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

[Guest guest]

Doc, you only accept the research when the research fits with your

opinion, and when I point out that the research isn't about CISM you

start all this RCT nonsense that isn't even about CISM. I've read

the negative studies and you might be surprised to know that I agree

with many of them. I'm the first in line to tell Bissson to get out

of the frickin burn unit!!!!!

You continually misconstrue the studies as evidenced by your topic

last week regarding CISM, when the article didn't even mention CISM.

The study from BC is an excellent example of BAD, REAL BAD CISM.

Truly, this is not what CISM is about, and that team either needs to

cease and desist or get retrained. I have no problem admitting that

people doing fouled up CISM can be detrimental.

Now, I wasn't the one who started this, but I am getting tired of

reading the waste being posted.

The good Dr. said.............

" But, my bias is not because I have a

financial interest in the product or a similar product, "

Doc, I hereby challenge that statement.

As far as the woman goes, my wife told me to quit arguing with Dr.

Bledsoe on the listserver. You might want to ask Dr. Gist about the

woman.

But tell me how Bisson's study is an evaluation of CISM.

By the way, go ahead and break the news to the list about the RCTs

showing the power and presence of God.

As far as ad hominem, read McNally's stuff or Bledsoe's stuff, or

better yet, attend one of Bledsoe's presentations and you'll get

enough ad hominem to make you sick.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

First Doc, you've seen countless examples where CISM works, but you

refuse to accept those studies.

The reason you don't accept the studies is becasue they aren't RCT,

yet....

Seligman, M. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American

Psychologist, 51,

1072-1079.

Feb. 1, 2003

Rev: Feb. 10, 2003

56

Key points and findings:

• Argues cogently for the power of nonrandomized experimental and

even survey

research designs.

• Seligman believes that efficacy studies are simply the wrong

method for field

research because they omit too many of the crucial elements that

characterize

what is actually done in the field; for example, the level of

competence of the

interventionist, the real-time self correcting nature of the

intervention, the

complexity of the intervention and the nature of the precipitating

stressors.

• Keep in mind that randomized designs do not eliminate selection or

assignment

error. They simply serve to diminish the likelihood of systematic

error.

• Alternatives to randomized studies include measurement of the

potential sources

of systematic error, the use of large sample sizes drawn from diverse

constituencies and properly designed meta-analytic approaches.

• Large scale, self report survey research has a low likelihood of

possessing

systematic error.

• Self report survey data may contribute in a meaningful manner to

the issue of

effectiveness of an intervention.

• " …efficacy studies are not necessary, sufficient or privileged

over effectiveness

studies in deciding whether treatment works. " (p.1077)

So, there is value in the positive studies of CISM whether you

acknowledge it or not.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

First Doc, you've seen countless examples where CISM works, but you

refuse to accept those studies.

The reason you don't accept the studies is becasue they aren't RCT,

yet....

Seligman, M. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American

Psychologist, 51,

1072-1079.

Feb. 1, 2003

Rev: Feb. 10, 2003

56

Key points and findings:

• Argues cogently for the power of nonrandomized experimental and

even survey

research designs.

• Seligman believes that efficacy studies are simply the wrong

method for field

research because they omit too many of the crucial elements that

characterize

what is actually done in the field; for example, the level of

competence of the

interventionist, the real-time self correcting nature of the

intervention, the

complexity of the intervention and the nature of the precipitating

stressors.

• Keep in mind that randomized designs do not eliminate selection or

assignment

error. They simply serve to diminish the likelihood of systematic

error.

• Alternatives to randomized studies include measurement of the

potential sources

of systematic error, the use of large sample sizes drawn from diverse

constituencies and properly designed meta-analytic approaches.

• Large scale, self report survey research has a low likelihood of

possessing

systematic error.

• Self report survey data may contribute in a meaningful manner to

the issue of

effectiveness of an intervention.

• " …efficacy studies are not necessary, sufficient or privileged

over effectiveness

studies in deciding whether treatment works. " (p.1077)

So, there is value in the positive studies of CISM whether you

acknowledge it or not.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

First Doc, you've seen countless examples where CISM works, but you

refuse to accept those studies.

