Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

[Guest guest]

Oh let's not get too excited about another pile of garbage. This is

the exact same stuff McNally wrote about last year, so let's just

take a gander at his RCT research.

Now Doc Bledsoe, are you telling this listgroup you're going around

the country slamming CISM for FREE? Now Doc.........let's be careful

here.

but on with the research

Title: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for

victims of acute burn trauma.

Type: RCT

Journal: Brit J Psych, 171 (1997)

Authors: Bisson, , , Bannister

132 adult burn victims entered into study

Randomly assigned to a group that received PD or a control group

that did not.

They were subsequently evaluated by an assessor blind to PD status

at 3 & 13 months.

Conclusion: 26% of the PD group had PTSD at 13 months compared to 9%

of the control group

¡§The PDs adhered to the structure first described by (1983)

adapted for use with either an individual or a couple. The

facilitator proceeded through a seven-phase semi-structured

approach.¡¨

ƒÞ Debriefed group scored higher on whether other people were

involved in the accident

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more serious injuries

ƒÞ Debriefed group also had higher initial sores on

psychopathology

ƒÞ Shorter period of time between the burn trauma and

debriefing session

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more financial difficulties

ƒÞ Some sessions were as short as 40 minutes

ƒÞ Bisson describes debriefing as ¡§intense imaginal exposure to

a traumatic incident¡¨

Now I have no idea what the hell Mr. Bisson and company were doing

in the burn unit debriefing burn victims, by the way, would someone

please tell these dimwits that people in the burn unit need fluids,

02 and morphine, but when the debriefed group had more serious

injuries, more financial problems, and higher psychopathology, that

sure as heck doesn't sound like randomization, and the session is

desbribed as " intense imaginal exposure to a traumatic event " , then

someone needs a course in ethics and common sense, but this study

has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with CISM.

I can see it now.........a family of four is trapped inside a

burning car and the good Dr.Bisson runs up to the car and starts

some form of " Psychological Debriefing " that is , and when the

family burns to death as the good Dr. is debriefing them, then it's

a race to see who can add another notch to their publishing gun by

writing an article slamming CISM.

The so-called gold standards being quoted to slam CISM are a joke.

This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention, CISM or

CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense dislike of Jeff and Everly.

What Dr. Bledsoe doesn't tell you about the RCT by Rose regarding

victims of vilent crime is what the authors say about their study;

ƒÞ It is important to clarify that our study does not speak to

the efficacy of group debriefing.

ƒÞ The sample contained substantial subgroups with high levels

of previous psychopathology, and of previous assaults in childhood.

ƒÞ It is possible that individual one-session debriefings are

insufficient to bring about changes among those with previous psych

or trauma history

Boys and girls, much of the information regarding CISM being

presented on this listserver isn't the whole truth or a twisted

version of the truth. Either tell the whole story and we'll have an

open dialogue or stop spreading half-truths!

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

Oh let's not get too excited about another pile of garbage. This is

the exact same stuff McNally wrote about last year, so let's just

take a gander at his RCT research.

Now Doc Bledsoe, are you telling this listgroup you're going around

the country slamming CISM for FREE? Now Doc.........let's be careful

here.

but on with the research

Title: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for

victims of acute burn trauma.

Type: RCT

Journal: Brit J Psych, 171 (1997)

Authors: Bisson, , , Bannister

132 adult burn victims entered into study

Randomly assigned to a group that received PD or a control group

that did not.

They were subsequently evaluated by an assessor blind to PD status

at 3 & 13 months.

Conclusion: 26% of the PD group had PTSD at 13 months compared to 9%

of the control group

¡§The PDs adhered to the structure first described by (1983)

adapted for use with either an individual or a couple. The

facilitator proceeded through a seven-phase semi-structured

approach.¡¨

ƒÞ Debriefed group scored higher on whether other people were

involved in the accident

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more serious injuries

ƒÞ Debriefed group also had higher initial sores on

psychopathology

ƒÞ Shorter period of time between the burn trauma and

debriefing session

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more financial difficulties

ƒÞ Some sessions were as short as 40 minutes

ƒÞ Bisson describes debriefing as ¡§intense imaginal exposure to

a traumatic incident¡¨

Now I have no idea what the hell Mr. Bisson and company were doing

in the burn unit debriefing burn victims, by the way, would someone

please tell these dimwits that people in the burn unit need fluids,

02 and morphine, but when the debriefed group had more serious

injuries, more financial problems, and higher psychopathology, that

sure as heck doesn't sound like randomization, and the session is

desbribed as " intense imaginal exposure to a traumatic event " , then

someone needs a course in ethics and common sense, but this study

has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with CISM.

