Scientology's Hatred of Medicine, the Real Why
Gerry Armstrong
vilification of medicine is spelled out by Hubbard in his policy
letter of June 29, 1971. Hubbard needed, and the Scientology cult's
present leaders need, something on which to blame Scientologists'
"case" or "upsets;" that is, the cult's all too common failures.
Hubbard needed, and now the Miscavige cabal needs, as all fascist
groups need, a group or class of people to attack. Medicine, and,
most loudly and violently, its subset of psychiatry, is Hubbard's,
Miscavige's and all Scientologists' scapegoat. It is the subject,
which, along with its practitioners, Scientologists blame for all
their own organizational ills, their cult's own overt products, and
their cult's own criminality.
Medicine is the mandated projection carrier for Scientologists. They
project their failures, and also their crimes and aberrations, onto
medical professionals. Since Scientologists are only permitted
projection as their psychological condition and the "solution" for
that condition, they require projectees, and Hubbard orders as
"policy" that medicine fill that role. Their cult's leaders'
repetitive, relentless ranting and psychological manipulation brings
Scientologists to project onto, to beastify, to hate and to attack
medicine and its practitioners. That gets Hubbard and his "technology"
off the hook for Scientology's many cases, upsets and utter failures.
[Quote]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex.
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29TH JUNE 1971
Limited issue.
DG's
AG's
GO
Bureau IV
PRO
Legal
PRO Hat
CONFIDENTIAL
Policy is that we assign any case or upset in Scientology
to past damage and interference with the person by medicine or
psychiatry. They were sent to us after medicine or psychiatry had
already destroyed them. We cannot be blamed for psychiatric or
medical failures.
By continually repeating this, make the AMA, Nats, etc very
wary of using our name on these psychiatric and medical failures.
Both subjects are guilty and the statement is demonstrably true. Use
it often. Make it known to the enemy that this is our policy as a
restraint on their fetid imaginations: "Every time you attack us we
will disclose more records of your failures".
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:pc
Copyright © 1971
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/pl-1971-06-29-confidential.html
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/pl-1971-06-29-confid.gif
This PL is a starrate checkout item on the Guardian Office (GO)
Intelligence Course
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/SecrServ/ic_conts.htm See Part D,
"Strategy," item 17, p. 12. It is also a starrate item on the Office
of Special Affairs (OSA) Intelligence Course.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/osa-int-ed-508r.html See
Section M: "Depopularizing the Enemy," item 17, p. 17. The cult
defines "starrate checkout" as "a very exact checkout which verifies
the full and minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study
materials and tests his full understanding of the data and ability to
apply it." HCOB 21 Sept 1970
That Scientologists' hatred for medical doctors, and even their more
obstreperous hatred for psychiatrists, is simply part of the
Hubbard-Miscavige brainwash, is shown by the fact that virtually every
person who leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred.
Indeed, many people who escape the Scientology brainwash go on to
academic study in the medical and psychological fields. But almost
everyone who leaves the cult discovers that doctors are not the evil
entities that they had been indoctrinated by Scientology into hating,
and that doctors and medicine are certainly not responsible for the
failures and overt products of Hubbard's "technology." The "tech"
doesn't work, not because of what medicine did to the cult's
customers. The "tech" doesn't work because it doesn't work.
Hubbard's guilty knowledge that what he was writing in this policy
letter is false, and in fact evil and destructive, is shown by his
security rating for the PL of "confidential." Confidential policies
in Scientology are, as every staff member understands, senior to
non-confidential policies. Scientology's blaming medicine and
psychiatry for the cult's own cases and upsets is a very senior
policy, which trumps whatever non-confidential "policies" exist that
assign any other cause to technical failures.
Any Scientologist who, when dealing with people outside of the cult,
did not blame medicine and psychiatry for the cult's cases and upsets,
would, of course, be guilty of out-security, an automatic "treason"
offense. The Scientologist would also be guilty of violating a number
of the ten points of "Keeping Scientology Working." Since any
violation of KSW is a "suppressive act" or "high crime," for which
Scientologists can be declared a "suppressive person" and fair gamed
to the point of total obliteration, they have a life-or-death
motivation to blame medicine and psychiatry as Hubbard orders them
blamed. And, as mentioned above, blaming medicine and psychiatry is
the only solution Scientologists are permitted to the psychological
condition their "technology's" failures generate.
How do Scientologists scapegoat medicine or psychiatry for their
cult's disastrous failures, such as Lisa McPherson, who had been a
Scientologist for many years, had gone insane while being subjected to
the cult's "technology," and who had no history of psychiatric
therapy? Scientologists applying the cult's "tech," in fact,
prevented Lisa from obtaining psychiatric and medical help, and locked
her up, and almost certainly tied her up, so that only their "tech"
could be applied to her. How do Scientologists project their killing
of Lisa McPherson onto the medical and psychiatric subjects and
professions?
Hubbard provides the clear answer is his "technical" Bulletin of 5
June 1984R "False Purpose Rundown Series 1R False Purpose Rundown."
[Quote]
The tech research done was quite extensive and involves several major
discoveries. But I'll let you in on one thing: There were
psychiatrists who existed way, way back on the
track.
It was the aim of these psychs back on the whole track to very
carefully push in people's anchor points to prevent them from
reaching. The psychs were, themselves, a bunch of terrified cowards,
and the prevention of reaching was one facet of their operation.
Handling overts, withholds and nonsurvival purposes with the False
Purpose Rundown has proven highly effective in undoing the effects of
the "work" of psychs on the whole track, and restoring the thetan's
willingness and ability to reach.
[End Quote]
If Scientologists cannot find a current medical of psychiatric
condition or history to blame for their cult's failures, flaps and
felonies, they simply project it onto the whole track psychs, the
medical professionals who, Hubbard says, existed way, way back on the
track -- millions, billions or trillions of years ago. It's utter
irresponsible madness, of course, but no Scientologist dares to
question this insane projection, because to do so would be a "high
crime," punishable with being fair gamed and destroyed. The
Scientologist, naturally, would also become another case or upset to
be blamed on medicine or psychiatry. And if the poor Scientologist
had no doctors or psychiatrists in his life..... well blame him on the
whole track psychs.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
Thanks for your and Mark's effort. I have and will, forward them to an
interested party who is looking for this material. It is very important
for them.
Mike Gormez
- Scientology and health www.whyaretheydead.net
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect www.taxexemptchildabuse.net
- Visit Occupied Clearwater with Nessie http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
- The hearing transcripts http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
ka...@wwwaif.net
news:l9bogvcq1on0k6o4f...@4ax.com:
To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's enlightening
to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this anti-medicine
bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists. However, one of your
conclusions do not seem to be borne out by the facts. I'll snip, to explain
what I mean:
<non-hostile snipping>
> That Scientologists' hatred for medical doctors, and even their more
> obstreperous hatred for psychiatrists, is simply part of the
> Hubbard-Miscavige brainwash, is shown by the fact that virtually every
> person who leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred.
> Indeed, many people who escape the Scientology brainwash go on to
> academic study in the medical and psychological fields. But almost
> everyone who leaves the cult discovers that doctors are not the evil
> entities that they had been indoctrinated by Scientology into hating,
> and that doctors and medicine are certainly not responsible for the
> failures and overt products of Hubbard's "technology." The "tech"
> doesn't work, not because of what medicine did to the cult's
> customers. The "tech" doesn't work because it doesn't work.
This is, from what I can see, simply incorrect. Not the part about how the
"tech doesn't work", but the assertion that "virtually every person who
leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred." In fact, my
readings of ex-Scientologists right here on this newsgroup, and elsewhere,
would lead me to precisely the opposite conclusion.
The distrust of the AMA and conventional medicine seems to be one of the
last aspects of Hubbard-think to fade from an indoctrinated Scientologists,
if it fades at all. In many cases, ex-Scientologists maintain a strong
interest in, and adherence to alternative health theories and -- in some
cases -- quackery. There are also, of course, many groups and individuals
out there who have never been involved with Scientology, yet hold the same
attitudes towards "conventional" medicine.
Within Scientology itself, from what I can tell, the nearly fanatical
hatred and mistrust of medical experts and conventional treatment seems to
be more cultural, and does not simply apply to health problems that the
tech doesn't seem to fix. For instance, there have been a number of cases
where active, faithful Scientologists delve into other branches of
quackery, particularly fraudulent cancer treatments, like the ones offered
by "Jimmy Keller", as well as vitamin/allergy treatments for autism - see
the involvement of the infamous Dr. Minkoff in NAET (www.naet.com).
