durham:

Simply denying things isn't a meaningful answer, but rather and example of someone engaging in denial.

The "purification rundown" you have done has never been proven to objectively accomplish anything and its basic assumptions, such as that the fat within the body retains toxins indefinitely has been disproven by medical science.

Hubbard was wrong. He had a limited education, and was neither a scientist nor a medical doctor.

Prereviously linked on this thread are reports that include statements made by qualified medical experts regarding this. Naroconon was told to stop school programs on this basis. And the detox programs in NYC were rejected by the FDNY and Fireman's union also on this basis.

You can't seem to accept that Hubbard was wrong, but his theories that support the purification rundown have been proven wrong repeatedly.

Also, ingesting large doses of niacin can cause liver damage.

Scientology volunteers may do some good, but Scinentology's recorded history in the courts demonstrates objectively that they have hurt many people through their "technology"--such as the death of Lisa McPherson.

Your response here durham is not that of someone seriously critically thinking, but almost robotic in its rejection of anything other than the Scientology party line.

The type of responses you offer does support reports in the press and/or accounts provided by former Scientologists and concerned families, that the church effectively shuts down critical thinking and independent evaluation through its process of courses and indoctrination.

There is no dialog here with you, and you don't offer any substance through any objective proof (e.g. hard sciencew, news reports, published peer reviewed research, etc.) to support your opinions garnered from Scientology.

Essentially, you offer your subjective "experience" and expect that to be taken as proof positive that Scientology is good.

Frankly, followers of Rev. Moon, David Koresh and Osama bin Laden offer such subjective anecdotal evidence to support claims that their enlightenment has had a positive effect.

You are beginning to have that same sing-song, of a mindless cult follower and not an independent thinker.

Please think about that.

Quote
rrmoderator
durham:

Re purif - I've seen Scientific journals proving it works and explaining why.

Quote

Hubbard was wrong. He had a limited education, and was neither a scientist nor a medical doctor.

Well there's a fixed opinion. It's pretty irrelevant what you think of him if the techniques he researched work.

Quote

You can't seem to accept that Hubbard was wrong, but his theories that support the purification rundown have been proven wrong repeatedly.

You seem to not understand the way science works - there are virtually always conflicting ideas and research. The firemen who underwent the treatment post 9/11 disagree. So do hundreds of governments and local authorities around the world who support Narconon.

Quote

Scientology volunteers may do some good, but Scinentology's recorded history in the courts demonstrates objectively that they have hurt many people through their "technology"--such as the death of Lisa McPherson.

Incorrect. You don't know what Scientology "technology" is.

Quote

Your response here durham is not that of someone seriously critically thinking, but almost robotic in its rejection of anything other than the Scientology party line.

Well let's listen to the tune you're singing. Certain groups are dangerous. Moreover it's dangerous to even find out about how they work first-hand, read their books or find out what they do because then you will be brainwashed.
If that's not creating fear and intolerance I don't know what is.

durham:

Please cite specifically what scientific journals published peer reviewed research confirming any theory of L. Ron Hubbard.

Be very specific by citing the publication, date of publication, researchers etc.

Making a claim without substantiating it specifically is meaningless.

Once again, let's review what medical ans scientific experts have said about the purification rundown concocted by Hubbard.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"Prof Michael Ryan, head of the pharmacology department at UCD, said he could not find any evidence to support the claims in the church's documents about the course.

"To suggest it could get rid of radiation and toxic compounds was not supported by scientific facts, he said.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Two members of the state physician's board are questioning whether a health-food store with ties to Scientology is practicing medicine illegally by offering a church-sanctioned vitamin regimen.

Ronald Gots, who works for the International Center for Toxicology and Medicine in Rockville, Md., said "I think it's scientifically fallacious to say that you can remove toxic substances from the body this way...Materials stored in fat are not going to be removed in the sweat. It makes no sense."

See [www.culteducation.com]

In a 1988 report, Dr. Ronald E. Gots, a toxicology expert from Bethesda, Md., called the regimen "quackery," and noted that "no recognized body of toxicologists, no department of occupational medicine, nor any governmental agencies endorse or recommend such treatment." The report ended Shreveport's dealings with the program. In an interview yesterday, Dr. Gots said of the program, "It's an unproven, scientifically bereft notion."

