110 volts applied to the brain. Yep, thats help for sure. I hope your getting some of this tech.

L. Ron Hubbard on Cancer

L. Ron Hubbard on Cancer

I would like to know why there are not lessons being learned from what people try or do not try to do to heal themselves. If people are successful using chemo therapy, and want to advertise their success, would that be a data point to collect? If people also successfully cleared their reactive mind of subconscious programming and thought that helped too, would that be a data point to collect? Maybe a person changed what they ate to be more of a Hunza diet? What age people die in the organization might be another data point. Is not Scientology partly based upon scientific methods? I have not heard of any feedback loop where the quality of a person’s life is discussed and ideas proposed that may or may not be tried out.

I am not suggesting double-blind studies, as I would not want to cause healthcare execs too much worry, but tracking both success and failure may lead to the helpful creation of folk remedies over a period of generations. Not everyone will appreciate the ‘experimentation’ or conflicting advice, but people suffering or dying for whatever reason should provide the motive to explore more treatment options or adjustments to existing treatments.

The main problem being discussed on this thread should be cancer. Without going into details, I want to point out there seems to be a possible curative path found every so often, which is promptly ignored or discredited, and the advertised end to all microbial related disease has been suggested since the 1930’s. I have seen very convincing film footage from that era that few want to touch or reattempt given how ‘ineffective’ the technology is considered, not that all cancers would be associated with microbes. The point is testimonials appear that mention how person X takes product Y and is miraculously cured of cancer. We can debate how other people do not want to hear about inexpensive cures that could not possibly be cures from a logical standpoint, but if say 10,000 people try an illogical cure, and it seems to work well without bad side effects, then more people might be willing to try the illogical.

Is Scientology strong enough, brave enough, adaptable enough to transform over time to become more effective as an organization? I have not heard of any studies being done into people becoming beings of light at the end of their lives, but maybe some mystic topics would have an expected shroud of secrecy. This assumes Scientology is continuing to expand upon the writings and direction provided by Hubbard. The world needs to monopolize on and fully investigate stories such as “Arigo: Surgeon of the Rusty Knife.”

Confining mental illness to an acceptable range of eccentricity would be monumental. Maybe people are not being given enough D3 + K2. Using all the supposedly freed mental facilities of the mind in these blog entries, I do not see alternative suggestions that indicate any form of intelligence is operating other than dogma. People seem to insist on dying when topics like cancer are brought up. I just used the fingers on my hand to count promising cancer cures that most likely will never be considered by mainstream healthcare interests, as they could have been promoted decades ago.

Except of course everything he wrote was pretty much made up shit.

Research.

Research.

It’s a laugh, isn’t it?

Wendy Honnor was using this data from his “research” to cure people with cancer. She is no longer in the cult. Wonder how that went??

Lucky you! So many people surely must wish they had a brain wired like yours.