I can see it now.........a family of four is trapped inside a

burning car and the good Dr.Bisson runs up to the car and starts

some form of " Psychological Debriefing " that is , and when the

family burns to death as the good Dr. is debriefing them, then it's

a race to see who can add another notch to their publishing gun by

writing an article slamming CISM.

The so-called gold standards being quoted to slam CISM are a joke.

This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention, CISM or

CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense dislike of Jeff and Everly.

What Dr. Bledsoe doesn't tell you about the RCT by Rose regarding

victims of vilent crime is what the authors say about their study;

ƒÞ It is important to clarify that our study does not speak to

the efficacy of group debriefing.

ƒÞ The sample contained substantial subgroups with high levels

of previous psychopathology, and of previous assaults in childhood.

ƒÞ It is possible that individual one-session debriefings are

insufficient to bring about changes among those with previous psych

or trauma history

Boys and girls, much of the information regarding CISM being

presented on this listserver isn't the whole truth or a twisted

version of the truth. Either tell the whole story and we'll have an

open dialogue or stop spreading half-truths!

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

Oh let's not get too excited about another pile of garbage. This is

the exact same stuff McNally wrote about last year, so let's just

take a gander at his RCT research.

Now Doc Bledsoe, are you telling this listgroup you're going around

the country slamming CISM for FREE? Now Doc.........let's be careful

here.

but on with the research

Title: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for

victims of acute burn trauma.

Type: RCT

Journal: Brit J Psych, 171 (1997)

Authors: Bisson, , , Bannister

132 adult burn victims entered into study

Randomly assigned to a group that received PD or a control group

that did not.

They were subsequently evaluated by an assessor blind to PD status

at 3 & 13 months.

Conclusion: 26% of the PD group had PTSD at 13 months compared to 9%

of the control group

¡§The PDs adhered to the structure first described by (1983)

adapted for use with either an individual or a couple. The

facilitator proceeded through a seven-phase semi-structured

approach.¡¨

ƒÞ Debriefed group scored higher on whether other people were

involved in the accident

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more serious injuries

ƒÞ Debriefed group also had higher initial sores on

psychopathology

ƒÞ Shorter period of time between the burn trauma and

debriefing session

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more financial difficulties

ƒÞ Some sessions were as short as 40 minutes

ƒÞ Bisson describes debriefing as ¡§intense imaginal exposure to

a traumatic incident¡¨

Now I have no idea what the hell Mr. Bisson and company were doing

in the burn unit debriefing burn victims, by the way, would someone

please tell these dimwits that people in the burn unit need fluids,

02 and morphine, but when the debriefed group had more serious

injuries, more financial problems, and higher psychopathology, that

sure as heck doesn't sound like randomization, and the session is

desbribed as " intense imaginal exposure to a traumatic event " , then

someone needs a course in ethics and common sense, but this study

has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with CISM.

I can see it now.........a family of four is trapped inside a

burning car and the good Dr.Bisson runs up to the car and starts

some form of " Psychological Debriefing " that is , and when the

family burns to death as the good Dr. is debriefing them, then it's

a race to see who can add another notch to their publishing gun by

writing an article slamming CISM.

The so-called gold standards being quoted to slam CISM are a joke.

This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention, CISM or

CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense dislike of Jeff and Everly.

What Dr. Bledsoe doesn't tell you about the RCT by Rose regarding

victims of vilent crime is what the authors say about their study;

ƒÞ It is important to clarify that our study does not speak to

the efficacy of group debriefing.

ƒÞ The sample contained substantial subgroups with high levels

of previous psychopathology, and of previous assaults in childhood.

ƒÞ It is possible that individual one-session debriefings are

insufficient to bring about changes among those with previous psych

or trauma history

Boys and girls, much of the information regarding CISM being

presented on this listserver isn't the whole truth or a twisted

version of the truth. Either tell the whole story and we'll have an

open dialogue or stop spreading half-truths!

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

The " debate " between son and Bledsoe is nearing the point of nastiness

and personal attack. It needs to stay on track. Debate the issues, not

personalities, please.

I don't know anything about " the woman " or any of the other subterranean

threads that are going on here, but I do know that scholarly debate may be

carried

on without personal recrimination. We can all write criticism of another's

presentations just as theater or music critics do, but that criticism is an

exercise in personal judgment. Others may disagree.

Scientific research is not based upon personal judgment, nor is it based upon

faith in the unknown. It is based upon the scientific method. A study may

be criticized for failure to follow the scientific method, and should be. But

to criticize a study because it shows that one's closely held beliefs have

been wrong is intellectually dishonest and shallow.

When people become ideologues they tend to lose their perspective. Research

often shows us that our previously held beliefs have been based on invalid

assumptions.