These Scientologists maintain their belief in Scientology, but are willing
to seek alternatives to treat illnesses for which Scientology or Hubbard-
based treatments are not explicitly indicated, and this does not seem to
shake their faith in the 'tech' at all. The overriding theory on which they
base such decisions appears to be that if the AMA claims that a treatment
is unsubstantiated quackery, then it MUST work.
Finally, it would appear that the anti-medicine attitude is, and has always
been a self-selecter, and a common characteristic of those who become
involved with Scientology. An interest in alternative therapies could often
lead to Scientology as a natural part of an individual's investigation into
alternative treatments, and of course, once indoctrinated into Scientology,
Hubbard's writings - or should I say frothings - on the subject of medicine
would, in fact, confirm many of their own previously-held beliefs on the
subject. Even if that individual eventually leaves Scientology, as so many
do, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would be as quick to shed that
antipathy for the medical profession that may have been one of the reasons
that they became involved in Scientology in the first place.
K
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
>news:l9bogvcq1on0k6o4f...@4ax.com:
>
>To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's enlightening
>to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this anti-medicine
>bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists.
No, I didn't claim or imply that it's the "root." The anti-medicine
bias goes back to the beginning of Scientology. The policy Hubbard
articulates in this PL is not even the "root" or the start of his
blaming medicine and psychiatry for the cult's failures. The PL is,
however, clear proof that he did order in 1971 that medicine and
psychiatry be blamed for those failures. It is very useful for
understanding organization-wide anti-medicine hatred.
> However, one of your
>conclusions do not seem to be borne out by the facts. I'll snip, to explain
>what I mean:
>
><non-hostile snipping>
>
>
>> That Scientologists' hatred for medical doctors, and even their more
>> obstreperous hatred for psychiatrists, is simply part of the
>> Hubbard-Miscavige brainwash, is shown by the fact that virtually every
>> person who leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred.
>> Indeed, many people who escape the Scientology brainwash go on to
>> academic study in the medical and psychological fields. But almost
>> everyone who leaves the cult discovers that doctors are not the evil
>> entities that they had been indoctrinated by Scientology into hating,
>> and that doctors and medicine are certainly not responsible for the
>> failures and overt products of Hubbard's "technology." The "tech"
>> doesn't work, not because of what medicine did to the cult's
>> customers. The "tech" doesn't work because it doesn't work.
>
>This is, from what I can see, simply incorrect. Not the part about how the
>"tech doesn't work", but the assertion that "virtually every person who
>leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred." In fact, my
>readings of ex-Scientologists right here on this newsgroup, and elsewhere,
>would lead me to precisely the opposite conclusion.
Let us do a survey. I know that every ex-Scientologist to whom I am
connected discarded the Scientology-inculcated hatred of psychs and
medics. Two very good ex-Scientologist friends of mine went on to
study wog (R) psychology. Pretty well everyone I know who became an
ex-Scientologist sought and was grateful for medical insurance, which
was utterly unavailable and scorned in the cult.
Back in the early 1980's we used to talk about the steps out of the
cult that included "talk to a psychologist," or "talk to a
psychiatrist." As in, e.g., 1. leave; 2. criticize management; 3.
criticize Hubbard; 4. criticize the "tech;" 5. blow a little weed; 6.
talk to a shrink; 7. call Mike Flynn.
Hasn't Tory talked to psych professionals since leaving the cult, and
found them not to be the hated and hateful entities she was brought to
believe they were while inside Scientology? I don't know one
ex-Scientologist, among the dozens I know reasonably well, who has
anything remotely resembling the irrational antipathy toward medicine
and psychiatry he or she had while inside the cult.
But let's ask the ex-Scientologists on a.r.s.:
SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
Scientologist?
3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
Hubbard's "technology?
Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
appreciated.
END OF SURVEY
>
>The distrust of the AMA and conventional medicine seems to be one of the
>last aspects of Hubbard-think to fade from an indoctrinated Scientologists,
>if it fades at all.
Well, of course it fades. It faded in me while I was still inside the
cult. We even had an ex-Scientologist show up here on a.r.s. just a
few weeks ago extolling the virtues of conventional medicine. In
fact, I believe he mentioned that he had himself gone on to get a
psych degree. Perhaps someone else could cite to his post.
And it should be noted that I did not mention a "distrust of the AMA
and conventional medicine." That is probably about as healthy as a
distrust of lawyers and the ABA. In many cases, you'd have to be brain
dead not to get another opinion. I am not talking about a healthy
distrust. I am talking about an unhealthy hatred, a hatred which is
whipped into Scientologists by the cult leaders' application of
Hubbard's policy letter of June 29, 1971, and earlier similar
sentiments.
> In many cases, ex-Scientologists maintain a strong
>interest in, and adherence to alternative health theories and -- in some
>cases -- quackery.
I'd bet that the percentage is probably about the same as in the
general population. I have seen no evidence to support another
conclusion.
But the antipathy inside Scientology to medicine and psychiatry is so
universal as to be an indicator of brainwash. Hubbard's policy shows
that the brainwash is deliberate, and its purpose, or one key purpose,
for the brainwash, is to have a scapegoat for the cult's failures.
> There are also, of course, many groups and individuals
>out there who have never been involved with Scientology, yet hold the same
>attitudes towards "conventional" medicine.
>
>Within Scientology itself, from what I can tell, the nearly fanatical
>hatred and mistrust of medical experts and conventional treatment seems to
>be more cultural, and does not simply apply to health problems that the
>tech doesn't seem to fix.
As Hubbard's PL shows, the hatred and mistrust of medical experts is
"cultural" because it's ordered. If an order came down from Miscavige
that all Scientologists were to cease criticizing medicine and
psychiatry, and to cease blaming medicine and psychiatry for
Scientology's tech failures, the "cultural" hatred and mistrust would
disappear in an instant.
> For instance, there have been a number of cases
>where active, faithful Scientologists delve into other branches of
>quackery, particularly fraudulent cancer treatments, like the ones offered
>by "Jimmy Keller", as well as vitamin/allergy treatments for autism - see
>the involvement of the infamous Dr. Minkoff in NAET (www.naet.com).
Well yes. And of course Dr. Minkoff is a conventionally trained MD.
And the cult probabably even had conventionally trained Thomas Szasz
on its payroll. But they use these people to support their
anti-conventional medicine hate campaign.
There is no doubt that a high proportion of Scientologists are
involved in scams. Especially "alternative medicine scams." But
alternative medicine is not necessarily fraud. And conventional
medicine practitioners are not necessarily not fraudsters.
>
>These Scientologists maintain their belief in Scientology, but are willing
>to seek alternatives to treat illnesses for which Scientology or Hubbard-
>based treatments are not explicitly indicated, and this does not seem to
>shake their faith in the 'tech' at all. The overriding theory on which they
>base such decisions appears to be that if the AMA claims that a treatment
>is unsubstantiated quackery, then it MUST work.
I haven't seen enough data to support that conclusion, although I've
seen throwaway comments to that effect. Hubbard said something similar
about smoking. But both Hubbard's idiocies and this "overriding
theory," if it exists, would support the observations that the
Scientological hatred of medicine and psychiatry is organization-wide,
a part of the brainwash, and discardable as soon as and as easy as the
Scientologist identity is discarded.
The Scientological problem with such Hubbardian stupidities is that if
you question them you get targeted as an SP, a criminal and fair game,
your family gets destroyed, and there are fifty thousand
violence-prone Scientologists primed to obliterate you if the
opportunity or order arises.
>
>Finally, it would appear that the anti-medicine attitude is, and has always
>been a self-selecter, and a common characteristic of those who become
>involved with Scientology.
If that were true, I would think you'd see no change in the anti-ness
from pre-Scientology, through Scientology, to post-Scientology. My
observation is that there is a radical change -- elimination or
radical reduction -- in the antipathy to medicine and psychiatry
after leaving and in the process of becoming an ex-Scientologist.
