How We Protect At-Risk Kids.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.

You're funny.  Of course they get training.  The grad school I went to just started an MPH program.  There are MPHs in my office.  I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training.  Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.

The voracity of her training?  What?

And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.

So I think you're full of shit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.

His own state's program says the really hairy stuff goes down the sink.

He didn't know that.

How interesting.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.

WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?

Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?

JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS

OMG OMG OMG

REALLY?

I smell ownage in the air, here.

Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/

Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?

You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?

I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?

Did you even read it? The article primarily addresses environmental issues but also makes mention of the "claims" that it also reduces drug abuse.

Yes.

Down near the bottom under "save a flush", it says:

Only certain drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be flushed down the toilet or drain. These include drugs deemed to be "especially harmful to a child, pet, or anyone else if taken accidentally," according to the agency's "Information for Consumers (Drugs)" webpage.

I find it vastly amusing that RWHN didn't know that.

Sorry, when I said "you" I should have said "he". Obviously, YOU read it. HE, equally obviously, didn't.

[AFK]

NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.

WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?

Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?

JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS

OMG OMG OMG

REALLY?

I smell ownage in the air, here.

Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/

Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?

You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?

I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?

Yes.  I'm well aware of that.  But my concern is the impact on drug abuse.  There are other people involved in this looking at the environmental impact.  That is not my responsibility.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.

You're funny.  Of course they get training.  The grad school I went to just started an MPH program.  There are MPHs in my office.  I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training.  Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.

The voracity of her training?  What?

And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.

So I think you're full of shit.

I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.

I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.

You're funny.  Of course they get training.  The grad school I went to just started an MPH program.  There are MPHs in my office.  I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training.  Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.

The voracity of her training?  What?

And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.

So I think you're full of shit.

I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.

I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.

I don't think he knows any MPHs.

I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Just to reiterate the available evidence, based on actual studies and not "shit the DEA told me":

The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks

Oh.

[AFK]

The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks

Your characterization is incorrect.  I run the most successful take back program in the state.  Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety.  And we know our program works.  We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion.  We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks

Your characterization is incorrect.  I run the most successful take back program in the state.  Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety.  And we know our program works.  We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion.  We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.

Documented, you say?

Let's see it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.

You're funny.  Of course they get training.  The grad school I went to just started an MPH program.  There are MPHs in my office.  I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training.  Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.

The voracity of her training?  What?

And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.

So I think you're full of shit.

I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.

I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.

I don't think he knows any MPHs.

I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.

I'm not totally convinced he works full-time, given that he spends all day, every day on PD posting about being a policy-maker.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.

You're funny.  Of course they get training.  The grad school I went to just started an MPH program.  There are MPHs in my office.  I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training.  Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.

The voracity of her training?  What?

And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.

So I think you're full of shit.

I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.

I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.

I don't think he knows any MPHs.

I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.

I'm not totally convinced he works full-time, given that he spends all day, every day on PD posting about being a policy-maker.

Well, I post a lot, and I work full time. 

But this whole thing of referring to himself as a "big gun"...

[AFK]

Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.

You're funny.  Of course they get training.  The grad school I went to just started an MPH program.  There are MPHs in my office.  I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training.  Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.

The voracity of her training?  What?

And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.

So I think you're full of shit.

I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.

I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.

I don't think he knows any MPHs.

I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.

I'm not totally convinced he works full-time, given that he spends all day, every day on PD posting about being a policy-maker.

I guess TGRR must be a part-time employee too then eh?  Brilliant logic Nigel!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks

Your characterization is incorrect.  I run the most successful take back program in the state.  Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety.  And we know our program works.  We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion.  We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.

Documented, you say?

Let's see it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state".

"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.