See [www.culteducation.com]

"In its reporting, The Chronicle found that Narconon's lectures often taught students information that is widely dismissed by mainstream medical experts. This includes that drugs -- including ecstasy, LSD and marijuana -- accumulate indefinitely in body fat, where they cause recurring drug cravings for months or years; drugs in fat cause flashbacks even years after the user quits; the vitamin niacin pulls drugs from fat, and saunas sweat them from the body; and colored ooze is produced when drugs exit the body."

"Bascom and San Francisco schools chief Arlene Ackerman had asked Heilig to evaluate Narconon after The Chronicle published articles in June and July showing that its anti-drug instruction rests on concepts that mainstream medical experts generally reject but are embraced by the Church of Scientology."

Hubbard's theories that form the basis for the rundown "often exemplifies the outdated, non-evidence-based and sometimes factually inaccurate approach" concluded Steve Heilig, director of health and education for the San Francisco Medical Society.

See [www.nydailynews.com]

Fireman's Union in NYC dumps purification rundown

"Our doctors went down there and checked it out," said Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon. "Their opinion was this was not a detoxification program. We don't endorse it."

Dr. Kerry Kelly, the chief medical officer for the Fire Department, said she has seen no "objective evidence" She said "The essence of their program is you stay in it until you suddenly wake up and say, ‘I feel great,'" she said. "It's hard to have faith in a program like that." She added, "I have trouble believing in these purple-stained towels."

See [www.culteducation.com]

"I've talked with several psychotropic pharmacologists - specialists in psychotropic drugs like LSD," said Michael Glade, a doctor with the American College of Nutrition and coordinator of the college's Council on Endocrinology and Minerals. "None of them thinks there's very much of any psychotropic drug stored in fat. So there isn't much to release in the first place. And if you're going to say that someone is going to go on an LSD trip from burning or releasing LSD stored in their fat tissues, those people would have died long before of an LSD overdose" since the volumes originally ingested would have been huge.

Hubbard himself was no scientist, just a science fiction author. In his public writings, Hubbard never explained how he conducted his studies: how many subjects he used or whether he had a control group data a trained scientist would be expected to provide.

See [www.culteducation.com]

"In my capacity of scientific advisor to Socialstyrelsen [National Board of Health and Welfare] I have been asked to make a statement regarding the detoxification program for drug addicts by the use of, among other things, vitamins and sauna that is practised within Narconon. I have been asked to answer as many as possible of the following subproblems:

1. Can this method of detoxification be considered to conform to scientific standards and medical experience? ["vetenskap och beprovad erfarenhet"]

2. Could this method risk the health of the client?

3. Could this method lead to permanent damage?

4. Should this program be prohibited?

5. May medical doctors prescribe the stated doses of vitamins; if so, on what indications?"

"There is no documentation to show that the Hubbard method of detoxification…conforms to scientific standards and medical experience.” And that “the risks and side effects of the treatment method have also not been evaluated in a serious way.”

The evidence, research and documentation is overwhelming regarding Hubbard's bogus theories. He was a Sci-fi writer, not a doctor or scientist.

Again, you can only accept Hubbard through faith and offer your relgious testimony that it works according to your subjective experience.

But the experts rely on objective facts, not anecdotal stories and testimonies of faith.

The level of influence Scientology has apparently gained over your ability to think independently, critically and objectevely is scary.

Exposing pseudo-science and unsafe treatments is not "intolerance" it's called hard science and the job of the experts involved to protect the public from potential harm.

Scientology has chosen to make outlandish public claims regarding its effectiveness and others have a right to respond.

You really seemed to have swallowed Scientology "hook, line and sinker."

Thankfully, there is plenty of information available from news services, within libraries and most importanly made readily accessible through the Internet to demonstrate that Scientology has hurt people and how it has hurt people.

You may not wish to accept that hard evidence and instead engage in denial, but thinking people free of Scientology's influence can access that information and evaluate for themselves.

This is why Scientology has fought so hard to keep information off the Internet. However, in the process of fighting against free speech for its own interests Scientology has helped to ultimately establish more freedom of expression on the Insternet.

The experience I have of purification working is not "well maybe" - it was physical evidence (in additional to a mental improvement that was "well I feel better but i'm unsure this is permanent".

Hundreds of thousands of people have experienced that purif works. I will also look up the scientific journal I've seen explaining why it works.

That some scientists say it doesn't proves very little. Scientists are people and their opinions factor into their research. At one point scientists thought the world was flat. It's easy to prove that anything doesn't work scientifically if that's what you set out to do.