It is harder to evaluate numbers in the pre-Scientology period, so I
can only speak for myself. I had no hatred or fear of medicine or
psychiatry before becoming involved with the cult that came close to
what I developed during involvement. I doubt too that a survey would
reveal that other recruits' attitude toward medicine and psychiatry
did not change, that is, grow more antipathetic, as they entered the
cult and proceeded up its "bridge."
My belief is that it was not an anti-medicine or anti-psychiatry
attitude that attracted most people to the cult. I think it was the
promises the cult was making, promises which, of course, these other
subjects were not making.
And I think that it is these same promises which are key to
understanding why Hubbard would *order* that psychiatry be blamed for
all his cult's failures. The failures are failures to deliver on the
promises. The promises lured the customers in. The "tech" was how the
promises were obtained. The promises were lies. The failure to deliver
on the promises generated the "cases," the "upsets," the flaps, the
refunds and the lawsuits.The scapegoating of medicine and psychiatry
was the way to keep the scam operating. Blaming medicine and
psychiatry excused the failures, gave the troops an "enemy" to hate,
and charged them up for war.
I did not get into Scientology to solve a medical problem, and I don't
think all that many people do. Some certainly do, and Scientology
certainly does suck in whomever it can with promises of curing their
physical or mental ailments. The promise that Scientology would raise
IQ about a point per hour, on the other hand was significant to me.
That it promised to make the able more able was also significant.
>An interest in alternative therapies could often
>lead to Scientology as a natural part of an individual's investigation into
>alternative treatments, and of course, once indoctrinated into Scientology,
>Hubbard's writings - or should I say frothings - on the subject of medicine
>would, in fact, confirm many of their own previously-held beliefs on the
>subject.
I'm sure it works for a few that way. But I think that not that high a
percentage of Scientology recruits is seeking alternative treatment.
Or at least was seeking alternative treatment during the period when I
became involved.
I think we see "success stories" by Scientologists that make it appear
that they got into the cult in the search for a treatment for some
condition, because a Scientologists could rarely publicly admit why
they got into the cult. DM says it cured his asthma. Cruise says it
cured his dyxisale. For obvious reasons these lil buddies don't want
to say that they got into Scientology to have their IQs go up a point
per hour, or to become total cause over matter, energy, space and
time. So they fall back on "I was searching for a cure for what
conventional medicine couldn't cure."
It could be said that I was seeking a treatment that guaranteed an
increase in IQ, but that would be like saying that someone gets into a
money-making scheme as a treatment for poverty. Or someone pays to
become OTas a treatment for the condition of not being OT. I think
that Scientology is in most instances not sold as "alternative
treatment" as the world understands "alternative treatment."
> Even if that individual eventually leaves Scientology, as so many
>do, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would be as quick to shed that
>antipathy for the medical profession that may have been one of the reasons
>that they became involved in Scientology in the first place.
As I said, my observation has been that a radical diminution or a
complete loss of the standard Scientological antipathy to medicine and
psychiatry has occurred in conjunction with the Scientologists I've
known becoming ex-Scientologists. But perhaps the survey above in
which I've invited ex-Scientologists to participate can give us some
more data with which to work.
Gerry
>
>K
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
pts2
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
> news:l9bogvcq1on0k6o4f...@4ax.com:
>
> To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's enlightening
> to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this anti-medicine
> bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists. However, one of your
> conclusions do not seem to be borne out by the facts. I'll snip, to explain
> what I mean:
>
> <non-hostile snipping>
Verses your usual hostile snips. Got it! :)
>
>
> > That Scientologists' hatred for medical doctors, and even their more
> > obstreperous hatred for psychiatrists, is simply part of the
> > Hubbard-Miscavige brainwash, is shown by the fact that virtually every
> > person who leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred.
> > Indeed, many people who escape the Scientology brainwash go on to
> > academic study in the medical and psychological fields. But almost
> > everyone who leaves the cult discovers that doctors are not the evil
> > entities that they had been indoctrinated by Scientology into hating,
> > and that doctors and medicine are certainly not responsible for the
> > failures and overt products of Hubbard's "technology." The "tech"
> > doesn't work, not because of what medicine did to the cult's
> > customers. The "tech" doesn't work because it doesn't work.
Sometimes things can work simply out of strong BELIEFS
with little or no connection to science or relationship to physical
evedence.
> This is, from what I can see, simply incorrect. Not the part about how the
> "tech doesn't work", but the assertion that "virtually every person who
> leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred." In fact, my
> readings of ex-Scientologists right here on this newsgroup, and elsewhere,
> would lead me to precisely the opposite conclusion.
Situations vary. Exit-counseling helps cut through the myths as well
as wrongful fear implants such as $cn's anti-medical thought refrom
tactics.
That's actually true. People who leave the cult (survivors) still
have lingering aversions to traditional medical and mental health care
that can go for years if not indefinitely. Professional
exit-counseling can address those fear implants though.
I can tell you from first hand expereince, $cn slowly envelops one
into the Hubbard mind think of psychology and psychiatry are bad.
It's quite overt looking back. The anti-medicine stuff is more subtle
however.
been one of the reasons
> that they became involved in Scientology in the first place.
>
> K
Of course this brings us full circle back to the sore subject of
"standing!" :) Like the legal profession, $cn's standing in the
medical and mental health care field is far beyond tarnished. It has
no credibility at all. That's why Hubbard abandoned the for profit
"Modern Science of Mental Health" spin in the 50s and
creatively repackaged in the "religion" cloaking.
Sterling Management had little success in thier front group recruiting
BS with medical doctors (MDs.) They did have some success with
dentists, chiropractors, veterinarians, osteopaths, etc. however.
tp
ida j. camburn
> news:l9bogvcq1on0k6o4f...@4ax.com:
>
> To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's enlightening
> to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this anti-medicine
> bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists. However, one of your
> conclusions do not seem to be borne out by the facts. I'll snip, to explain
> what I mean:
>
> <non-hostile snipping>
The one thing I have noticed is when a Scientologist knows he has
no other recourse and wanting to live like any human being does, they
do not mind seeking a doctors help. Often time it is too late to cure
their illness.
Common sense should tell even a Scientologist if they are diagnosed
with cancer
they should seek legitimate medical help immediately. What you both
say here is
true as to their select methods of treatment. I believe that the news
coverage that the CCHR has received has aided and abetted in
discrediting doctors in general. Hubbards claim in the "History of
Man" that cancer can be cured also plays a major part in some True
Believers choices.
I shudder to think where I would be today had I chosen one of the
non-conventional methods of treatments these past years. The old dudes
would be missing me at the coffee shop each morning.
Ida J. Camburn
ka...@wwwaif.net
news:ff29c784.03070...@posting.google.com:
> "ka...@wwwaif.net" <ka...@wwwaif.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93B37A85A56...@205.232.34.12>...
>> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
>> news:l9bogvcq1on0k6o4f...@4ax.com:
>>
>> To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's
>> enlightening to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this
>> anti-medicine bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists.
>> However, one of your conclusions do not seem to be borne out by the
>> facts. I'll snip, to explain what I mean:
>>
>> <non-hostile snipping>
>> more non-hostile snipping
>
> The one thing I have noticed is when a Scientologist knows he has
> no other recourse and wanting to live like any human being does, they
> do not mind seeking a doctors help. Often time it is too late to cure
> their illness.
> Common sense should tell even a Scientologist if they are diagnosed
> with cancer
> they should seek legitimate medical help immediately. What you both
> say here is
> true as to their select methods of treatment. I believe that the news
> coverage that the CCHR has received has aided and abetted in
> discrediting doctors in general. Hubbards claim in the "History of
> Man" that cancer can be cured also plays a major part in some True
> Believers choices.
That's true, and it's a very important point. Even where conventional
medicine isn't explicitly forbidden in Scientology, many Scientologists
will try every possible alternative treatment first, before even
considering turning to conventional medicine. It seems to stem from a
circular reasoning process: Conventional medicine doesn't recognize the
value of Scientology, because doctors feel threatened by its power;
therefore, when the same medical professon condemns as quackery the Zapper,
or laetrile, or vitamins as a cure for cancer, it must be because these
treatments are equally effective. So a Scientologist with treatable cancer
heads off to some clinic in Mexico, and spends thousands of dollars over
the next few months, allowing the cancer to progress further, which
diminishes the chance that even real medicine will be able to save them.
Tragic, stupid and frustrating.
> I shudder to think where I would be today had I chosen one of the
> non-conventional methods of treatments these past years. The old dudes
> would be missing me at the coffee shop each morning.