The reason you don't accept the studies is becasue they aren't RCT,

yet....

Seligman, M. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American

Psychologist, 51,

1072-1079.

Feb. 1, 2003

Rev: Feb. 10, 2003

56

Key points and findings:

• Argues cogently for the power of nonrandomized experimental and

even survey

research designs.

• Seligman believes that efficacy studies are simply the wrong

method for field

research because they omit too many of the crucial elements that

characterize

what is actually done in the field; for example, the level of

competence of the

interventionist, the real-time self correcting nature of the

intervention, the

complexity of the intervention and the nature of the precipitating

stressors.

• Keep in mind that randomized designs do not eliminate selection or

assignment

error. They simply serve to diminish the likelihood of systematic

error.

• Alternatives to randomized studies include measurement of the

potential sources

of systematic error, the use of large sample sizes drawn from diverse

constituencies and properly designed meta-analytic approaches.

• Large scale, self report survey research has a low likelihood of

possessing

systematic error.

• Self report survey data may contribute in a meaningful manner to

the issue of

effectiveness of an intervention.

• " …efficacy studies are not necessary, sufficient or privileged

over effectiveness

studies in deciding whether treatment works. " (p.1077)

So, there is value in the positive studies of CISM whether you

acknowledge it or not.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

CISM is not even mentioned in the Seligman study. What are you trying to

pull? Seligman argues that low-power studies are valuable and they are to a

certain degree. Show me a study that specifically studies the multiple

phases of CISM including defusing and debriefing and shows it effective.

I have a copy of Seligman if you need it.

BEB

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

First Doc, you've seen countless examples where CISM works, but you refuse

to accept those studies.

The reason you don't accept the studies is becasue they aren't RCT, yet....

Seligman, M. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American Psychologist,

51, 1072-1079.

Feb. 1, 2003

Rev: Feb. 10, 2003

56

Key points and findings:

.. Argues cogently for the power of nonrandomized experimental and even

survey research designs.

.. Seligman believes that efficacy studies are simply the wrong method for

field research because they omit too many of the crucial elements that

characterize what is actually done in the field; for example, the level of

competence of the interventionist, the real-time self correcting nature of

the intervention, the complexity of the intervention and the nature of the

precipitating stressors.

.. Keep in mind that randomized designs do not eliminate selection or

assignment error. They simply serve to diminish the likelihood of systematic

error.

.. Alternatives to randomized studies include measurement of the potential

sources of systematic error, the use of large sample sizes drawn from

diverse constituencies and properly designed meta-analytic approaches.

.. Large scale, self report survey research has a low likelihood of

possessing systematic error.

.. Self report survey data may contribute in a meaningful manner to the issue

of effectiveness of an intervention.

.. " .efficacy studies are not necessary, sufficient or privileged over

effectiveness studies in deciding whether treatment works. " (p.1077)

So, there is value in the positive studies of CISM whether you acknowledge

it or not.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

CISM is not even mentioned in the Seligman study. What are you trying to

pull? Seligman argues that low-power studies are valuable and they are to a

certain degree. Show me a study that specifically studies the multiple

phases of CISM including defusing and debriefing and shows it effective.

I have a copy of Seligman if you need it.

BEB

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

First Doc, you've seen countless examples where CISM works, but you refuse

to accept those studies.

The reason you don't accept the studies is becasue they aren't RCT, yet....

Seligman, M. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American Psychologist,

51, 1072-1079.

Feb. 1, 2003

Rev: Feb. 10, 2003

56

Key points and findings:

.. Argues cogently for the power of nonrandomized experimental and even

survey research designs.

.. Seligman believes that efficacy studies are simply the wrong method for

field research because they omit too many of the crucial elements that

characterize what is actually done in the field; for example, the level of

competence of the interventionist, the real-time self correcting nature of

the intervention, the complexity of the intervention and the nature of the

precipitating stressors.

.. Keep in mind that randomized designs do not eliminate selection or

assignment error. They simply serve to diminish the likelihood of systematic

error.