One is free to hold any sort of religious belief whether it involves logic

or not. Faith has a place in religion, but not in science.

Any study purported to be " scientific " ought to withstand the most stringent

vetting. Everyone ought to read any research study with the utmost doubt and

cynicism. But let's be honest about it. Just because we don't like what the

study shows because it contradicts our biases, bestows no privilege to dismiss

it if it has followed the scientific method and is valid. Question validity

and method, but accept findings that arise from validly conducted studies.

When the catecholamine titer rises, step back, we might well take a deep

breath, and depersonalize our thoughts. It's the research and the study that

ought to be the focus of debate, not the one discussing it. If the person

discussing misrepresents the study, that's one thing, and that ought to be

pointed

out, but we shouldn't shoot the messenger.

Debate on CISM is important. Let's conduct it rationally and with

detachment. Lower the emotional content and examine it microscopically. If it

lives,

it lives; if it needs to die, it needs to die.

GG

[Guest guest]

The " debate " between son and Bledsoe is nearing the point of nastiness

and personal attack. It needs to stay on track. Debate the issues, not

personalities, please.

I don't know anything about " the woman " or any of the other subterranean

threads that are going on here, but I do know that scholarly debate may be

carried

on without personal recrimination. We can all write criticism of another's

presentations just as theater or music critics do, but that criticism is an

exercise in personal judgment. Others may disagree.

Scientific research is not based upon personal judgment, nor is it based upon

faith in the unknown. It is based upon the scientific method. A study may

be criticized for failure to follow the scientific method, and should be. But

to criticize a study because it shows that one's closely held beliefs have

been wrong is intellectually dishonest and shallow.

When people become ideologues they tend to lose their perspective. Research

often shows us that our previously held beliefs have been based on invalid

assumptions.

One is free to hold any sort of religious belief whether it involves logic

or not. Faith has a place in religion, but not in science.

Any study purported to be " scientific " ought to withstand the most stringent

vetting. Everyone ought to read any research study with the utmost doubt and

cynicism. But let's be honest about it. Just because we don't like what the

study shows because it contradicts our biases, bestows no privilege to dismiss

it if it has followed the scientific method and is valid. Question validity

and method, but accept findings that arise from validly conducted studies.

When the catecholamine titer rises, step back, we might well take a deep

breath, and depersonalize our thoughts. It's the research and the study that

ought to be the focus of debate, not the one discussing it. If the person

discussing misrepresents the study, that's one thing, and that ought to be

pointed

out, but we shouldn't shoot the messenger.

Debate on CISM is important. Let's conduct it rationally and with

detachment. Lower the emotional content and examine it microscopically. If it

lives,

it lives; if it needs to die, it needs to die.

GG

[Guest guest]

The " debate " between son and Bledsoe is nearing the point of nastiness

and personal attack. It needs to stay on track. Debate the issues, not

personalities, please.

I don't know anything about " the woman " or any of the other subterranean

threads that are going on here, but I do know that scholarly debate may be

carried

on without personal recrimination. We can all write criticism of another's

presentations just as theater or music critics do, but that criticism is an

exercise in personal judgment. Others may disagree.

Scientific research is not based upon personal judgment, nor is it based upon

faith in the unknown. It is based upon the scientific method. A study may

be criticized for failure to follow the scientific method, and should be. But

to criticize a study because it shows that one's closely held beliefs have

been wrong is intellectually dishonest and shallow.

When people become ideologues they tend to lose their perspective. Research

often shows us that our previously held beliefs have been based on invalid

assumptions.

One is free to hold any sort of religious belief whether it involves logic

or not. Faith has a place in religion, but not in science.

Any study purported to be " scientific " ought to withstand the most stringent

vetting. Everyone ought to read any research study with the utmost doubt and

cynicism. But let's be honest about it. Just because we don't like what the

study shows because it contradicts our biases, bestows no privilege to dismiss

it if it has followed the scientific method and is valid. Question validity

and method, but accept findings that arise from validly conducted studies.

When the catecholamine titer rises, step back, we might well take a deep

breath, and depersonalize our thoughts. It's the research and the study that

ought to be the focus of debate, not the one discussing it. If the person

discussing misrepresents the study, that's one thing, and that ought to be

pointed

out, but we shouldn't shoot the messenger.

Debate on CISM is important. Let's conduct it rationally and with

detachment. Lower the emotional content and examine it microscopically. If it

lives,

it lives; if it needs to die, it needs to die.

GG

[Guest guest]

First Vaughn, just like Jeff you criticize the negative studies. Show us a

quality study that CISM works. Is CISM for physical injuries? If you would read

the study they wrote, " The PD group in our study did have higher initial

psychological sequelae as determined by questionaire, although these fell well

within the 95% confidence intervals when compared to those in the control

group. " That means, by the time they were debriefed their scores were similar. "

You have to read the whole study --not just the abstract.

