Narconon Study Published in Journal online
Monica Pignotti
journal:
http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
When I looked into the journal further, I found that they charge
people or organizations to publish an "author processing fee" and have
published articles on other discredited programs such as DARE.
When I sent the journal a comment on the article, I just heard back
they are refusing to publish my comments. Here is what the editor
responded to me, obviously missing the key points of my letter:
Quote:
"Belonging to a religion and making donations do not constitute a
"conflict of interest" under current definitions. Otherwise, everyone
would have to reveal their faith.
Regarding the comments about randomization, please note that would be
impossible in a school system. Also, note that once anyone removes
consent or there are any missing data, the randomization is no longer
valid from self selection (out). Thus, there are very very few truely
randomized experimental studies with humans in any field."
I have posted my commentary and the editor's refusal to publish it
along with some links to the journal's policies on my blog (see link
below)
http://psychjourney_blogs.typepad.com/monica_pignotti_/2008/06/scientology-nar.html
Here is what I posted:
I recently was made aware of an "study" that was published in a
journal called Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy that
makes articles available online on Scientology's Narconon program:
http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
Since the study had a number of flaws and claims that were unwarranted
from the data, I looked into the journal further. I found that they
had also published a highly laudatory article on the discredited drug
program DARE. Then, when I checked the author guidelines, I found out
that they charge a hefty "article processing charge" to publish. It
appears that the journal is publishing articles for a fee that would
very likely not survive peer review at a more reputable journal that
did not charge authors. I have never had to pay one cent to publish in
any of the reputable journals I have published in.
http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/info/instructions/
Quote:
"SATPP levies an article-processing charge for every accepted article,
to cover the costs incurred by open access publication. In 2008 the
article-processing charge is £700 (€895, US$1385). Generally, if the
submitting author's institution is a BioMed Central member the cost of
the article processing charge is covered by the membership, and no
further charge is payable. In the case of authors whose institutions
are supporter members of BioMed Central, however, a discounted article
processing charge is payable by the author. Please click here to check
if your institution is a BioMed Central member. We offer a £30
discount for manuscripts formatted with EndNote 5 (or later versions)
or Reference Manager 10 or created using Publicon. Waivers may be
granted, particularly for authors from developing countries. For
further details, see more information about article-processing
charges. "
One person did post a comment, but then one of the Scientologist
authors posted a respond making more unwarranted claims. I attempted
to submit a comment that the journal refused to publish, so I am
posting it here:
I have a number of concerns about Ms. Cecchini's response to Mr.
Catt's incisive criticism of the study in question. While it is true
that no study is perfect and all studies have their flaws, it is
important that researchers clearly state these as limitations and be
conservative in their conclusions. Since this study contained only
self-reports of the participants and did not examine actual behavior,
no conclusions about reduction in actual drug usage should be drawn
based upon the self-reports of high school students about their usage
and attitudes towards drugs.
Regarding her statement that the researchers tested for baseline
differences between the two groups and did an ANCOVA, no statistical
test can ever be a substitute for randomization in the way she
definitively implies. While such tests can be helpful, they cannot be
a substitute for randomization because it is not possible for any
researcher to know all the possible variables and factors on which the
two groups could differ. If there were good reasons not to randomize,
it is appropriate for researchers to clearly state this as a study
limitation, acknowledge that no statistical case can make up for this,
and be more conservative about conclusions.
Second, Ms. Cecchini indicates she believes that Mr. Catt has
"competing interests" but she has not stated her own. A search on Ms.
Cecchini's name reveals (see e.g.
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/impact/impact-109-patrons.html)
that she has not only been a President of Narconon but is also a
Founding Patron of the Church of Scientology (donations of $40,000 or
more) and Narconon is known to be based upon the teachings of L. Ron
Hubbard and Scientology, as is stated on Narconon's own website (see
http://www.narconon.org/about_narconon/about_lronhubbard
which states "The Narconon program has from the beginning been founded
on key principles developed by author and humanitarian L. Ron
Hubbard"). This is especially relevant because nowhere was Hubbard
referenced in the article. In consulting Table 1, even though it is a
large table, it contained only vague descriptions of what was done.
According to the APA's standards for empirically supported treatments,
in order to provide evidence for efficacy, a detailed treatment manual
should be provided. This is so that other researchers can
independently replicate the study. In reading this article it does not
appear that the transparency about the program is sufficient for such
a researcher to replicate it.
Monica Pignotti
Eldon
Maybe they should also try the ol' "professional directory" bit..Ever
heard of that one? What you do is mail out an annual "renewal" invoice
to a whole bunch of organizations within a certain field, billing them
for a directory listing. A certain percentage will just send a check
automatically, since it looks like an ongoing thing. Then the
"publisher" photocopies a few copies of the directory and mails them
to a few places in order to legally fulfill the orders.
With the Internet, they could even save some postage.
On Jun 4, 2:46 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> For those who haven't heard, a Scientology study was published in a
> journal:
>
> http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
>
> When I looked into the journal further, I found that they charge
> people or organizations to publish an "author processing fee" and have
> published articles on other discredited programs such as DARE.