They wouldn't be the only ones who'd miss you :)
It's not that I object to natural medicine or alternative medicine in
moderation. I swear by Evening Primrose, for example, as part of my morning
vitamin regime. But if I have an actual medical problem or question, I'm
going to consult a real doctor, and not just head off to the health food
store for wellness potion and vitality tea.
K
basicbasic
> been a self-selecter, and a common characteristic of those who become
> involved with Scientology.
Not to my knowledge. Been around for decades, and
scientology is not anti medicine per se. Anti
pharmaceutical industry yes. For excellent reasons.
Anti psychs yes.
An interest in alternative therapies could often
> lead to Scientology as a natural part of an individual's investigation into
> alternative treatments,
Really? SCN has that much credibility?
and of course, once indoctrinated into Scientology,
> Hubbard's writings - or should I say frothings - on the subject of medicine
> would, in fact, confirm many of their own previously-held beliefs on the
> subject. Even if that individual eventually leaves Scientology, as so many
> do, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would be as quick to shed that
> antipathy for the medical profession that may have been one of the reasons
> that they became involved in Scientology in the first place.
I have not seen that people become involved with SCN
because of interest in alternative medicine. Many of those
involved in SCN do become interested in alternatives. As Did I.
I see this as positive.
> K
ka...@wwwaif.net
> On 9 Jul 2003 12:02:55 -0400, "ka...@wwwaif.net" <ka...@wwwaif.net>
>>To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's
>>enlightening to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this
>>anti-medicine bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists.
>
> No, I didn't claim or imply that it's the "root." The anti-medicine
> bias goes back to the beginning of Scientology. The policy Hubbard
> articulates in this PL is not even the "root" or the start of his
> blaming medicine and psychiatry for the cult's failures. The PL is,
> however, clear proof that he did order in 1971 that medicine and
> psychiatry be blamed for those failures. It is very useful for
> understanding organization-wide anti-medicine hatred.
Oh, I think Hubbard definitely took full advantage of the propensity of his
followers to believe his claims of vast conspiracies aligned against him,
and, by inference, Scientologists as a whole. But I maintain that many of
the people who find themselves attracted to Scientologists may have come to
it already predisposed to be sceptical towards the claims of conventional
medicine.
<snip>
>
> Let us do a survey. I know that every ex-Scientologist to whom I am
> connected discarded the Scientology-inculcated hatred of psychs and
> medics. Two very good ex-Scientologist friends of mine went on to
> study wog (R) psychology. Pretty well everyone I know who became an
> ex-Scientologist sought and was grateful for medical insurance, which
> was utterly unavailable and scorned in the cult.
Well, being grateful for medical insurance isn't exactly the same thing. As
a non-American, I admit I'm not up on all the details, but I *believe* that
there are many insurance carriers who will cover at least some non-
traditional medical treatments, such as chiropractors and nutritionalists.
As for psychology, it doesn't surprise me that an ex-Scn might be motivated
to find out more about the inner workings of the mind and body, but that,
again, isn't exactly the same as becoming an advocate of biochemical
treatments for mental illness, for example.
>
> Back in the early 1980's we used to talk about the steps out of the
> cult that included "talk to a psychologist," or "talk to a
> psychiatrist." As in, e.g., 1. leave; 2. criticize management; 3.
> criticize Hubbard; 4. criticize the "tech;" 5. blow a little weed; 6.
> talk to a shrink; 7. call Mike Flynn.
>
> Hasn't Tory talked to psych professionals since leaving the cult, and
> found them not to be the hated and hateful entities she was brought to
> believe they were while inside Scientology? I don't know one
> ex-Scientologist, among the dozens I know reasonably well, who has
> anything remotely resembling the irrational antipathy toward medicine
> and psychiatry he or she had while inside the cult.
>
Again, I think there's a bit of a difference between seeing a psychologist
as a counsellor, and changing one's opinion entirely on the use of
psychotropic drugs to treat mental illness. I suspect you would find fewer
ex-Scientologists who are enthusiastic advocates of the latter than that
have lost their initial trepidation at the thought of the former.
Which isn't to say, of course, that believing, for example, that children
are "overdrugged" with Ritalin is inherently wrong and unsupportable. There
are many people who have never been Scientologists who feel that way, and I
suspect there are many ex-Scientologists who, while no longer believers in
the cartoon villain portrayal of psychiatrists that was espoused by
Hubbard, are still uncomfortable with some schools of thought on
psychiatric treatment.
> But let's ask the ex-Scientologists on a.r.s.:
>
> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>
> 1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
> anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
>
> 2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
> or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
> Scientologist?
>
> 3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
> psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
> indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
>
> 4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
> psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
> Hubbard's "technology?
>
> Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
> appreciated.
>
> END OF SURVEY
>
Good idea. It will be interesting to see the results.
>>The distrust of the AMA and conventional medicine seems to be one of the
>>last aspects of Hubbard-think to fade from an indoctrinated
>>Scientologists, if it fades at all.
>
> Well, of course it fades. It faded in me while I was still inside the
> cult. We even had an ex-Scientologist show up here on a.r.s. just a
> few weeks ago extolling the virtues of conventional medicine. In
> fact, I believe he mentioned that he had himself gone on to get a
> psych degree. Perhaps someone else could cite to his post.
That's true; however, in the last day or so, we've also had an ex-
Scientologist post an indictment of the "allopathic
drug/medicine monopoly". Then there's Arnie's endorsement of the Monroe
Institute tapes and courses, which many more sceptical a.r.s. denizens
would consider to be nothing but high-priced flim-flammery. I'm not trying
to argue that all Scientologists maintain their interest in alternative
medicine after leaving Scientology, but I think to suggest the opposite is
equally inaccurate.
> And it should be noted that I did not mention a "distrust of the AMA
> and conventional medicine." That is probably about as healthy as a
> distrust of lawyers and the ABA. In many cases, you'd have to be brain
> dead not to get another opinion. I am not talking about a healthy
> distrust. I am talking about an unhealthy hatred, a hatred which is
> whipped into Scientologists by the cult leaders' application of
> Hubbard's policy letter of June 29, 1971, and earlier similar
> sentiments.
I dunno, I guess I just have trouble believing that there is that much
"whipping" required to get Scientologists to see western medicine as the
Great Satan. It seems to come naturally to many of the people who were
initially attracted to Scientology, and in many cases, remains even after
their association with Scientology has concluded.
>> In many cases, ex-Scientologists maintain a strong
>>interest in, and adherence to alternative health theories and -- in some
>>cases -- quackery.
>
> I'd bet that the percentage is probably about the same as in the
> general population. I have seen no evidence to support another
> conclusion.
Well, I don't have hard numbers; I'm going based on what I've seen and read
over the last few years, from both ex-Scientologists and current
Scientologists. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one; at least,
unless someone conducts a full survey of both the ex-Scn and general
populations to determine which view is closer to the truth.
> But the antipathy inside Scientology to medicine and psychiatry is so
> universal as to be an indicator of brainwash. Hubbard's policy shows
> that the brainwash is deliberate, and its purpose, or one key purpose,
> for the brainwash, is to have a scapegoat for the cult's failures.
You know, it could, in fact, be both. Scientologists could join Scientology
with a predisposition to be hostile towards conventional medicine and
psychiatry, and once inside, the organization could manipulate that
existing scepticism into the fanatical antipathy that you see in
indoctrinated Scientologists. I think where we disagree is on whether the
fear and mistrust evaporates at the same time as the adherance to other
Scientology principles and beliefs.
>> There are also, of course, many groups and individuals
>>out there who have never been involved with Scientology, yet hold the
>>same attitudes towards "conventional" medicine.
>>
>>Within Scientology itself, from what I can tell, the nearly fanatical
>>hatred and mistrust of medical experts and conventional treatment seems
>>to be more cultural, and does not simply apply to health problems that
>>the tech doesn't seem to fix.
>
> As Hubbard's PL shows, the hatred and mistrust of medical experts is
> "cultural" because it's ordered. If an order came down from Miscavige
> that all Scientologists were to cease criticizing medicine and
> psychiatry, and to cease blaming medicine and psychiatry for
> Scientology's tech failures, the "cultural" hatred and mistrust would
> disappear in an instant.