Why is it that leading traumatologists continue to write " garbage " about CISM.

McNally is professor of psychology at Harvard. is a full professor in

Australia. Ehlers is a full professor at King's College. Gosh, Jerald Groupman,

MD (who wrote the New Yorker article) is the Dina and Raphael Recanati Professor

of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Just run of the mill researchers with an

ax to grind.

Finally, what happened in Canada? Ambulance plane crashed killed 5.

ICISF-trained CISM team run by ICISF trained chaplain provided defusing within

24 hours, then multiple debriefing sessions after 72 hours. Guess what? The only

people who got better had pre-existing stress management strategies.

Before you can criticize these researchers for " not following the CISM model "

you must first prove it is effective. That has not been done and thus you are

stooping to the same pseudoscientific drivel as /

Next you will tell m the ASAP program is the same as CISM....

BEB

Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

Oh let's not get too excited about another pile of garbage. This is the exact

same stuff McNally wrote about last year, so let's just take a gander at his RCT

research.

Now Doc Bledsoe, are you telling this listgroup you're going around the country

slamming CISM for FREE? Now Doc.........let's be careful here.

but on with the research

Title: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for victims of

acute burn trauma.

Type: RCT

Journal: Brit J Psych, 171 (1997)

Authors: Bisson, , , Bannister

132 adult burn victims entered into study

Randomly assigned to a group that received PD or a control group that did not.

They were subsequently evaluated by an assessor blind to PD status at 3 & 13

months.

Conclusion: 26% of the PD group had PTSD at 13 months compared to 9% of the

control group

¡§The PDs adhered to the structure first described by (1983) adapted

for use with either an individual or a couple. The facilitator proceeded through

a seven-phase semi-structured approach.¡¨

ƒÞ Debriefed group scored higher on whether other people were

involved in the accident

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more serious injuries

ƒÞ Debriefed group also had higher initial sores on

psychopathology

ƒÞ Shorter period of time between the burn trauma and

debriefing session

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more financial difficulties

ƒÞ Some sessions were as short as 40 minutes

ƒÞ Bisson describes debriefing as ¡§intense imaginal exposure to

a traumatic incident¡¨

Now I have no idea what the hell Mr. Bisson and company were doing in the burn

unit debriefing burn victims, by the way, would someone please tell these

dimwits that people in the burn unit need fluids,

02 and morphine, but when the debriefed group had more serious injuries, more

financial problems, and higher psychopathology, that sure as heck doesn't sound

like randomization, and the session is desbribed as " intense imaginal exposure

to a traumatic event " , then someone needs a course in ethics and common sense,

but this study has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with CISM.

I can see it now.........a family of four is trapped inside a burning car and

the good Dr.Bisson runs up to the car and starts some form of " Psychological

Debriefing " that is , and when the family burns to death as the good Dr. is

debriefing them, then it's a race to see who can add another notch to their

publishing gun by writing an article slamming CISM.

The so-called gold standards being quoted to slam CISM are a joke.

This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention, CISM or CISD. This

debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an intense dislike of Jeff

and Everly.

What Dr. Bledsoe doesn't tell you about the RCT by Rose regarding victims of

vilent crime is what the authors say about their study;

ƒÞ It is important to clarify that our study does not speak to

the efficacy of group debriefing.

ƒÞ The sample contained substantial subgroups with high levels

of previous psychopathology, and of previous assaults in childhood.

ƒÞ It is possible that individual one-session debriefings are

insufficient to bring about changes among those with previous psych or trauma

history

Boys and girls, much of the information regarding CISM being presented on this

listserver isn't the whole truth or a twisted version of the truth. Either tell

the whole story and we'll have an open dialogue or stop spreading half-truths!

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

First Vaughn, just like Jeff you criticize the negative studies. Show us a

quality study that CISM works. Is CISM for physical injuries? If you would read

the study they wrote, " The PD group in our study did have higher initial

psychological sequelae as determined by questionaire, although these fell well

within the 95% confidence intervals when compared to those in the control

group. " That means, by the time they were debriefed their scores were similar. "

You have to read the whole study --not just the abstract.

Why is it that leading traumatologists continue to write " garbage " about CISM.

McNally is professor of psychology at Harvard. is a full professor in

Australia. Ehlers is a full professor at King's College. Gosh, Jerald Groupman,

MD (who wrote the New Yorker article) is the Dina and Raphael Recanati Professor

of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Just run of the mill researchers with an

ax to grind.

Finally, what happened in Canada? Ambulance plane crashed killed 5.