Regarding other aspects of Scientology - I have mental improvements from auditing that are permanent and not of the type "I feel better when surrounded by scientologists" or "I feel better with a purpose". They are of the type "wow - that was affecting me and now I feel the different that it's lifted", "i never get upset if someone puts me down anymore", "i never get depressed anymore", "losing my wallet didn't make me angry or sad", etc

From scientology study tech I can read books more quickly, understand them quicker and recall them better afterwards even though I was an exceptionally good student beforehand.

I have learnt techniques about management and organisation that mean I am better at managing others and getting results at work.

I have learnt simple techniques that mean I can help my children get over being hurt much more quickly.

And so on.


Tell someone who has studied say statistics that all the material about statistics is a scam and the people who developed the theory were alcoholics and didn't wipe their behinds and see if that proves to them that they can't use statistics anymore.

That's the kind of thing you're up against in proving Scientology doesn't work. Yes the gains in wellbeing whilst obvious and indubitable to someone who has experienced them can still be considered subjective to someone else. But much of the useful tech in Scientology is not subjective - it simply works.

I understand why some people think Scientology is dangerous. I also see the misunderstanding, misconception and disinformation this is based upon.

It's very easy to read some books on Scientology, understand them and realise LRH is a genius without ever stepping foot in a Scientology church. That's what I did - it was purely reading about Scientology that sold it to me. But if you have an idea that LRH was a madman that is fixed hard enough you can read the same books and not understand them.

Scientology works. People try it out and tell others about it. That's how it grows.

durham:

The scientists, doctors and researchers that have repeatedly said Hubbard's theories and rituals such as the "purification rundown" don't work have demonstrated the facts through hard research.

They have proven that toxins and drugs don't exist in fatty tissue as Hubbard said and that instead it is flushed out relatively quickly without his rundown.

These are not opinions, but rather medical facts.

You and Scientology offer nothing, but opinions wihtout any basis in hard research to demonstrate anything.

You seem so "brainwashed" by Scientology that you either can't or won't accept that.

You repeting over and over again the same response is not a dialog on this board, but rather more like a chant.

But it does demonstrate the kind of half-reality and denial Scientologists are so often held within.

Hubbard was a quack and his theories nonsensical.

That is the simple truth based upon hard facts and science and no matter how many times you chant your Scientology mantra, that won't go away.

Again, anecdotal stories and religious testimonials about what you feel subjectively don't provide any substance to support Scientology.

You simply have decided to believe whatever Scientology tells you.

That's your religious choice to make, but it's not proof, nor is it a substitute for hard science.

You have offered nothing else here.

I am sorry to learn you are involving your children in Scientology.

Again, many people have been hurt by Scientology and it is often referred to as a "cult."

Simply dismissing the many times Scientology has hurt people, been sued by those it injured and then paid settlements rather than go to court, demonstrates that. Scientology has also been criminally prosecuted, fined etc. etc.

Attempting to dismiss this somehow as "misunderstanding, misconception and disinformation" is ridiculous and at best engaging in denial and further evidence of someone that doesn't appear able to critically think.

There is no misunderstanding about the court records and history regarding Scientology's behavior, which has been very well-documented.

Bringing your children into Scientology may harm them and taking into consideration how little you actually know about Scientology seems like an ignorant thing to do.

[b:ff1cf134ec][u:ff1cf134ec]Scientology works. [/u:ff1cf134ec]People try it out and tell others about it. That's how it grows.[/quote][/b:ff1cf134ec]

But so does self-reflection, humility, personal religions, open-mindedness, therapy, massage...

Are there people who don't need Scientology, durham?

And what do you say to people who say they don't need Scientology: those that say last time they lost their wallet, they didn't feel sad at all?

[b:f96fa8f76d]Hundreds of thousands of people have experienced that purif works. I will also look up the scientific journal I've seen explaining why it works.[/b:f96fa8f76d]

Hundreds of thousands of people have experienced that psychiatry works, haven't they?

[b:f96fa8f76d]
Regarding other aspects of Scientology - I have mental improvements from auditing that are permanent and not of the type "I feel better when surrounded by scientologists" or "I feel better with a purpose". They are of the type "wow - that was affecting me and now I feel the different that it's lifted", "i never get upset if someone puts me down anymore", "i never get depressed anymore", "losing my wallet didn't make me angry or sad", etc[/b:f96fa8f76d]

Could other belief systems or other techniques (meditation, a massage) have helped you to achieve the same ends?


