WRONG PeaceMaker! Modern ECT uses about 150 V DC @~.9 amps. That is equivalent to a 1,000 watt microwave oven output at power setting 5!

An emeter uses a carrier wave of a few volts and negligible amps. Also, it does NOT work like your multi-meter. Have you EVER studied a Wheastone bridge circuit?

An ECT machine causes the entire body to convulse. What F are you blathering on about?

I’d been meaning to point out to FP, modern ECT uses about as much power as an e-meter charge.

I had the meter (electrical) out to work on one of my old cars last weekend, and was reminded that I’d done the calculations on that out a while back. If you use a meter on resistance setting (basically how the e-meter functions) and cross an airbag circuit, the bag can deploy because it puts out enough electricity across the testing leads (or cans, if you hooked some up) to trigger the detonator.

That puts modern ECT in perspective – and raises questions about what long-term e-meter use might do.

FP, Hubbard and the early psychiatrists relied too much on theory about how they thought things ought to be, which was typical of early 20th century health sciences including medicine. But psychiatry was starting to become more scientific by mid-century, when Hubbard went back to dabbling with things they’d tried earlier like abreaction/regression and electropsychometers, that had seemed impressive first but had not stood up to scrutiny as to their long-term effectiveness.

I’m no particular fan of psychiatry, in part because long ago we had a family member who was hooked on an expensive form of Freudian analysis that was much like what I saw later in Scientology – producing lots of claims of realizations about past trauma, but in reality fragile “cases” making no more obvious progress or change than it seemed like they might have just on their own. But at least psychiatry and the related sciences have since become very outcome-oriented, figuring out what actually produces results including in some of the most difficult patients (the psychotics, schizophrenics and so on for whom Scientology has no answers at all), based on research under the sort of carefully controlled scientific conditions that you’re apparently unfamiliar with.

Come up to present time!

We have no plans to extinguish, drop or otherwise do anything with the torch…

FP, Hubbard made the same mistake that the early psychiatrists did – thought that observation equaled research, and failed to take into account that between the placebo effect and observer biases, plus the natural tendency of people to improve on their own over time, and were completely fooled about the efficacy of what they had been doing. Something similar happened with the quack who did ice pick lobotomies for a couple of years in the 1940s, who was certain he’d found a great new “tech” for helping “crack” tough cases that he saw working before his eyes, and even convinced the Kennedys that he had a new scientific mental health treatment.

Before that, practitioners of magic were sure that their potions and spells were powerful “tech.” Everyone who engages faith healing or voodoo is just as certain as you that they’ve observed that it “works.”

It’s “obvious” that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around it, right? That’s what people thought they observed since time immemorial. And of course, it’s absolutely wrong – our limited powers of observation, and even our senses, can lead us to be fooled

Can you explain what the fundamental difference is between say a voodoo practitioner, who has formulas and treatments worked out over generations, and a scientologist like you? Or are you stuck having to concede that by your Hubbardian standards, they’re more or less equivalently workable “tech,” with similar results?

I watched a program on TV about Yogananda and thought mine was better.

Ha ha!
SOB=SOURCE OF BOOLSHEET
COB=CUP OF BOOLSHEET
CAPTAIN OF BOOLSHEET
CONTINUANCE OF BOOLSHEET
CROWN OF BOOLSHEET
CONTROLLER OF BOOLSHEET
CUNTY OFFICIAL BOOLSHEETER
COCKY OFFENSIVE BOOLSHEETER

HIP,HIP,HOORAY, dear Crappy Offensive Bumpkin!

Cheers😁👍

Scientific realism or materialism is a point of view. Not everyone agrees from the point of view of belief or personal experience.