ICISF-trained CISM team run by ICISF trained chaplain provided defusing within

24 hours, then multiple debriefing sessions after 72 hours. Guess what? The only

people who got better had pre-existing stress management strategies.

Before you can criticize these researchers for " not following the CISM model "

you must first prove it is effective. That has not been done and thus you are

stooping to the same pseudoscientific drivel as /

Next you will tell m the ASAP program is the same as CISM....

BEB

Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

Oh let's not get too excited about another pile of garbage. This is the exact

same stuff McNally wrote about last year, so let's just take a gander at his RCT

research.

Now Doc Bledsoe, are you telling this listgroup you're going around the country

slamming CISM for FREE? Now Doc.........let's be careful here.

but on with the research

Title: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for victims of

acute burn trauma.

Type: RCT

Journal: Brit J Psych, 171 (1997)

Authors: Bisson, , , Bannister

132 adult burn victims entered into study

Randomly assigned to a group that received PD or a control group that did not.

They were subsequently evaluated by an assessor blind to PD status at 3 & 13

months.

Conclusion: 26% of the PD group had PTSD at 13 months compared to 9% of the

control group

¡§The PDs adhered to the structure first described by (1983) adapted

for use with either an individual or a couple. The facilitator proceeded through

a seven-phase semi-structured approach.¡¨

ƒÞ Debriefed group scored higher on whether other people were

involved in the accident

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more serious injuries

ƒÞ Debriefed group also had higher initial sores on

psychopathology

ƒÞ Shorter period of time between the burn trauma and

debriefing session

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more financial difficulties

ƒÞ Some sessions were as short as 40 minutes

ƒÞ Bisson describes debriefing as ¡§intense imaginal exposure to

a traumatic incident¡¨

Now I have no idea what the hell Mr. Bisson and company were doing in the burn

unit debriefing burn victims, by the way, would someone please tell these

dimwits that people in the burn unit need fluids,

02 and morphine, but when the debriefed group had more serious injuries, more

financial problems, and higher psychopathology, that sure as heck doesn't sound

like randomization, and the session is desbribed as " intense imaginal exposure

to a traumatic event " , then someone needs a course in ethics and common sense,

but this study has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with CISM.

I can see it now.........a family of four is trapped inside a burning car and

the good Dr.Bisson runs up to the car and starts some form of " Psychological

Debriefing " that is , and when the family burns to death as the good Dr. is

debriefing them, then it's a race to see who can add another notch to their

publishing gun by writing an article slamming CISM.

The so-called gold standards being quoted to slam CISM are a joke.

This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention, CISM or CISD. This

debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an intense dislike of Jeff

and Everly.

What Dr. Bledsoe doesn't tell you about the RCT by Rose regarding victims of

vilent crime is what the authors say about their study;

ƒÞ It is important to clarify that our study does not speak to

the efficacy of group debriefing.

ƒÞ The sample contained substantial subgroups with high levels

of previous psychopathology, and of previous assaults in childhood.

ƒÞ It is possible that individual one-session debriefings are

insufficient to bring about changes among those with previous psych or trauma

history

Boys and girls, much of the information regarding CISM being presented on this

listserver isn't the whole truth or a twisted version of the truth. Either tell

the whole story and we'll have an open dialogue or stop spreading half-truths!

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

First Vaughn, just like Jeff you criticize the negative studies. Show us a

quality study that CISM works. Is CISM for physical injuries? If you would read

the study they wrote, " The PD group in our study did have higher initial

psychological sequelae as determined by questionaire, although these fell well

within the 95% confidence intervals when compared to those in the control

group. " That means, by the time they were debriefed their scores were similar. "

You have to read the whole study --not just the abstract.

Why is it that leading traumatologists continue to write " garbage " about CISM.

McNally is professor of psychology at Harvard. is a full professor in

Australia. Ehlers is a full professor at King's College. Gosh, Jerald Groupman,

MD (who wrote the New Yorker article) is the Dina and Raphael Recanati Professor

of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Just run of the mill researchers with an

ax to grind.

Finally, what happened in Canada? Ambulance plane crashed killed 5.

ICISF-trained CISM team run by ICISF trained chaplain provided defusing within

24 hours, then multiple debriefing sessions after 72 hours. Guess what? The only

people who got better had pre-existing stress management strategies.

Before you can criticize these researchers for " not following the CISM model "

you must first prove it is effective. That has not been done and thus you are

stooping to the same pseudoscientific drivel as /

Next you will tell m the ASAP program is the same as CISM....

BEB

Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

Oh let's not get too excited about another pile of garbage. This is the exact

same stuff McNally wrote about last year, so let's just take a gander at his RCT

research.