No, I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's the case. I mean, when the
word came down in 1993 that the IRS was now the good guy, since Scientology
had finally won its exemption, that didn't make regular Scientologists
suddenly discover that yes, they loved Big Brother. Most of them remained -
and remain - rapaciously critical of the current US tax system. It's just
not an "official" Scientology stance, but that doesn't mean it's not a view
that is still shared by the vast majority of Scientologists. I suspect that
if the organization did a simuilar about-face on conventional medicine and
psychiatry, it would do absolutely nothing to change the opinions of the
Scientologist body public.
>> For instance, there have been a number of cases
>>where active, faithful Scientologists delve into other branches of
>>quackery, particularly fraudulent cancer treatments, like the ones
>>offered by "Jimmy Keller", as well as vitamin/allergy treatments for
>>autism - see the involvement of the infamous Dr. Minkoff in NAET
>>(www.naet.com).
>
> Well yes. And of course Dr. Minkoff is a conventionally trained MD.
> And the cult probabably even had conventionally trained Thomas Szasz
> on its payroll. But they use these people to support their
> anti-conventional medicine hate campaign.
>
Well, Minkoff may be conventionally trained, but like a lot of other
Scientologists in the medical field, he's an enthusiastic supporter of not
just Scientology, but also a range of other alternative remedies and
medical theories. The Scientology organization doesn't forbid its members
from experimenting with non-Hubbard remedies and treatments, provided that
they don't fall into the category of "conventional medicine". Actually,
from what I've read and observed, the Scientology organization doesn't
explicitly forbid its members from seeking help from conventional medicine,
either (with the obvious exception of psychiatry) other than imposing weird
and arbitrary restrictions on auditing while on medication or undergoing
outside therapy. It's not like your C/S will tell you not to go get chemo
for cancer; other Scientologists, however, will be only too quick to offer
suggestions on various quack treatments that they insist are much safer and
more effective than those offered by conventional medicine.
> There is no doubt that a high proportion of Scientologists are
> involved in scams. Especially "alternative medicine scams." But
> alternative medicine is not necessarily fraud. And conventional
> medicine practitioners are not necessarily not fraudsters.
Can't disagree here.
>>
>>These Scientologists maintain their belief in Scientology, but are
>>willing to seek alternatives to treat illnesses for which Scientology or
>>Hubbard- based treatments are not explicitly indicated, and this does
>>not seem to shake their faith in the 'tech' at all. The overriding
>>theory on which they base such decisions appears to be that if the AMA
>>claims that a treatment is unsubstantiated quackery, then it MUST work.
>
> I haven't seen enough data to support that conclusion, although I've
> seen throwaway comments to that effect. Hubbard said something similar
> about smoking. But both Hubbard's idiocies and this "overriding
> theory," if it exists, would support the observations that the
> Scientological hatred of medicine and psychiatry is organization-wide,
> a part of the brainwash, and discardable as soon as and as easy as the
> Scientologist identity is discarded.
I dunno if I agree that the "Scientologist identity" is so easily
discarded. If you devote twenty-plus years of your life to thinking a
certain way, it's rare that you would be able to completely shed that way
of thinking overnight. It takes time, and again, it's very possible that
you might not ever discard some aspects of that previous identity. Look at
the Free Zone, for instance, which is made up of a dizzying diversity in
attitudes towards Scientology, from those who consider themselves more
Scientologist than the current crop of official Scientologists, to those
whose current beliefs bear only a passing resemblance to Hubbard's
theories.
>>
>>Finally, it would appear that the anti-medicine attitude is, and has
>>always been a self-selecter, and a common characteristic of those who
>>become involved with Scientology.
>
> If that were true, I would think you'd see no change in the anti-ness
> from pre-Scientology, through Scientology, to post-Scientology. My
> observation is that there is a radical change -- elimination or
> radical reduction -- in the antipathy to medicine and psychiatry
> after leaving and in the process of becoming an ex-Scientologist.
Perhaps it really does depend on the ex-Scientologist in question.
> It is harder to evaluate numbers in the pre-Scientology period, so I
> can only speak for myself. I had no hatred or fear of medicine or
> psychiatry before becoming involved with the cult that came close to
> what I developed during involvement. I doubt too that a survey would
> reveal that other recruits' attitude toward medicine and psychiatry
> did not change, that is, grow more antipathetic, as they entered the
> cult and proceeded up its "bridge."
Yes, I definitely agree here. Scientology can take a general mistrust or
suspicion of some aspects of conventional medicine, and turn it into
incoherent, foaming hatred. But even after Scientology, once the most
extreme hostility has faded, the mistrust might very well remain.
> My belief is that it was not an anti-medicine or anti-psychiatry
> attitude that attracted most people to the cult. I think it was the
> promises the cult was making, promises which, of course, these other
> subjects were not making.
Well, there's no one reason why people join Scientology; however, I think
that those who have a preexisting scepticism towards conventional medicine
will naturally have a more open mind to a theory that purports to replace
it with something better.
> And I think that it is these same promises which are key to
> understanding why Hubbard would *order* that psychiatry be blamed for
> all his cult's failures. The failures are failures to deliver on the
> promises. The promises lured the customers in. The "tech" was how the
> promises were obtained. The promises were lies. The failure to deliver
> on the promises generated the "cases," the "upsets," the flaps, the
> refunds and the lawsuits.The scapegoating of medicine and psychiatry
> was the way to keep the scam operating. Blaming medicine and
> psychiatry excused the failures, gave the troops an "enemy" to hate,
> and charged them up for war.
Yes, the great bogey of the AMA, and the evil cabal of psychiatrists was an
important part of creating the siege mentality, and the constant "crisis"
on which Scientology thrives. It's hard to keep members whipped into a
constant state of frenzy without an overarching enemy to attack; during the
60s and 70s, however, the medical profession had to share the spotlight
with the IRS, and the government as a whole. As the organization attempts
to curry favour, Moon-style, with the same institutions that it used to
castigate as the root of evil, only conventional medicine has remained as
an enemy that the organization will actively, openly and enthusiastically
attack. Well, that and the media.
> I did not get into Scientology to solve a medical problem, and I don't
> think all that many people do. Some certainly do, and Scientology
> certainly does suck in whomever it can with promises of curing their
> physical or mental ailments. The promise that Scientology would raise
> IQ about a point per hour, on the other hand was significant to me.
> That it promised to make the able more able was also significant.
Scientology promised to cure an ailment that potential Scientologist
recruits never even realized they had. That's a common denominator in
quackery: offering to fix something that you didn't even know was wrong
with you.
> I'm sure it works for a few that way. But I think that not that high a
> percentage of Scientology recruits is seeking alternative treatment.
> Or at least was seeking alternative treatment during the period when I
> became involved.
>
> I think we see "success stories" by Scientologists that make it appear
> that they got into the cult in the search for a treatment for some
> condition, because a Scientologists could rarely publicly admit why
> they got into the cult. DM says it cured his asthma. Cruise says it
> cured his dyxisale. For obvious reasons these lil buddies don't want
> to say that they got into Scientology to have their IQs go up a point
> per hour, or to become total cause over matter, energy, space and
> time. So they fall back on "I was searching for a cure for what
> conventional medicine couldn't cure."
>
> It could be said that I was seeking a treatment that guaranteed an
> increase in IQ, but that would be like saying that someone gets into a
> money-making scheme as a treatment for poverty. Or someone pays to
> become OTas a treatment for the condition of not being OT. I think
> that Scientology is in most instances not sold as "alternative
> treatment" as the world understands "alternative treatment."
Well, would you accept "alternative theory of medicine"?
I mean, the question of why people get involved in Scientology is far too
big to answer in one post, or even one thread on a.r.s.; there are as many
answers as there are current - and former - Scientologists. But if there is
a common theme to be found, it would be that there was some general
dissatisfaction with 'the way things are', and a feeling that Scientology
offered a solution to this existential ennui. However, that said, having
dyslexia, for instance, and to pick on Tom Cruise, would be very
frustrating, and would make one more receptive to a pitch that promised to
'fix' it, particularly if there was no similar quick fix offered by
conventional treatment. Once inside, of course, the promises of OT powerz
and an increased IQ would seem like gravy.
>> Even if that individual eventually leaves Scientology, as so many
>>do, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would be as quick to shed
>>that antipathy for the medical profession that may have been one of the
>>reasons that they became involved in Scientology in the first place.
