FP, my illustration by an example of statistics and some evidence of adverse outcomes from the purif, of the shortcomings of your sort of andecdotalism, is by no means comparable to the sort of whataboutism that you attempted to respond with. Any discussion about such a pseudo-scientific subject has problems with the “level of information presentation” because of the lack of proper empirical information about the subject itself, and the rhetorical tactics that true believers resort to.

And are you really unaware that Narconon is an insignificant player when it comes to drug treatment? Have you really never heard of the famous Betty Ford Clinic – which, now merged with the Hazeldon Foundation, is easily 10 times the size of Narconon worldwide? Or the renowned Mayo Clinic’s Addiction Program, which treats more people at one site, than all of Narconon? And the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) has a budget of over a billion dollars a year, most of it spent supporting research initiatives?

I assume even you wouldn’t defend Narconon’s obvious false claims of 70-100% success rates. Like Scientology – the CofS and independents – it wouldn’t be failing and shrinking if it really had something that extraordinary to offer the world, would it? The best information available points to a Narconon success rate of 6.6.%*, compared to an average of 10% among programs. You don’t really have any clue as to whether Narconon “doing something” worthwhile, or is actually hurting people by diverting them from more effective modern, evidence-based treatments, do you? Narconon, which is withering on the vine of its own shortcomings failures, would be long gone if it weren’t propped up by Scientology for ideological reasons.*

As for the purif outside the context of Narconon, it’s a false equivalency to compare it to medical and psychological interventions, many of which are for severe and even life-threatening conditions, when it only claims to address “spiritual well-being.” For medical procedures that are elective and cosmetic, an acceptable rate of fatalities is about 1 in 10,000, and between cases filed with authorities (the Portland, OR case that Scientology settled out of court, and 2 deaths in Italy) plus unofficial reports, the purif rate is almost certainly higher than that.

* “Scientology’s other groups had to prop up Narconon”: https://scientologymoneyproject.com/2016/08/19/new-scientology-financial-disclosures-reflect-the-dire-state-of-its-chief-drug-rehab/
And it’s failed financially, and closed entirely, in one country – Some countries force Scientology to open the books: Here’s one report on how bad business is https://tonyortega.org/2018/08/29/some-countries-force-scientology-to-open-the-books-heres-one-report-on-how-bad-business-is/

** Swedish study analysis reported in English at https://www.northpointrecovery.com/blog/explained-narconon-connection-scientology/ at the end of the section “How Successful Is the Narconon Program?”

FP, you’re not blunting or invalidating anything, others just get tired of your endless circular arguments and fallacious argumentation, and give up. It’s indeed like dealing with a flat-earther or other conspiracy theorist – probably because Scientology’s “space opera” conspiracy theories underlie your rationalizations.

I can spend 5 minutes and come up with accounts of multiple deaths and all manner of adverse consequences from the purif, including from individuals who themselves suffered long-term health problems afterwards, which is just the tip of the iceberg. Scientology and Narconon don’t provide any proper accounting of such adverse outcomes, like responsible programs and institutions do, so we only know that they have a problem that they feel the need to hide. Even the FASE studies of the early 1980s (undertaken because Scientology recognized that successful research would provide a powerful tool for convincing the world), stated in one of the papers that the rate of adverse reactions was about 3%*

Have you ever been on an airplane that crashed? Presumably, not. Does that mean that airplanes don’t crash? Obviously, not. Your limited personal experience is inadequate to accurately assess or understand the risks. If you claim to have seen only one case of problems, and Scientology’s own research admits a rate of 3%, your reported experience obviously doesn’t reflect reality.

You don’t have concrete proof of anything you claim, or believe – the research, and science, aren’t there. Instead, you’re accustomed to arguing based on theories and anecdotes, the same as other true believers, and the adherents of various sorts of pseudo-science. So let’s get down to the real-world litmus test: How do you explain the longstanding failure of Scientology and the “tech” to produce results that impress anyone other than true believers? Why isn’t Scientology – including the independents – or Narconon, taking the world by storm, and instead failing and on a trajectory towards extinction? If Scientology could produce “clears” and “OTs,” then shouldn’t it have an outsized representation among the world’s most recognized and admired people (as some religious and ethnic groups, do)? If Narconon works so well, then shouldn’t it be growing by leaps and bounds due to popular demand for a solution to the scourge of drug addiction – and have been long ago proved for the world, in FASE’s attempts at research?

Is what you really believe – and hesitate to openly admit, because you know it sounds so farcical – that Scientology is somehow successful, but that is just being suppressed by a vast conspiracy, of space-opera “psychs” or whatever?

* Scientology’s studies also had to abandon Hubbard’s premise that drugs are stored in fat cells, and actually disproved his claim that toxins are sweated out – if the purif does anything, it just stimulates their excretion in bodily waste, as other research shows

🙂

Oh! Really? Perhaps you should read HCOB The Anti-Social Personality (written by Hubbard) where Hitler etc. are mentioned before attempting to juxtapose your Social Justice Warrior assumptions. Lucky I’m here eh otherwise no one else would correct your “data” and we are all interested in the truth, are we not?

Rather a lame reply again eh? So what is your agenda then, psychologist? “No one here tries to denigrate Scientology”, er, have you read the comments and articles here or are you only concerned with your own?

You are waffling Mike. Wynski does the same as Kat. So the presumed negative of the MD is invalidated so now we move on to the “dangers of Niacin” – which is another load of hogwash as you know. (Peacemaker will now spend hours desperately digging up 1 case where someone was allergic to it or whatever story can be presented to the world (well, here anyway) as “proof”.)

Remember the little tete-a-tete about the Barley Formula? Same principle – dudes start ranting about it until I provided the link that shut them all up where Hubbard was recommending breast feeding way back in 1952.

Foolproof,
No one here tries to denigrate Scientology- it does it all on its own.

Thanks Skyler. I’ll post an update when I return. It’s still not for a few weeks, and I’m working on something for while I’m there. Something that I hope may move the bar a bit…

I think if Dave COB is reading this he should get the Org concerned where Wynski was supervising the Purif to FES the folders.

Kat,

Now that you mentioned it, I never recall Hubbard using the word: MODERATION. It is not in the Tech dictionary (1970s) so it was not in Hubbard’s universe.

One could argue Hubbard was immoderate in all things.