Now Doc Bledsoe, are you telling this listgroup you're going around the country

slamming CISM for FREE? Now Doc.........let's be careful here.

but on with the research

Title: Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for victims of

acute burn trauma.

Type: RCT

Journal: Brit J Psych, 171 (1997)

Authors: Bisson, , , Bannister

132 adult burn victims entered into study

Randomly assigned to a group that received PD or a control group that did not.

They were subsequently evaluated by an assessor blind to PD status at 3 & 13

months.

Conclusion: 26% of the PD group had PTSD at 13 months compared to 9% of the

control group

¡§The PDs adhered to the structure first described by (1983) adapted

for use with either an individual or a couple. The facilitator proceeded through

a seven-phase semi-structured approach.¡¨

ƒÞ Debriefed group scored higher on whether other people were

involved in the accident

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more serious injuries

ƒÞ Debriefed group also had higher initial sores on

psychopathology

ƒÞ Shorter period of time between the burn trauma and

debriefing session

ƒÞ Debriefed group had more financial difficulties

ƒÞ Some sessions were as short as 40 minutes

ƒÞ Bisson describes debriefing as ¡§intense imaginal exposure to

a traumatic incident¡¨

Now I have no idea what the hell Mr. Bisson and company were doing in the burn

unit debriefing burn victims, by the way, would someone please tell these

dimwits that people in the burn unit need fluids,

02 and morphine, but when the debriefed group had more serious injuries, more

financial problems, and higher psychopathology, that sure as heck doesn't sound

like randomization, and the session is desbribed as " intense imaginal exposure

to a traumatic event " , then someone needs a course in ethics and common sense,

but this study has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with CISM.

I can see it now.........a family of four is trapped inside a burning car and

the good Dr.Bisson runs up to the car and starts some form of " Psychological

Debriefing " that is , and when the family burns to death as the good Dr. is

debriefing them, then it's a race to see who can add another notch to their

publishing gun by writing an article slamming CISM.

The so-called gold standards being quoted to slam CISM are a joke.

This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention, CISM or CISD. This

debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an intense dislike of Jeff

and Everly.

What Dr. Bledsoe doesn't tell you about the RCT by Rose regarding victims of

vilent crime is what the authors say about their study;

ƒÞ It is important to clarify that our study does not speak to

the efficacy of group debriefing.

ƒÞ The sample contained substantial subgroups with high levels

of previous psychopathology, and of previous assaults in childhood.

ƒÞ It is possible that individual one-session debriefings are

insufficient to bring about changes among those with previous psych or trauma

history

Boys and girls, much of the information regarding CISM being presented on this

listserver isn't the whole truth or a twisted version of the truth. Either tell

the whole story and we'll have an open dialogue or stop spreading half-truths!

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

Vaughn:

Do you have any financial interest in continuing to support CISM?

http://www.cism1.com/

[Guest guest]

Vaughn:

Do you have any financial interest in continuing to support CISM?

http://www.cism1.com/

[Guest guest]

Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention, CISM

or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an intense

dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

[Guest guest]

What's wrong with me? I've seen some hairy shit in my career, dead kids,

terrible burns, had a couple of folks I know die doing the job, self-doubt,

remorse, really tragic stuff. I've had CISM once...for an incident that

didn't involve me, and all it did was piss me off. I sleep OK, I don't have

any recurring nightmares....about the only thing I have is that thing where

if you live and work in the same place, everywhere you go, you remember

calls you ran in places. Go to the mall, and you think " I rememeber that

woman who choked in the food court " or Wal-Mart. Christ, I can't tell you

how many calls I run in frickin' Wal-Mart. Do they only hire epileptics and

people with migraines? I don't dwell on calls too much, and I don't spend a

lot of time discussing the more serious aspects of calls with co-workers. I

don't unload on my wife....or feel the need to. I don't drink, or smoke, or

have too many vices. Sure, there are calls that I'll never forget, but it

isn't in the forefront of my mind. It's always kind of worried me that I

don't seem to be affected too much by my job. I was brought up, so to speak,

in the heyday of CISM. It was drilled into our heads, and I've always been

kind of afraid that if I didn't have it, I would spaz out one day. I think

I'm OK, but then I think maybe I'm just in denial, and one day I will come

unglued at breakfast. I'm not avoiding talking about things, or confronting

them, I just kind of move on after it's over. What gives?

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

>

> Vaughn:

>

> Do you have any financial interest in continuing to support CISM?