>
> As I said, my observation has been that a radical diminution or a
> complete loss of the standard Scientological antipathy to medicine and
> psychiatry has occurred in conjunction with the Scientologists I've
> known becoming ex-Scientologists. But perhaps the survey above in
> which I've invited ex-Scientologists to participate can give us some
> more data with which to work.
>
It will be interesting to see the responses.
K
Kaivalya
You are nothing short of a hero, in my view, and my hat is off to you.
Your insights are real and vital and valuable.
Please allow me to comment on Kady's response to your great analysis.
I, too, have observed in my limited experience with ex-scientologists
over the last nearly 30 years (when I left around 1974), that an
aversion to psychiatry and psychology remains pervasive even among
those who have left scieno. It is as though people still hold LRH's
prejudice against these disciplines in spite of all the evidence that
LRH was a complete nutbar, and that he did or said almost nothing that
was clean and pure, that wasn't alloyed by some sort of hidden agenda.
Even a cursory study of the subjects of psychiatry and psychology show
that Hubbard stole a considerable amount of material from these
disciplines, including the phenomenon dealt with at OT III (but
without the ridiculous galactic confederacy story of course). And by
his own "philosophy," he thus committed an overt of some magnitude
when claiming their material as his own. Thus, the whole LRH as
"source" thing is a lie and his ranting and raving against psychiatry
and psychology is due to his own nasty deeds against them. He once
said, as I recall, that the "overt speaks loudest in accusation."
Thus, according to his own ideas, all the harm that he claimed was
done to people by psychiatry and psychology, were simply his own
overts speaking loudest in accusation of others. We need not repeat
all the harm that he perpetrated, with "standard tech."
Kai
Gerry Armstrong
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>But let's ask the ex-Scientologists on a.r.s.:
>
> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>
>1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
>anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
>
>2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
>or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
>Scientologist?
>
>3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
>psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
>indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
>
>4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
>psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
>Hubbard's "technology?
>
>Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
>appreciated.
>
> END OF SURVEY
>
Someone e-mailed me these answers to the survey, for which I'm very
grateful, because he didn't want to be exposed to attack by posting
directly to a.r.s.
[Quote]
1. Yes.
2. Yes. I have studied a great number of psychology texts since
leaving. It was a huge surprise to me that psychologists, particularly
some of the great figures in the development of modern psychology,
granted people spirituality. In Scientology, I was led to believe, by
Hubbard's propaganda, that all psychologists thought men are animals
or mud.
3. Yes. I understood doctors and psychs were in a terrible case state
and that this was because of their brutal crimes against humanity over
the past trillions of years. Certainly the OT 3 story lent
credibility to this idea -- that the evil implanters (psychs)
caused the "4th dynamic engram" that we were now having to mop up.
When I let go of the OT 3 story, along with it went the reason for
"my" opinions about doctors and psychs.
4. Yes. This is an ever-broadening realization, though.
As an example: As a dutiful Scientologist, I went to many "mandatory"
events where Heber Jentzsch would get up on stage and spew out hate
propaganda on psychiatry and how it kills, etc. I did not hear wog
news and I depended on International management to interpret current
events. I thought I was getting the big picture about the planet
during these events and wanted to know how we were winning the race
against insanity.
In my auditor training Hubbard similarly spewed out his hate, but in
the form of "technical research" into the cause of this civilization's
decline. Because Heber repeatedly ranted about the psychs, I assumed
it was needful for us to get motivated into the urgency of saving the
planet. It was not until after I left the cult that I was able to
bring to consciousness my disgust for his behavior, and to realize
that Hubbard's "research" on "psychs" was just lies and hate.
This policy you posted provides an even deeper insight into Heber's
motivation and mandate for all his hate propaganda. Perhaps when
Heber leaves the cult he will have similar gains.
[End Quote]
I hope that other ex-Scientologists will also answer the survey. Feel
free to e-mail me your answers if, like this person, you don't want to
post to a.r.s. I will protect your identity.
Gerry
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Ed
"ka...@wwwaif.net" wrote:
>
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
> news:tdsogvkbsfohpr0c6...@4ax.com:
>
> > On 9 Jul 2003 12:02:55 -0400, "ka...@wwwaif.net" <ka...@wwwaif.net>
>
> >>To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's
> >>enlightening to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this
> >>anti-medicine bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists.
> >
> > No, I didn't claim or imply that it's the "root." The anti-medicine
> > bias goes back to the beginning of Scientology. The policy Hubbard
> > articulates in this PL is not even the "root" or the start of his
> > blaming medicine and psychiatry for the cult's failures. The PL is,
> > however, clear proof that he did order in 1971 that medicine and
> > psychiatry be blamed for those failures. It is very useful for
> > understanding organization-wide anti-medicine hatred.
>
> Oh, I think Hubbard definitely took full advantage of the propensity of his
> followers to believe his claims of vast conspiracies aligned against him,
> and, by inference, Scientologists as a whole. But I maintain that many of
> the people who find themselves attracted to Scientologists may have come to
> it already predisposed to be sceptical towards the claims of conventional
> medicine.
> <snip>
[snip all the rest of good long discussion]
I disagree with your last point. The great majority of people
both now and in the past who are lured into Scn are young, basically
healthy, and neither interested in nor caring a hoot about treatment
of any kind, conventional medical or otherwise. They don't have solid
ideas on the subject. They are in a fog basically. They are receptive
to whatever ideas they get bombarded with by the cult about medicine,
etc., because they are neutral, lacking strong ideas (or feelings) on
the subject. Sure, some people are exceptions, especially those who
may have a close family member or friend with very bad medical
experiences. But overall, young people just don't care about the whole
subject of health and medicine usually until they experience being ill
enough to have their complacency shattered.
Ed
Gerry Armstrong
Hey, Ed, you're an ex-Scientologist, aren't you? Maybe you would
answer this short set of survey questions then.
[Quote]
SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
Scientologist?
3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
Hubbard's "technology?
Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
appreciated.
END OF SURVEY
[End Quote]
If you're not an ex-Scientologist, then my memory is in error and I
apologize.
fdl
SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
Scientologist?
3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
Interestingly, as a professional musician, I can state with accuracy that it's quite true that ALL of the guitar players who learned their 'craft' from studying the Art series are rubbish.
4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
Hubbard's "technology?
Caffy T.
Ed wrote:
> I disagree with your last point. The great majority of people
> both now and in the past who are lured into Scn are young, basically
> healthy, and neither interested in nor caring a hoot about treatment
> of any kind, conventional medical or otherwise. They don't have solid
> ideas on the subject.
Humm...when I joined I wazzen't very receptive to all the anti-psych ranting
because,although I knew nothing about them other than the old jokes (It takes a
Loony to spot a Loony) I'd quite previously borrowed n' watched an old TV series
on Video called 'MayBury' or something....I dunno if this was ever shown in the
USA but it was a show set inside a mental hospital which starred Patrick Stewart
as a kind n' caring psych not too different from the family DR so most of the Scn
psychs-are-monsters stuff never really took hold on me coz to me,that nice shrink
in the show had already sorta formed my opinion on them n'Hubbard's ranting about
them just never sunk in all the way.
I'd never really thought about it before Gerry posted his survey but I guess I
can legitimatly claim that Captain Picard himself inoculated me against part of
the Indoc to some degree :-)
Caffy T.
Deomorto
>
> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>
> 1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
> anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
I didn't have an anti-medicine hatred when i was in so there was
nothing to discard particularly
>
> 2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
> or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
> Scientologist?
well there was a psych 101 type course as part of my degree, if I had
been in I would have objected to doing it. As it was it was fine.
>
> 3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
> psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
> indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
psychiatrists yes, doctors no (see above)
>
> 4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
> psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
> Hubbard's "technology?
Difficult question to answer because a) when i was in I was busy
rationalizing all the overt products and crap and B) when i got out it
was the realization that the failures were endemic to the subject that
finally got me to shed the baggage.
grouchomatic
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:21:31 +0200, Gerry Armstrong
> <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>
>>But let's ask the ex-Scientologists on a.r.s.:
>>
>> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>>
>>1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
>>anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
I never felt that way.
>>
>>2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
>>or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
>>Scientologist?