[b:f96fa8f76d]That's the kind of thing you're up against in proving Scientology doesn't work. Yes the gains in wellbeing whilst obvious and indubitable to someone who has experienced them can still be considered subjective to someone else. But much of the useful tech in Scientology is not subjective - it simply works.[/b:f96fa8f76d]

If I substituted the word "psychiatry" for "Scientology" in the paragraph above, could you argue against it? And before you post your answer, check that I can't substitute the name "Lisa McPherson" into it. :wink:

[b:f96fa8f76d]I understand why some people think Scientology is dangerous. [/b:f96fa8f76d]

I'd like you to tell me why some people think it is dangerous. Rather than just saying it is a conclusion based on misconception, tell me specifically, why is Scientology so controversial and seemingly dangerous?

[b:f96fa8f76d]Scientology works. People try it out and tell others about it. That's how it grows.[/b:f96fa8f76d]

So did the Klu Klux Klan? And tupperware.

Again, I am genuinely interested and am enjoying the discussion.

[b:0840dadd25]I don't understand why [DIANETICS] insists on the idea that humans are oftentimes "trying not to know." In my language, this means "coping," by which I mean, "coping", a natural human characteristic.

[i:0840dadd25]I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate?[/b:0840dadd25][/i:0840dadd25]

Sure. I suppose I mean that in the case of "raw meat" that has suffered a trauma and is "trying not to know", I see "trying not to know" as a natural human coping reaction. Specifically in the case of "raw meat" that has suffered a recent trauma, a visit to the Church of Scientology and a go at the e-meter and a 'diagnosis' from an auditor that said raw meat is trying not to know, may force the raw meat to prematurely face issues that raw meat is not ready to face.


[b:0840dadd25]You say, "[you] don't get angry or upset about stuff [you] don't want to." But emotions are natural, I thought, and in this world there are things outside of an individual's control, right?

[i:0840dadd25]Well let me give an example - one person loses a wallet with a lot of money in it. He vows to be more careful next time and gets on with it. The second guy is devastated - he thinks about what a waste of money it was and goes into a depression. With Scientology you can move from the 2nd state to the first state.[/b:0840dadd25][/i:0840dadd25]

Which sounds lovely but in the case of the recently traumatised raw meat, the Scientological e-meter and initial audit seem to me to be confrontational, in-your-face, you-aren't-moving-directly-to-the-first-state, you-selfdeluding-chop", inhumane sort of experiment. And further, I really think it is basically human to at least initially try not to know. Or (sorry to throw a question your way again, this was supposed to be my turn to answer) are you suggesting that the raped, mugged, attacked O.T. III, would be able to walk away from the horror "in the first state"?


[b:0840dadd25]To be honest, I am quite skeptical of Scientology.

[i:0840dadd25]That's not surprising. The barriers to understanding it are huge. You have to believe it might be possible to improve your condition, you have to be interested in doing so and you have to spend some time to understand it.[/b:0840dadd25][/i:0840dadd25]

But a reluctance to embrace Scientology is not a reluctance to believe it possible to improve one's condition. And one can have an interest in improving one's condition and be willing to spend time to understand how to improve one's condition, without embracing Scientology. Right?

[i:0840dadd25][b:0840dadd25]And of course there is a lot of disinformation about Scientology that puts people off trying it out.[/b:0840dadd25][/i:0840dadd25]

I have always taken Scientology stories in the media with a grain of salt. I certainly doubt Tom Cruise ate the placenta and have always suspected the space-opera stories of Xenu (pardon me) have been propagated by a media reluctant to promote a controversial church. But nonetheless, I am skeptical of the church. Its goals as you've stated them seem to me to be very ordinary goals common to all humanity. And if Scientology is just a technique to achieve these goals, then it is easily argued that many people don't need the techniques as pushed by the church.


[b:0840dadd25]Too often it seems to me that Scientology aims to mute the natural human condition.

[i:0840dadd25]Scientology is not about muting anything - it's about empowering. But for me to judge that statement properly you'll have to tell me what you mean by "natural human condition".[/b:0840dadd25][/i:0840dadd25]

The natural human condition is that condition of humans which has come before and will come again. The natural, clear state of the newborn baby who will grow and experience good and bad things and who will forge a way through a human life learning how to deal with both good and bad things.