.. Alternatives to randomized studies include measurement of the potential

sources of systematic error, the use of large sample sizes drawn from

diverse constituencies and properly designed meta-analytic approaches.

.. Large scale, self report survey research has a low likelihood of

possessing systematic error.

.. Self report survey data may contribute in a meaningful manner to the issue

of effectiveness of an intervention.

.. " .efficacy studies are not necessary, sufficient or privileged over

effectiveness studies in deciding whether treatment works. " (p.1077)

So, there is value in the positive studies of CISM whether you acknowledge

it or not.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

CISM is not even mentioned in the Seligman study. What are you trying to

pull? Seligman argues that low-power studies are valuable and they are to a

certain degree. Show me a study that specifically studies the multiple

phases of CISM including defusing and debriefing and shows it effective.

I have a copy of Seligman if you need it.

BEB

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

First Doc, you've seen countless examples where CISM works, but you refuse

to accept those studies.

The reason you don't accept the studies is becasue they aren't RCT, yet....

Seligman, M. (1996). Science as an ally of practice. American Psychologist,

51, 1072-1079.

Feb. 1, 2003

Rev: Feb. 10, 2003

56

Key points and findings:

.. Argues cogently for the power of nonrandomized experimental and even

survey research designs.

.. Seligman believes that efficacy studies are simply the wrong method for

field research because they omit too many of the crucial elements that

characterize what is actually done in the field; for example, the level of

competence of the interventionist, the real-time self correcting nature of

the intervention, the complexity of the intervention and the nature of the

precipitating stressors.

.. Keep in mind that randomized designs do not eliminate selection or

assignment error. They simply serve to diminish the likelihood of systematic

error.

.. Alternatives to randomized studies include measurement of the potential

sources of systematic error, the use of large sample sizes drawn from

diverse constituencies and properly designed meta-analytic approaches.

.. Large scale, self report survey research has a low likelihood of

possessing systematic error.

.. Self report survey data may contribute in a meaningful manner to the issue

of effectiveness of an intervention.

.. " .efficacy studies are not necessary, sufficient or privileged over

effectiveness studies in deciding whether treatment works. " (p.1077)

So, there is value in the positive studies of CISM whether you acknowledge

it or not.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

Again, show me the research. It appears I am more familiar with it than you

are. Show me a positive study about CISM that is internally valid. Don't

criticize the null studies. Why would a firefighter from west Texas try and

tell a psychiatrist from England how to care for his patients? Who is doing

fouled-up CISM? Who will stop them? What financial interest do I have in

CISM? If anything, I have lost money in this debate--although it has been

fun. Are you acusing Dr. Gist of infidelity? I'll forward this to him and

see what his attorney has to say. McNally's stuff has been published in some

leading peer-review journals that would never allow some ad hominen stuff.

Have you ever attended my CISM talk? If not, come to IAFC Fire Rescue

International and listen--I'll save you a seat and New Orleans is nice.

BEB

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

Doc, you only accept the research when the research fits with your opinion,

and when I point out that the research isn't about CISM you start all this

RCT nonsense that isn't even about CISM. I've read the negative studies and

you might be surprised to know that I agree with many of them. I'm the first

in line to tell Bissson to get out of the frickin burn unit!!!!!

You continually misconstrue the studies as evidenced by your topic last week

regarding CISM, when the article didn't even mention CISM.

The study from BC is an excellent example of BAD, REAL BAD CISM.

Truly, this is not what CISM is about, and that team either needs to cease

and desist or get retrained. I have no problem admitting that people doing

fouled up CISM can be detrimental.

Now, I wasn't the one who started this, but I am getting tired of reading

the waste being posted.

The good Dr. said.............

" But, my bias is not because I have a

financial interest in the product or a similar product, "

Doc, I hereby challenge that statement.

As far as the woman goes, my wife told me to quit arguing with Dr.

Bledsoe on the listserver. You might want to ask Dr. Gist about the woman.

But tell me how Bisson's study is an evaluation of CISM.

By the way, go ahead and break the news to the list about the RCTs showing

the power and presence of God.