>

> http://www.cism1.com/

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What's wrong with me? I've seen some hairy shit in my career, dead kids,

terrible burns, had a couple of folks I know die doing the job, self-doubt,

remorse, really tragic stuff. I've had CISM once...for an incident that

didn't involve me, and all it did was piss me off. I sleep OK, I don't have

any recurring nightmares....about the only thing I have is that thing where

if you live and work in the same place, everywhere you go, you remember

calls you ran in places. Go to the mall, and you think " I rememeber that

woman who choked in the food court " or Wal-Mart. Christ, I can't tell you

how many calls I run in frickin' Wal-Mart. Do they only hire epileptics and

people with migraines? I don't dwell on calls too much, and I don't spend a

lot of time discussing the more serious aspects of calls with co-workers. I

don't unload on my wife....or feel the need to. I don't drink, or smoke, or

have too many vices. Sure, there are calls that I'll never forget, but it

isn't in the forefront of my mind. It's always kind of worried me that I

don't seem to be affected too much by my job. I was brought up, so to speak,

in the heyday of CISM. It was drilled into our heads, and I've always been

kind of afraid that if I didn't have it, I would spaz out one day. I think

I'm OK, but then I think maybe I'm just in denial, and one day I will come

unglued at breakfast. I'm not avoiding talking about things, or confronting

them, I just kind of move on after it's over. What gives?

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

>

> Vaughn:

>

> Do you have any financial interest in continuing to support CISM?

>

> http://www.cism1.com/

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What's wrong with me? I've seen some hairy shit in my career, dead kids,

terrible burns, had a couple of folks I know die doing the job, self-doubt,

remorse, really tragic stuff. I've had CISM once...for an incident that

didn't involve me, and all it did was piss me off. I sleep OK, I don't have

any recurring nightmares....about the only thing I have is that thing where

if you live and work in the same place, everywhere you go, you remember

calls you ran in places. Go to the mall, and you think " I rememeber that

woman who choked in the food court " or Wal-Mart. Christ, I can't tell you

how many calls I run in frickin' Wal-Mart. Do they only hire epileptics and

people with migraines? I don't dwell on calls too much, and I don't spend a

lot of time discussing the more serious aspects of calls with co-workers. I

don't unload on my wife....or feel the need to. I don't drink, or smoke, or

have too many vices. Sure, there are calls that I'll never forget, but it

isn't in the forefront of my mind. It's always kind of worried me that I

don't seem to be affected too much by my job. I was brought up, so to speak,

in the heyday of CISM. It was drilled into our heads, and I've always been

kind of afraid that if I didn't have it, I would spaz out one day. I think

I'm OK, but then I think maybe I'm just in denial, and one day I will come

unglued at breakfast. I'm not avoiding talking about things, or confronting

them, I just kind of move on after it's over. What gives?

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

>

> Vaughn:

>

> Do you have any financial interest in continuing to support CISM?

>

> http://www.cism1.com/

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What woman? If there is a woman involved, I'm for sure envious.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

> Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

CISM

> or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense

> dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

>

> Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What woman? If there is a woman involved, I'm for sure envious.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

> Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

CISM

> or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense

> dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

>

> Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What woman? If there is a woman involved, I'm for sure envious.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

> Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

CISM

> or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense

> dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

>

> Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

EMS people and firefighters are amazingly resilient. The professions

self-select. That is, people not cut out for the work leave fairly quickly.

The real stresses in EMS are not major events, but pay, equipment, the

public, government regulation, co-workers, the mortgage, a car with 100,000

miles on the odometer. You have to have good stress management skills to

survive. Despite the rantings of Vaughn, you can not " prevent " or " treat "

stress after it happens. It can only be prevented. Stress is not a bad

thing. It is how the organism adapts and evolves. Without stress we would be

like skinks who fear nothing and always get eaten by the red-tailed hawk.

BEB

Re: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

What's wrong with me? I've seen some hairy shit in my career, dead kids,

terrible burns, had a couple of folks I know die doing the job, self-doubt,

remorse, really tragic stuff. I've had CISM once...for an incident that

didn't involve me, and all it did was piss me off. I sleep OK, I don't have

any recurring nightmares....about the only thing I have is that thing where

if you live and work in the same place, everywhere you go, you remember

calls you ran in places. Go to the mall, and you think " I rememeber that

woman who choked in the food court " or Wal-Mart. Christ, I can't tell you

how many calls I run in frickin' Wal-Mart. Do they only hire epileptics and

people with migraines? I don't dwell on calls too much, and I don't spend a

lot of time discussing the more serious aspects of calls with co-workers. I

don't unload on my wife....or feel the need to. I don't drink, or smoke, or

have too many vices. Sure, there are calls that I'll never forget, but it

isn't in the forefront of my mind. It's always kind of worried me that I

don't seem to be affected too much by my job. I was brought up, so to speak,

in the heyday of CISM. It was drilled into our heads, and I've always been

kind of afraid that if I didn't have it, I would spaz out one day. I think

I'm OK, but then I think maybe I'm just in denial, and one day I will come

unglued at breakfast. I'm not avoiding talking about things, or confronting

them, I just kind of move on after it's over. What gives?