I wanted to get a teaching credential in order to make money as a
substitute teacher while in grad school and to get the credential you
had to take a lot of psych courses (developmental psych for example). I
probably would not have taken the courses otherwise.
>>
>>3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
>>psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
>>indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
I never believed MD's evil and thought psychology was essentially
worthless not evil. Now, having studied some psychology and having some
direct experience seeing a shrink, I still think it is essentially
worthless :-) IMO, most psychological disorders have a physiological
explanation meaning they are or will be found to be, treatable with
medication. I think that makes me a permanent SP.
>>
>>4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
>>psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
>>Hubbard's "technology?
I left because I thought Hubbard was responsible for his own failure.
You can only listen to someone make so many excuses, which he did, as to
why something isn't working before you decide *he* is the reason.
Chip Gallo
> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>
> 1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
> anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
I didn't have an anti-medicine hatred. Suggest you reword this as, "Since
leaving Scientology, do you believe you have discarded any anti-medical
hatred you might have developed while in the cult."
>
> 2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
> or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
> Scientologist?
>
Anti-cult material, depression and suicide treatments (not for me but to
understand the alternatives to "take a walk" type methods.
> 3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
> psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
> indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
>
No. Didn't feel that way about doctors generally. Haven't met any
psychiatrists to test this out on (but I don't think that as a group they
are evil entities).
> 4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
> psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
> Hubbard's "technology?
>
Mostly we thought the failures were (a) communication problems, or (b)
training, education or literacy and (c) a few SPs hidden in the woodpile.
Don't remember blaming medicine at any point.
> Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
> appreciated.
>
Another way to look at this is that poor people cannot afford good health
care. Scn staff tend to be poor, with only the occasional rich staff member.
Affluent public Scn may very well get the health care they need, in spite of
the policy admonishments against "medicine" or "psychs." But poor public and
staff cannot afford health insurance and go to credit dentists, less
expensive chiropractors in place of AMA doctors, etc. In the fully funded
world, sick people get second opinions, even third opinions. Poor Scn, who
are also disadvantaged by inaccurate information in the bulletins and policy
letters, do what the ethics officer and the MLO or Staff Section Officer
tell them to. They have no access to real medical diagnosticians because of
the bias you have discussed elsewhere.
Often if you can get a good diagnosis for an illness, alternatives are
easier to identify. If you never get a diagnosis from someone qualified to
order the tests (because all this costs money), you end up with substandard
health care. And in the case of failed PCs, suicide or shattered lives.
Chip Gallo
Pts 2
I'd love to address your survey as an ex-$cieno.
Here goes......
1. NO & YES -- I never got into the anti-medicine mind set. But I was
aware of many who did. But, I did have altered considerations in the
mental health fields (psychology & psychiatry) I have since abandoned
those false notions, and actually embrace the use of professional
psychological counselling and the medical aspects of the psychiatric
sciences.
2. Oh YES indeed. I've studied much since then in the field of cults,
mind control, thought reform, fear implants, coercive tactics and
aberrative secular behavior. There's excellent research by Dr. Bruce
Perry (MD) in Texas
on PTSD and cults with very good medical scientific understanding of the
brain functions
in relation to that. Much of the data was compiled from the former
members of the David Koresh's Waco, TX cult. I've studied much also on
the effects of cults on children.
There is much research to be found in the Cultic Studies Journal library
found at: http://www.csj.org (AFF)
3. I never thought Dr's in medicine were "evil" but knew of many in the
cult who did have those false notions .... and still do. Especially
mental health applications. Sadly the mother of my children is one.
4. Of course! :) Hubbard's "tech" BS vs. traditional medical sciences
was never a big consideration for me. But again, I knew of others who
did....and still do have those fear implants. :(
Hope that helps. I agree with some of Ed's comments here too. It is
also my observations that former org and mission staffers as well as
former S.O. members seemed to have been more indoctrinated on these
issues than "publics."
Now if somebody wants to do a survey on the legal system & lawyers & $cn
and those pre-cult and post-cult considerations, THAT would be VERY
interesting IMHO. :-))
Best,
Tom
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/Scientology/
Murray Luther
towards psychiatry, that's only a piece of a bigger picture. Hubbard had no respect for any professional
institution. He was constantly critical of the media, science, philosoophy, and even the arts. In his mind they had
it all wrong within their respective areas, whereas he had it right. I think Hubbard so very much wanted to be a
professional authority on some subject, any subject, that he grew deeply resentful of mainstream institutions for
not embracing his ideas.
Murray Luther
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>On 9 Jul 2003 12:02:55 -0400, "ka...@wwwaif.net" <ka...@wwwaif.net>
>wrote:
>
[Snipity do-dah]
>
>But let's ask the ex-Scientologists on a.r.s.:
>
> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>
>1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
>anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
I think so, yeah
I also discared the ANTI-Newspaper journlist bias that is induced by
Hubbard...
And the Anti-PSYCH bias...
And the ANTI SSRI's and Ritalin bull...
>
>2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
>or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
>Scientologist?
Yes, I find that my favorite reading is by PSYCHS these days....
>3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
>psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
>indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
Indeed, I have... and I admit, the deeply ingrained programming takes
a hell of long time to grind off...
>4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
>psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
>Hubbard's "technology?
>
yes, though, even when "IN" I never believed that, I mustah haddah
misunderstood word
I figured that Scientology would be fine if folks just duplicated
source...
heh...
from http://www.lermanet.com/8steps.html
I was in the cult and on staff for 10 years... here are the stages I
have seen... as one exits the 'hubbardian' mind control program....
1) There is something wrong here, if this is so great, then
why is (______) going on?
[ insert whatever atrocity you have recently witnessed ]
2) The guys at the top must be crazy
3) Miscavige and crew are evil demons from another dimension
[ or something similar ]
4) Hubbard went crazy at the end .....
5) Hubbard went crazy in 1966
6) Hubbard was mad from the start.
7) This whole thing is a complete fraud
8) my god, its a criminal organization... with criminal convictions
all over the world... and it was only about money
9) realization that THERE ARE NO OT's THERE!
>Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
>appreciated.
>
> END OF SURVEY
>
>>
>>The distrust of the AMA and conventional medicine seems to be one of the
>>last aspects of Hubbard-think to fade from an indoctrinated Scientologists,
>>if it fades at all.
I mean Scn was going to make us Immortal....
and give us super-duper powers
In "Problems of Work" by El Rum Hubbard he says that it is a 'high
crime' to "Disintegrate persons or belongings"
Why would Hubbard put that rule there if we wernt going to become
super duper spiritual heavyweights capable of killing with a thought?
and...
Who needs ignorant doctoirs that dont know about Xenu?
" Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to
lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their
ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach
themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world,
causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of their
hosts ". USDJ Judge Leonie Brinkema 4 Oct 96 Memorandum Opinion, RTC
vs Lerma
Arnie Lerma
http://www.lermanet.com/sources.htm
Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
>> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>--MS_Mac_OE_3140699083_374563_MIME_Part
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
It makes me smile every time I see someone who has breached the real
wall of fire..Leaving Scientology!... AND tell the world...
FD
Do Scientologists use medical doctors?
Of course. The Church of Scientology has always had the firm policy of not
diagnosing or treating the sick. Medical doctors are trained to deal with
the physical aspects of illness and injury. A Scientologist with a physical
condition is always advised to seek and obtain the needed examination and
treatment of a qualified medical professional. Once under medical treatment,
a Scientologist then addresses his illness or injury with auditing to handle
any spiritual trauma or other factors connected with the physical condition
which may have predisposed him to illness or injury.
There are also many medical doctors who are Scientologists themselves
Rene Descartes
I will answer the survey. Before I begin may I say that I have just
recently read much about what you have gone through; not something I
would want to wish upon anybody.
I have seen the wedding photos and I am glad that they have been made
available. The remark in Mr. Rice's email about he (or whoever made
them available) wanting people to see that you are "a living,
breathing, functioning human being who has loved and has been loved"
tells it all.
It had to take a lot of courage to maintain yourself during all of the
tribulations attempted towards you and if it means anything to you,
before I do the survey, I just want to say that you have my
admiration. I know it's not much, but it's all I can give right now.
Well, I guess I can give you encouragement and say "Godspeed"!
