How We Protect At-Risk Kids.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

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

And he doesn't even know the state program.

I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.

[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.

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

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

You're a maintenance manager. The time you spend posting doesn't detract from the time you spend fixing shit. You're either fixing shit, or you're waiting for shit to break.

He has the type of job that doesn't, or at least shouldn't, have hours and hours of daily downtime. Every post he writes here on work time comes directly out of his productivity. Sort of like how I SHOULD totally be doing homework right now, and every post I make here is time NOT DOING HOMEWORK.

Which, if you think about it, perfectly explains why he knows so little about research in the field he purports to work in. He spends all his time posting here, instead of doing his homework.

[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.

And he doesn't even know the state program.

I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.

It must be exhausting, managing all those silly MPHs with their frivolous degrees.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

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.

[AFK]

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

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

And he doesn't even know the state program.

I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.

I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.

Silly man.

[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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

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

And he doesn't even know the state program.

I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.

I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.

Silly man.

That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.

So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.

[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.

And he doesn't even know the state program.

I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.

I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.

Silly man.

That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.

So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.

Wait, "has been part of it" or "runs it"? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

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

And he doesn't even know the state program.

I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.

I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.

Silly man.

That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.

So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.

Wait, "has been part of it" or "runs it"? 

I think he's claiming that his county nonprofit has its own program.  Not sure, though.  His stories never stay the same.

[McGrupp]

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.

"We have top men working on it."

"Who?"

"Top.....men."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It occurs to me that, knowing where he works, it would be easy to look up exactly how many MPHs he supervises. Not that I care enough to actually do that, but.

[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.

And he doesn't even know the state program.

I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.

I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.

Silly man.

That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.

So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.

Wait, "has been part of it" or "runs it"? 

I think he's claiming that his county nonprofit has its own program.  Not sure, though.  His stories never stay the same.

I wonder if he means the failing one that he's been "called in to save", or another one.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, recapping again:

1.  The Daily Mail is a reputable source and the NIH isn't.
2.  It is not necessary to know the most basic facts about a policy which you claim to have had a hand in.
3.  MPPs are more trained in health issues than MPHs.
4.  Kids dying in foster homes is okay if they're poor, and that sort of thing only happens in Texas, anyway.
5.  Making substances accessible to kids is okay if they're health-conscious.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I wonder if he means the failing one that he's been "called in to save", or another one.

You know, you'd expect the arriving hero to have read the file.