As far as ad hominem, read McNally's stuff or Bledsoe's stuff, or better

yet, attend one of Bledsoe's presentations and you'll get enough ad hominem

to make you sick.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

Again, show me the research. It appears I am more familiar with it than you

are. Show me a positive study about CISM that is internally valid. Don't

criticize the null studies. Why would a firefighter from west Texas try and

tell a psychiatrist from England how to care for his patients? Who is doing

fouled-up CISM? Who will stop them? What financial interest do I have in

CISM? If anything, I have lost money in this debate--although it has been

fun. Are you acusing Dr. Gist of infidelity? I'll forward this to him and

see what his attorney has to say. McNally's stuff has been published in some

leading peer-review journals that would never allow some ad hominen stuff.

Have you ever attended my CISM talk? If not, come to IAFC Fire Rescue

International and listen--I'll save you a seat and New Orleans is nice.

BEB

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

Doc, you only accept the research when the research fits with your opinion,

and when I point out that the research isn't about CISM you start all this

RCT nonsense that isn't even about CISM. I've read the negative studies and

you might be surprised to know that I agree with many of them. I'm the first

in line to tell Bissson to get out of the frickin burn unit!!!!!

You continually misconstrue the studies as evidenced by your topic last week

regarding CISM, when the article didn't even mention CISM.

The study from BC is an excellent example of BAD, REAL BAD CISM.

Truly, this is not what CISM is about, and that team either needs to cease

and desist or get retrained. I have no problem admitting that people doing

fouled up CISM can be detrimental.

Now, I wasn't the one who started this, but I am getting tired of reading

the waste being posted.

The good Dr. said.............

" But, my bias is not because I have a

financial interest in the product or a similar product, "

Doc, I hereby challenge that statement.

As far as the woman goes, my wife told me to quit arguing with Dr.

Bledsoe on the listserver. You might want to ask Dr. Gist about the woman.

But tell me how Bisson's study is an evaluation of CISM.

By the way, go ahead and break the news to the list about the RCTs showing

the power and presence of God.

As far as ad hominem, read McNally's stuff or Bledsoe's stuff, or better

yet, attend one of Bledsoe's presentations and you'll get enough ad hominem

to make you sick.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

I forwarded this to Dr. McNally. Perhaps he has some insight.

How do you know the CISM in British Columbia was bad? IT was an ICISF

trained and certified group. The report says they adhered to the tenets.

Have you read the study? Why was it bad? What did they do wrong?

BEB

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

Doc, you only accept the research when the research fits with your opinion,

and when I point out that the research isn't about CISM you start all this

RCT nonsense that isn't even about CISM. I've read the negative studies and

you might be surprised to know that I agree with many of them. I'm the first

in line to tell Bissson to get out of the frickin burn unit!!!!!

You continually misconstrue the studies as evidenced by your topic last week

regarding CISM, when the article didn't even mention CISM.

The study from BC is an excellent example of BAD, REAL BAD CISM.

Truly, this is not what CISM is about, and that team either needs to cease

and desist or get retrained. I have no problem admitting that people doing

fouled up CISM can be detrimental.

Now, I wasn't the one who started this, but I am getting tired of reading

the waste being posted.

The good Dr. said.............

" But, my bias is not because I have a

financial interest in the product or a similar product, "

Doc, I hereby challenge that statement.

As far as the woman goes, my wife told me to quit arguing with Dr.

Bledsoe on the listserver. You might want to ask Dr. Gist about the woman.

But tell me how Bisson's study is an evaluation of CISM.

By the way, go ahead and break the news to the list about the RCTs showing

the power and presence of God.

As far as ad hominem, read McNally's stuff or Bledsoe's stuff, or better

yet, attend one of Bledsoe's presentations and you'll get enough ad hominem

to make you sick.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

I forwarded this to Dr. McNally. Perhaps he has some insight.

How do you know the CISM in British Columbia was bad? IT was an ICISF

trained and certified group. The report says they adhered to the tenets.

Have you read the study? Why was it bad? What did they do wrong?

BEB

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

Doc, you only accept the research when the research fits with your opinion,

and when I point out that the research isn't about CISM you start all this

RCT nonsense that isn't even about CISM. I've read the negative studies and

you might be surprised to know that I agree with many of them. I'm the first

in line to tell Bissson to get out of the frickin burn unit!!!!!