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

>

> Vaughn:

>

> Do you have any financial interest in continuing to support CISM?

>

> http://www.cism1.com/

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

News to me, I have been married 26 years, never had an affair (nobody would

want me), got plenty of money, am only envious of Donn , never met Dr.

Everly, and think Dr. is a nice enough fellow trying hard to

salvage something he is very close to despite overwhelming odds. Perhaps

Vaughn is speaking of somebody else.

Regardless, all kidding aside, ad hominen attacks do little more than

minimize Vaughn's message and that is a shame because he seems to be a

caring guy--though misdirected. Regardless, they do not belong on a public

venue.

BEB

Re: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

What woman? If there is a woman involved, I'm for sure envious.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

> Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

CISM

> or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense

> dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

>

> Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

News to me, I have been married 26 years, never had an affair (nobody would

want me), got plenty of money, am only envious of Donn , never met Dr.

Everly, and think Dr. is a nice enough fellow trying hard to

salvage something he is very close to despite overwhelming odds. Perhaps

Vaughn is speaking of somebody else.

Regardless, all kidding aside, ad hominen attacks do little more than

minimize Vaughn's message and that is a shame because he seems to be a

caring guy--though misdirected. Regardless, they do not belong on a public

venue.

BEB

Re: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

What woman? If there is a woman involved, I'm for sure envious.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

> Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

CISM

> or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense

> dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

>

> Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

News to me, I have been married 26 years, never had an affair (nobody would

want me), got plenty of money, am only envious of Donn , never met Dr.

Everly, and think Dr. is a nice enough fellow trying hard to

salvage something he is very close to despite overwhelming odds. Perhaps

Vaughn is speaking of somebody else.

Regardless, all kidding aside, ad hominen attacks do little more than

minimize Vaughn's message and that is a shame because he seems to be a

caring guy--though misdirected. Regardless, they do not belong on a public

venue.

BEB

Re: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

What woman? If there is a woman involved, I'm for sure envious.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM pile

> Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

CISM

> or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

intense

> dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

>

> Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shame.....this got kind of intriguing there for a minute. As if there isn't

enough drama in EMS to begin with. The more I read about CISM, the more

" cult-like " it seems to me. Kind of like a religion that says " do it my way,

or you are going to hell "

I know a lot of them are truly well meaning, but I notice they tisk and

cluck when they ask you about things and you say " Really, I'm OK " .....and

give you that knowing look that says " You are about 2 minutes away from a

complete breakdown " They say " Are you sure? " No, I'm not sure....I feel OK

now. Doesn't mean I won't end up on top of a building with a rifle (don't

worry...I'm an awful shot) someday, but I doubt it will be over EMS.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM

pile

>

>

> > Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

> CISM

> > or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

> intense

> > dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

> >

> > Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Shame.....this got kind of intriguing there for a minute. As if there isn't

enough drama in EMS to begin with. The more I read about CISM, the more

" cult-like " it seems to me. Kind of like a religion that says " do it my way,

or you are going to hell "

I know a lot of them are truly well meaning, but I notice they tisk and

cluck when they ask you about things and you say " Really, I'm OK " .....and

give you that knowing look that says " You are about 2 minutes away from a

complete breakdown " They say " Are you sure? " No, I'm not sure....I feel OK

now. Doesn't mean I won't end up on top of a building with a rifle (don't

worry...I'm an awful shot) someday, but I doubt it will be over EMS.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM

pile

>

>

> > Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

> CISM

> > or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

> intense

> > dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

> >

> > Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Shame.....this got kind of intriguing there for a minute. As if there isn't

enough drama in EMS to begin with. The more I read about CISM, the more

" cult-like " it seems to me. Kind of like a religion that says " do it my way,

or you are going to hell "

I know a lot of them are truly well meaning, but I notice they tisk and

cluck when they ask you about things and you say " Really, I'm OK " .....and

give you that knowing look that says " You are about 2 minutes away from a

complete breakdown " They say " Are you sure? " No, I'm not sure....I feel OK

now. Doesn't mean I won't end up on top of a building with a rifle (don't

worry...I'm an awful shot) someday, but I doubt it will be over EMS.

magnetass sends

RE: Re: FW: [EMS_Research] More heap on the CISM

pile

>

>

> > Vaughn wrote, " This debate has nothing to do with crisis intervention,

> CISM

> > or CISD. This debate is about money, jealousy, envy, a woman, and an

> intense

> > dislike of Jeff and Everly. "

> >

> > Who is this inuendo being thrown at?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >