Sorry Bill S.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (another logical fallacy)

Or, correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, maybe someone applying Standard Tech did not handle my bleeding ulcer in which case I am dead and I am in Heaven or Hell. Perhaps someone can tell me which it is because it seems like neither to me.

Espiando,

Before I did any Scientology services other than just reading books, I received psychotherapy from a lady who had done her Ph.D under Carl Rogers at the University of Chicago in the early 50’s, and who participated in his “scientific” study that “proved” that auditing doesn’t work.

She described to me how they did the experiment. They used Dianetics to get patients into incidents, but then evaluated for the patients while running the incidents, as they were used to doing.

LRH said that the auditor’s code is more important than the specific process. These “scientists” violated the auditor’s code. Therefore their experiment was invalid.

My therapist also evaluated for me in my sessions with her, and I got no gain from seeing her weekly for 6 months. By contrast, I got explosive, life changing case gain from my first 10 hours of Scientology auditing.

And by the way, I also took a hypnosis class my girlfriend was fascinated with, and I turned out to be one of the few who couldn’t be hypnotized.

LMAO! How can I invalidate that which doesn’t exist?

I would be wrong to validate that which doesn’t exist however. So, it’s all good.

Here’s the issue I have with your post: you’re operating by Scientology rules. No one has the right to invalidate case gain. Mike obviously doesn’t believe that. Neither do I. Dani Lemberger, on this blog, attempted to invalidate the wins I’ve achieved with psych drugs. So tell me why I should give you considerations that I’m not given.

As for the double-blind study, yes, I demand that one should be done. If Dianetics is the modern science of mental health, then it should be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Your experiences are no more than anecdotal evidence, and have no bearing on scientific validity. Of course, scientists did try to test Dianetics and Scientology in the late 1950s, and found it didn’t work. But you conveniently ignore this.

I see what you’re saying My 2 Cents. You have an optimistic viewpoint. Maybe things will change in the future. It would have to be pretty radical changes though. Who knows what will happen? I have a feeling that planet Earth and the religious philosophy of Scientology will still be around for a time to come.

Just for the record, I made no donations to the IAS since the mid 1980’s. I didn’t buy the Basics or contribute to Ideal Orgs. And I was declared for demanding actual standard tech.

Regarding onslaughts against me on this blog, I think free speech is great, but it can also squeeze out minority opinions, and that is a problem on all of the blogs.

Wynski, once again you make a wise-ass comment that invalidates the case and gains of not only me but thousands of others.

I don’t need a double-blind controlled and replicated study financed by the National Institute of Mental Health and published in the APA Journal to know what I got from my auditing.

By the way, I’ve yet to see any well-reasoned discussion from you on anything, just potshots and more potshots. What you are doing is trolling and classic mind control. If you don’t have a day job, I’m sure you could find one as a political operative.

Um right. And it still didn’t produce anything that has been proven to be useful.

Insanity with a light touch. LMAO

I did a bunch already with John Aaron Williams. I think Mike has links to them on his homepage.