You continually misconstrue the studies as evidenced by your topic last week

regarding CISM, when the article didn't even mention CISM.

The study from BC is an excellent example of BAD, REAL BAD CISM.

Truly, this is not what CISM is about, and that team either needs to cease

and desist or get retrained. I have no problem admitting that people doing

fouled up CISM can be detrimental.

Now, I wasn't the one who started this, but I am getting tired of reading

the waste being posted.

The good Dr. said.............

" But, my bias is not because I have a

financial interest in the product or a similar product, "

Doc, I hereby challenge that statement.

As far as the woman goes, my wife told me to quit arguing with Dr.

Bledsoe on the listserver. You might want to ask Dr. Gist about the woman.

But tell me how Bisson's study is an evaluation of CISM.

By the way, go ahead and break the news to the list about the RCTs showing

the power and presence of God.

As far as ad hominem, read McNally's stuff or Bledsoe's stuff, or better

yet, attend one of Bledsoe's presentations and you'll get enough ad hominem

to make you sick.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

Maybe a research paper needs to focus on the traits that keep a medic

stable and happy. Is it faith, learned coping mechanisms, desire????

For years I've been teaching the Berger Model in EMS schools. It

relates to insulative firewalls that we must build to adapt to

situations. Keep in mind that some people may need more help than

others.

-mikey

>>> magnetass@... 5/6/04 11:17:36 PM >>>

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]

Maybe a research paper needs to focus on the traits that keep a medic

stable and happy. Is it faith, learned coping mechanisms, desire????

For years I've been teaching the Berger Model in EMS schools. It

relates to insulative firewalls that we must build to adapt to

situations. Keep in mind that some people may need more help than

others.

-mikey

>>> magnetass@... 5/6/04 11:17:36 PM >>>

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]

Oh heck no Maxine.....as nice as you were to me when I was a pup, I'd sooner

cut my arm off. You and Tanna and Hope were the neatest people. I've done

some good, and actually saved a few here and there, and it's mostly due to

you folks.

magnetass sends

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

> So does this mean that if you are actually aiming at someone else, you

will

> hit me instead. Now I AM worried.

>

> Maxine

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

>

> > 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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh heck no Maxine.....as nice as you were to me when I was a pup, I'd sooner

cut my arm off. You and Tanna and Hope were the neatest people. I've done

some good, and actually saved a few here and there, and it's mostly due to

you folks.

magnetass sends

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

> So does this mean that if you are actually aiming at someone else, you

will

> hit me instead. Now I AM worried.

>

> Maxine

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

>

> > 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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

So does this mean that if you are actually aiming at someone else, you will

hit me instead. Now I AM worried.

Maxine

----- Original Message -----

> 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.

[Guest guest]

So does this mean that if you are actually aiming at someone else, you will

hit me instead. Now I AM worried.

Maxine

----- Original Message -----

> 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.

[Guest guest]

Remember what Mark Twain said, " Old unloaded firearms...are the most deadly

and unerring things that have ever been created by man...A youth who can't

hit a cathedral at 30 yards with a Gatling gun in three-quarters of an hour,

can take up an old empty shotgun and bag his grandmother every time at a

hundred. "

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

Oh heck no Maxine.....as nice as you were to me when I was a pup, I'd sooner

cut my arm off. You and Tanna and Hope were the neatest people. I've done

some good, and actually saved a few here and there, and it's mostly due to

you folks.

magnetass sends

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

> So does this mean that if you are actually aiming at someone else, you

will

> hit me instead. Now I AM worried.

>

> Maxine

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

>

> > 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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Remember what Mark Twain said, " Old unloaded firearms...are the most deadly

and unerring things that have ever been created by man...A youth who can't

hit a cathedral at 30 yards with a Gatling gun in three-quarters of an hour,

can take up an old empty shotgun and bag his grandmother every time at a

hundred. "

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

Oh heck no Maxine.....as nice as you were to me when I was a pup, I'd sooner

cut my arm off. You and Tanna and Hope were the neatest people. I've done

some good, and actually saved a few here and there, and it's mostly due to

you folks.

magnetass sends

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

> So does this mean that if you are actually aiming at someone else, you

will

> hit me instead. Now I AM worried.

