment from the company in the past, but it cant be within the last 365 days, for example and the amount you profit cannot exceed a certain amount etc. etc.etc.



...

[RobertBruce]

No its not. It would be on her financial statements, Bruce. When you file your taxes you dont just jot down a figure on the back of a napkin and send it in. They need documents 1040's 1099's etc. WIRB isnt going to just ask if they have a conflict of interest they are going to ask for your records and then they will review them. These need to match what Apsen claims they paid you on their financial records and what was reported to the IRS. They all need to add up.

WIRB has guidelines that they go by that defines conflict of interest. You can receive payment from the company in the past, but it cant be within the last 365 days, for example and the amount you profit cannot exceed a certain amount etc. etc.etc.

So now you're not only claiming that no teenager ever buys alcohol in the US, and no adult ever cheats on their taxes. My goodness Whooter, what sort of ivory tower world do you live in?

You don't seem able to explain away all the work she did for AEG, so since that violates the APA's standards, and according to you she didn't lie, why did they approve her marketing tool?

[Whooter]

No its not. It would be on her financial statements, Bruce. When you file your taxes you dont just jot down a figure on the back of a napkin and send it in. They need documents 1040's 1099's etc. WIRB isnt going to just ask if they have a conflict of interest they are going to ask for your records and then they will review them. These need to match what Apsen claims they paid you on their financial records and what was reported to the IRS. They all need to add up.

WIRB has guidelines that they go by that defines conflict of interest. You can receive payment from the company in the past, but it cant be within the last 365 days, for example and the amount you profit cannot exceed a certain amount etc. etc.etc.

So now you're not only claiming that no teenager ever buys alcohol in the US, and no adult ever cheats on their taxes. My goodness Whooter, what sort of ivory tower world do you live in?

You don't seem able to explain away all the work she did for AEG, so since that violates the APA's standards, and according to you she didn't lie, why did they approve her marketing tool?

Bruce, I dont even think the hardest core anti-program person is going to believe that you know she cheated on her taxes.  Thats a stretch even for you to believe.  lol.

So we have a study which was overseen by a third party review board and you claim that one person on the team cheated on her taxes so this invalidates the study...Hmmm okay.  Good luck with that one.



...