>
> When I sent the journal a comment on the article, I just heard back
> they are refusing to publish my comments. Here is what the editor
> responded to me, obviously missing the key points of my letter:
>
> Quote:
> "Belonging to a religion and making donations do not constitute a
> "conflict of interest" under current definitions. Otherwise, everyone
> would have to reveal their faith.
>
> Regarding the comments about randomization, please note that would be
> impossible in a school system. Also, note that once anyone removes
> consent or there are any missing data, the randomization is no longer
> valid from self selection (out). Thus, there are very very few truely
> randomized experimental studies with humans in any field."
>
> I have posted my commentary and the editor's refusal to publish it
> along with some links to the journal's policies on my blog (see link
> below)
>
> http://psychjourney_blogs.typepad.com/monica_pignotti_/2008/06/scient...
> http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/impact/impact-109-patrons....)
> that she has not only been a President of Narconon but is also a
> Founding Patron of the Church of Scientology (donations of $40,000 or
> more) and Narconon is known to be based upon the teachings of L. Ron
> Hubbard and Scientology, as is stated on Narconon's own website (seehttp://www.narconon.org/about_narconon/about_lronhubbard
Kim P
Saw your reply on line = well done - this sort of thing needs to be
disseminated - not only to critics but to those in the know (so to
speak) NArconon has always used deceit to tout its program - and the
public need to know this. This type of article gives a veneer of
credibility to an otherwise medically unsound and demonstrably dangerous
program.
Kim P
Android Cat
> For those who haven't heard, a Scientology study was published in a
> journal:
>
> http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
>
> When I looked into the journal further, I found that they charge
> people or organizations to publish an "author processing fee" and have
> published articles on other discredited programs such as DARE.
>
> When I sent the journal a comment on the article, I just heard back
> they are refusing to publish my comments. Here is what the editor
> responded to me, obviously missing the key points of my letter:
>
> Quote:
> "Belonging to a religion and making donations do not constitute a
> "conflict of interest" under current definitions. Otherwise, everyone
> would have to reveal their faith.
>
> Regarding the comments about randomization, please note that would be
> impossible in a school system. Also, note that once anyone removes
> consent or there are any missing data, the randomization is no longer
> valid from self selection (out). Thus, there are very very few truely
> randomized experimental studies with humans in any field."
>
> I have posted my commentary and the editor's refusal to publish it
> along with some links to the journal's policies on my blog (see link
> below)
>
> http://psychjourney_blogs.typepad.com/monica_pignotti_/2008/06/scientology-nar.html
I saw the post on Enturbulation by some anon. ;-)
http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-breaking-news/narconon-pays-money-fail-science-journal-publish-study-17003/
As you probably know by now (thread locked), there's another thread that's
been digging at this for a little while:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/growl-flawed-narconon-study-gets-published-12308/
The other people who have also submitted serious responses to this "paper"
have gotten the same brush-off, which speaks _volumes_ about the quality of
the publication, I think.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
> > For those who haven't heard, a Scientology study was published in a
> > journal:
>
> >http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
>
> > When I looked into the journal further, I found that they charge
> > people or organizations to publish an "author processing fee" and have
> > published articles on other discredited programs such as DARE.
>
> > When I sent the journal a comment on the article, I just heard back
> > they are refusing to publish my comments. Here is what the editor
> > responded to me, obviously missing the key points of my letter:
>
> > Quote:
> > "Belonging to a religion and making donations do not constitute a
> > "conflict of interest" under current definitions. Otherwise, everyone
> > would have to reveal their faith.
>
> > Regarding the comments about randomization, please note that would be
> > impossible in a school system. Also, note that once anyone removes
> > consent or there are any missing data, the randomization is no longer
> > valid from self selection (out). Thus, there are very very few truely
> > randomized experimental studies with humans in any field."
>
> > I have posted my commentary and the editor's refusal to publish it
> > along with some links to the journal's policies on my blog (see link
> > below)
>
> > that she has not only been a President of Narconon but is also a
> > Founding Patron of the Church of Scientology (donations of $40,000 or
> > more) and Narconon is known to be based upon the teachings of L. Ron
> > Hubbard and Scientology, as is stated on Narconon's own website (see
> >http://www.narconon.org/about_narconon/about_lronhubbard
> > which states "The Narconon program has from the beginning been founded
> > on key principles developed by author and humanitarian L. Ron
> > Hubbard"). This is especially relevant because nowhere was Hubbard
> > referenced in the article. In consulting Table 1, even though it is a
> > large table, it contained only vague descriptions of what was done.
> > According to the APA's standards for empirically supported treatments,
> > in order to provide evidence for efficacy, a detailed treatment manual
> > should be provided. This is so that other researchers can
> > independently replicate the study. In reading this article it does not
> > appear that the transparency about the program is sufficient for such
> > a researcher to replicate it.