[b:0840dadd25]And in fact, it does exactly that, right?: by OTVIII, you are no longer human but thetan, right or wrong?

[i:0840dadd25]Well to understand what the OT levels really are you'd have to do a lot of reading and have done some Dianetics so you understand a fraction of the kind of improvements possible. The best way of describing it is that you get some abilities you never realised you had.[/b:0840dadd25][/i:0840dadd25]

I am doing alot of reading but agree I may not understand it all and for that matter, may never. What about you? Having approached Scientology philosophically, the church looks to be proposing a life that is a godless delusion of opportunistic self-importance. The idea that I am a divine being in control of my reality, really, quite frankly, scares me and leaves me feeling very alone and scared. And quite frankly seems to render the life I am experiencing no more important than a matinee movie at the local multiplex. Hopefully to prove my genuine interest in your religion (philosophy? study tech?), I tell you that. I feel dread at the idea that I have conjured this reality using my thetan powers; that cinema and chess and virtual reality have as much meaning as this life.

[b:0840dadd25]I look forward to your response. It is a rare chance to be given a free insight into the world of Scientology![/b:0840dadd25]

[i:0840dadd25][b:0840dadd25]Glad you're interested. :) [/b:0840dadd25][/i:0840dadd25]

Yes, genuinely. Are you interested in other religions?

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
[b:cc8553063d][u:cc8553063d]Scientology works. [/u:cc8553063d]People try it out and tell others about it. That's how it grows.

[/b:cc8553063d]

But so does self-reflection, humility, personal religions, open-mindedness, therapy, massage...

Are there people who don't need Scientology, durham?

And what do you say to people who say they don't need Scientology: those that say last time they lost their wallet, they didn't feel sad at all?[/quote]

Well funnily enough I think it's often the people who need Scientology least who try it out. Really understanding the mind is very interesting.

My personal view is that I'm sure everyone would benefit from Scientology. It's the biggest and best study of life there is. Only as good as it is workable - and it's extremely workable.
As to convincing people of that - I generally wouldn't bother apart from to say read some books about it - it's more fascinating than anything else (even if you think it's a scam)!
Most people (me included in the past) just don't have any idea of what Scientology can do for them as regards spiritual enlightenment and wellbeing.

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
Hundreds of thousands of people have experienced that psychiatry works, haven't they?

Yes if you admit that hundreds of thousands have experienced that heroin, cocaine and speed work.
They do have an effect. Not a good effect long term though.
Despite the profits to be made from getting everyone on psychiatric drugs virtually no person who feels mentally fit would ever take them.
That shows something about their limitations in my opinion.

Quote

Could other belief systems or other techniques (meditation, a massage) have helped you to achieve the same ends?

Who knows? I think there is some stuff that would work in other spiritual techniques/religions.
I did a lot of research into this and tried many things once I was convinced there was some truth in the idea that we are more than just bodies - looked at Christianity, Buddhism, astral travelling, transcendental meditiation.
Most of it didn't work at all on me, or at least was too hard to understand to the point where I could get it to work. Scientology contains a simple and workable path in this regard.

Quote

[b:b167c46f9d]That's the kind of thing you're up against in proving Scientology doesn't work. Yes the gains in wellbeing whilst obvious and indubitable to someone who has experienced them can still be considered subjective to someone else. But much of the useful tech in Scientology is not subjective - it simply works.[/b:b167c46f9d]
If I substituted the word "psychiatry" for "Scientology" in the paragraph above, could you argue against it? And before you post your answer, check that I can't substitute the name "Lisa McPherson" into it. :wink:

Yes - look into Scientology study-tech for instance.

Quote

I'd like you to tell me why some people think it is dangerous. Rather than just saying it is a conclusion based on misconception, tell me specifically, why is Scientology so controversial and seemingly dangerous?

It's not dangerous - that is purely based on misconceptions and lies.
It's controversial because it works so well - for a minority of people seeing other people become happier and more capable is unbearable.

Quote

[b:b167c46f9d]Scientology works. People try it out and tell others about it. That's how it grows.[/b:b167c46f9d]
So did the Klu Klux Klan? And tupperware.

Did the Klu Klux Klan work? If tupperware was a bit more useful I'm sure you'd get people coming up with stories about people's bones being used in it's manufacture and the like. :wink:

Quote

Again, I am genuinely interested and am enjoying the discussion.

Good stuff. :)