>

> Maxine

>

> ----- Original Message -----

>

>

> > 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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The study was quoted to show that RCTs are not the only form of

research. So, don't try to say that only RCT are the only form of

valid research.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

The study was quoted to show that RCTs are not the only form of

research. So, don't try to say that only RCT are the only form of

valid research.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

So, what does it say about CISM?

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

The study was quoted to show that RCTs are not the only form of research.

So, don't try to say that only RCT are the only form of valid research.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

So, what does it say about CISM?

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

The study was quoted to show that RCTs are not the only form of research.

So, don't try to say that only RCT are the only form of valid research.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

, once again you say things that aren't said. No one has

accused Gist of infidelity.

Are you saying you're not participating in ad hominem attacks?

I'd never try to tell a psychiatrist from England, US, or Timbuktu

how to do therapy, but I have my doubts about some of their

abilities to do crisis intervention with fellowfirefighters.

As far as being familiar with the research, I'm using some of the

studies you quote becasue there is some awesome information

contained in the studies.....I go back to the burn unit in the

hospital re-emphasize these people need primary care, not some

psychiatrist doing " psychological debriefing. "

Once again, I want you to explain that you have no financial

interest in this debate. Are you saying you're not being paid for

your talks slamming CISM?

McNally's latest article is nothing more than a condensed version of

his article from last year yet you posted the link like it's " More

heap on ths CISM pile. " It's not.

I've heard about your presentation, and to be truthful, I think

you're helping the CISM field, but sometimes you take it entirely

too far and misrepresent or fail to represent the whole story.

While I can't promise to attend your presentation at the Fire

Chief's conference, I'm glad to sit down and discuss some of these

issues with you in a constructive, civil manner.

Vaughn

[Guest guest]

..

>

> How do you know the CISM in British Columbia was bad?

They were doing CISDs before they even knew the fate of the crew.

What on earth are you going to debrief? A crash, LODD, serious

injuries,?

Rather doing CISD why not be out there helping look for the crew,

and providing information, food, nourishment and help meet some of

the lower needs on Maslow's hierachy. If someone is truly impaired

then certainly that person needs crisis intervention or to be

referred, but to sit down and use CISD is inappropriate.

VAughn

IT was an ICISF

> trained and certified group. The report says they adhered to the

tenets.

> Have you read the study? Why was it bad? What did they do wrong?

>

> BEB

>

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

pile

>

> Doc, you only accept the research when the research fits with your

opinion,

> and when I point out that the research isn't about CISM you start

all this

> RCT nonsense that isn't even about CISM. I've read the negative

studies and

> you might be surprised to know that I agree with many of them. I'm

the first

> in line to tell Bissson to get out of the frickin burn unit!!!!!

>

> You continually misconstrue the studies as evidenced by your topic

last week

> regarding CISM, when the article didn't even mention CISM.

>

> The study from BC is an excellent example of BAD, REAL BAD CISM.

> Truly, this is not what CISM is about, and that team either needs

to cease

> and desist or get retrained. I have no problem admitting that

people doing

> fouled up CISM can be detrimental.

>

> Now, I wasn't the one who started this, but I am getting tired of

reading

> the waste being posted.

>

> The good Dr. said.............

>

> " But, my bias is not because I have a

> financial interest in the product or a similar product, "

>

> Doc, I hereby challenge that statement.

>

> As far as the woman goes, my wife told me to quit arguing with Dr.

> Bledsoe on the listserver. You might want to ask Dr. Gist about

the woman.

>

> But tell me how Bisson's study is an evaluation of CISM.

>

> By the way, go ahead and break the news to the list about the RCTs

showing

> the power and presence of God.

>

> As far as ad hominem, read McNally's stuff or Bledsoe's stuff, or

better

> yet, attend one of Bledsoe's presentations and you'll get enough

ad hominem

> to make you sick.

>

>

> Vaughn

>

>

>

>

>

>