>
> > Monica Pignotti
>
> Saw your reply on line = well done - this sort of thing needs to be
> disseminated - not only to critics but to those in the know (so to
> speak) NArconon has always used deceit to tout its program - and the
> public need to know this. This type of article gives a veneer of
> credibility to an otherwise medically unsound and demonstrably dangerous
> program.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks, Kim. I'm still having a dialogue with the journal's editor,
attempting to give him links to more information such as Touretsky's
website on Narconon and what it actually is and how the article was
basically a whitewash. I might be able to get some of my commentary
published even though he's not allowing me to expose the author's
status as a Scientology patron (says it is her religion and thus off
limits).
Astrid...@yahoo.com
use. Keep up the good work.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
> > For those who haven't heard, a Scientology study was published in a
> > journal:
>
> >http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
>
> > When I looked into the journal further, I found that they charge
> > people or organizations to publish an "author processing fee" and have
> > published articles on other discredited programs such as DARE.
>
> > When I sent the journal a comment on the article, I just heard back
> > they are refusing to publish my comments. Here is what the editor
> > responded to me, obviously missing the key points of my letter:
>
> > Quote:
> > "Belonging to a religion and making donations do not constitute a
> > "conflict of interest" under current definitions. Otherwise, everyone
> > would have to reveal their faith.
>
> > Regarding the comments about randomization, please note that would be
> > impossible in a school system. Also, note that once anyone removes
> > consent or there are any missing data, the randomization is no longer
> > valid from self selection (out). Thus, there are very very few truely
> > randomized experimental studies with humans in any field."
>
> > I have posted my commentary and the editor's refusal to publish it
> > along with some links to the journal's policies on my blog (see link
> > below)
>
>
> <snip of good stuff>
>
> I saw the post on Enturbulation by some anon. ;-)http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-breaking-news/narconon-pays-money-...
>
> As you probably know by now (thread locked), there's another thread that's
That was a quote of my posting to another group, forwarded to that
one. I wonder why it was locked.
> The other people who have also submitted serious responses to this "paper"
> have gotten the same brush-off, which speaks _volumes_ about the quality of
> the publication, I think.
I saw that -- thanks. Now that is something Anonymous is doing that I
can definitely support.
Monica
> --
> Ron of that ilk.- Hide quoted text -
Android Cat
> On Jun 4, 6:54 pm, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> As you probably know by now (thread locked), there's another thread
>> that's
>> been digging at this for a little
>> while:http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/growl-flawed-nar...
>
> That was a quote of my posting to another group, forwarded to that
> one. I wonder why it was locked.
It was a duplicate of the subject of the other thread and the moderators
like to keep single threads focused on a topic or action.
>> The other people who have also submitted serious responses to this
>> "paper"
>> have gotten the same brush-off, which speaks _volumes_ about the
>> quality of
>> the publication, I think.
>
> I saw that -- thanks. Now that is something Anonymous is doing that I
> can definitely support.
I thought you'd like it. :*)
Tom Newton
<06414cc4-a86b-46f2...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.co
m> Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> For those who haven't heard, a Scientology study was published
> in a journal:
>
> http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
>
> When I looked into the journal further, I found that they
> charge people or organizations to publish an "author processing
> fee" and have published articles on other discredited programs
> such as DARE.
There starts the propaganda: She says that Narconon is discredited.
It isn't. It is a very successful program and is thriving.
A few minutes on Google will make that clear.
She's lying because Narconon has its roots in Scientology.
And in her hate-warped mind, all things to do with Scientology
are EVIL.
>
> When I sent the journal a comment on the article, I just heard
> back they are refusing to publish my comments. Here is what the
> editor responded to me, obviously missing the key points of my
> letter:
>
They refused to publish your comments because they are obviuosly
anti-Scientology hate propaganda.
<snip>
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
Behaser
On Jun 5, 1:21 am, Tom Newton <t...@server.invalid> wrote:
>>
> A few minutes on Google will make that clear.
>
So two minutes on Google and look what you can find?
Google “ narconon victims”
Google “ narconon youtube”
Google “narconon scams “
Google “narconon clark carr”
Google “Narconon beha”
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/StoneHawk/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/Personal/Beha/
Greg Beha
Eldon
> On 2008-06-04, in
> <06414cc4-a86b-46f2-965b-45818500d...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.co
> m> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > For those who haven't heard, a Scientology study was published
> > in a journal:
>
> >http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/3/1/8
>
> > When I looked into the journal further, I found that they
> > charge people or organizations to publish an "author processing
> > fee" and have published articles on other discredited programs
> > such as DARE.
>
> There starts the propaganda: She says that Narconon is discredited.
>
> It isn't. It is a very successful program and is thriving.
No it isn't successful -- except in bilking some people out of large
amounts of money for a quack regimen. No it isn't thriving despite the
dozens of shill websites that "refer" people to Narconon.
Now, think about that. Why does a Scientology front group need a
second generation front group? Sounds sorta like an MLM scam to me.
How can you sleep at night when you're posting such blatant lies to
delude vulnerable people? Shame on you. Asshole.
You won't even have a clue when this karma snaps back on you.