Now the survey: (Excuse other snippage)
SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
I can't say that I had anti-medicine hatred, but I can say that I had
anti-psych hatred. I can honestly say that now I do not have an
anti-psych hatred. As for psych medicine, I am not even close to the
dislike I had while "in". I will say that IMO there "might" be too
much use of Ritalin, but I will say that there are situations where
Ritalin probably should be used, at least as a catalyst to get the
youngster moving.
Oops, too long of an answer - short answer = "Yes"
2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
Scientologist?
Yes - I have studied (actually, become informed of) Psych drugs such
as Prozac and Ritalin and why they might help some people. I have also
studied more about depression and have a much better understanding of
it since "in".
3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
Doctors - never thoguht they were evil entities.
Psychiatrists - Absolutely!
4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
psychiatary are not responsible for the failures and overt products
of
Hubbard's "technology?
Medicine - never felt it was a cause
Psychiatry - Have come to realize that psychiatry, in general, has no
direct correlation to a failure or overt products of Hubbard's tech.
Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
appreciated.
Yes! No way in hell is Psychiatry responsible for all the crime that
has existed in the universe for the last godzilla-zillion years!
END OF SURVEY
Thanks for asking.
See ya 'round
Rd00
ShyDavid (Prozac-filled Gay Terrorist Psycho)
> Do Scientologists use medical doctors?
It depends: many are not allowed to, as per Scientology policy.
---
Support our troops: IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH NOW!
John
"FD" <f...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:uBjPa.28784$N7.3103@sccrnsc03...
If most disease is pyschosomatic, why are they purposing perpetrating a
fraud?
Zinj
says...
> If most disease is pyschosomatic, why are they purposing perpetrating a
> fraud?
*All* not most; and they're doing it for 'pragmatic' reasons.
Until Scientology runs the world, there will be disease;
physical and mental.
A little lie to achieve the ideal state that becomes the 'stable
datum' is a *good* thing!
Failure to lie about the known deficiencies of Scientology Tech
short of a 'cleared planet' would be not in keeping with
'Keeping Scientology Working'
Zinj
--
You can't get your parking validated if you don't have a car
John
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1977bb9fc...@news2.lightlink.com...
Well, that's ok then :)
Ed
I'd say I didn't have anti-medicine hatred while in the cult.
My attitude toward conventional medicine would be slightly more
favorable now than then.
> 2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
> or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
> Scientologist?
>
Definitely.
> 3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
> psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
> indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
>
I never believed they were evil. Largely I took as being senior
the idea that everyone is basically good, even SPs, and I still
believe that and find it to be true in real life also.
> 4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
> psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
> Hubbard's "technology?
>
I never particularly believed that.
> Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
> appreciated.
>
My level of indoctrination was a lot less than that of
practically everyone I worked with or knew in Scn. I had "hidden
standards" (like ascended masters, Jesus and Buddha) in comparison
with which LRH looked sleazy. But I swallowed the myth of the tech
because there were a lot of really cool people of good vibration
involved back in the late 60s and early 70s.
Ed
LP
There are plenty of people who are not scientologist who don't trust
modern medical practices. These types of people are very susceptible
to the wide array of pseudoscientific nonsense that are available to
them. Whether it is Scientology, Applied Kinesiology, Reflexology, or
Chiropractors, the anti-medicine people will seek them out. Once they
become disenchanted with one psuedoscience, if they have never learned
how to think critically on the subject, they will just move from one
pseudoscience to the next.
Boudewijn van Ingen
<murray_l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Your line-length is a bit cumbersome for me. Could you adjust it,
please? ;-)
>While it's true that Hubbard had great disdain for the medical profession,
>and in particular an intense hostility
>towards psychiatry, that's only a piece of a bigger picture.
I believe you are very much right.
>Hubbard had no respect for any professional
>institution. He was constantly critical of the media, science, philosoophy,
>and even the arts. In his mind they had
>it all wrong within their respective areas, whereas he had it right. I think
>Hubbard so very much wanted to be a
>professional authority on some subject, any subject, that he grew deeply
>resentful of mainstream institutions for
>not embracing his ideas.
>
>Murray Luther
I believe it was 1938 or 1939 when Hubbard managed to write a book
called "Final Blackout". That book contains clues that give one an
insight into his mind, in my opinion.
Of course there was no "Dianetics" or "Scientology" way back them. But
Hubbard's main character in that (very badly written) 'novel' already
shows the "male chauvinist pig" traits that Hubbard himself showed
later on in his life.
The man wanted very much to "be somebody". And it needed to be
somebody "important". And of course no kind of "work" should be
involved.
Hubbard has been a lazy motherf****r all of his life. He has not
accomplished anything at all. And still he kept on claiming...
But he was one of the most sucessful con-men in the history of the US.
He must hold the record for selling the same "bridge" the most
times...
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Zinj
bo...@xs4all.nl says...
Nostradamus was dutch. Nosferatu lived in his basement,
suspended by his heels.
Neither had ever heard of the US
Zinj
zinj...@yahoo.com says...
Gille de Rais was French. 100 years before Jamestown. (the
native americans were busy slaughtering each other without
outside influence)
Zinj
When the first French explorers crossed over from canada into
the Great Lakes Region, they were astonished to find themselves
practically ignored as the 'locals' burned practically all
standing forests and wantonly killed all wildlife. When they
managed to get any answer at all from the 'locals' it was that
'nature has become our enemy', and they were doing what came
naturally....
ida j. camburn
news:<Xns93B3C968545...@205.232.34.12>...
> ida...@aol.com (ida j. camburn) wrote in
> news:ff29c784.03070...@posting.google.com:
>
> > "ka...@wwwaif.net" <ka...@wwwaif.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns93B37A85A56...@205.232.34.12>...
> >> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
> >> news:l9bogvcq1on0k6o4f...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's
> >> enlightening to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this
> >> anti-medicine bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists.
> >> However, one of your conclusions do not seem to be borne out by the
> >> facts. I'll snip, to explain what I mean:
> >>
> >> <non-hostile snipping>
> >> more non-hostile snipping
> >
> > The one thing I have noticed is when a Scientologist knows he has
> > no other recourse and wanting to live like any human being does, they
> > do not mind seeking a doctors help. Often time it is too late to cure
> > their illness.
> > Common sense should tell even a Scientologist if they are diagnosed
> > with cancer
> > they should seek legitimate medical help immediately. What you both
> > say here is
> > true as to their select methods of treatment. I believe that the news
> > coverage that the CCHR has received has aided and abetted in
> > discrediting doctors in general. Hubbards claim in the "History of
> > Man" that cancer can be cured also plays a major part in some True
> > Believers choices.
>
> That's true, and it's a very important point. Even where conventional
> medicine isn't explicitly forbidden in Scientology, many Scientologists
> will try every possible alternative treatment first, before even
> considering turning to conventional medicine. It seems to stem from a
> circular reasoning process: Conventional medicine doesn't recognize the
> value of Scientology, because doctors feel threatened by its power;
> therefore, when the same medical professon condemns as quackery the Zapper,
> or laetrile, or vitamins as a cure for cancer, it must be because these
> treatments are equally effective. So a Scientologist with treatable cancer
> heads off to some clinic in Mexico, and spends thousands of dollars over
> the next few months, allowing the cancer to progress further, which
> diminishes the chance that even real medicine will be able to save them.
> Tragic, stupid and frustrating.
>
Kady I have gone to several doctors over the past 27 years. I have
never known one that felt even slightly threatened by $cientologists
"power". Everyone has felt sorrow for those that have gone untreated.
In the past few years here in Hemet I find some $cientologists
actually seek help, tho I know of two cases where it was far too late.
The doctors are intimidated by having at least one "watcher" who must
accompany the patient. I always say --not to worry--just be happy the
sick one has been allowed to come see you. Each doctor is always
pleased to get a packet with truthful information on this destructive
group. In fact one doctor a few weeks ago sat down and spent a half
hour(just before lunch hour) and enjoyed being shown urls where he
would be able to read more.
Threatened--no--angry when the check is late in coming--yes--angry
when they want to be treated for less or even for
free--yes--disgusted--yes with the CCHR hate group ever derating
doctors and psychiatrists--YES. Oh yes most of all they are happy to
receive information on NarCONon and downloaded packets as to the push
to be recognized as a legitimate drug rehab. Also interested to know
of the failed cases where parents have spent $20,000 and still have an
addicted loved one but even worse--mind boggled from the
indoctrination that goes with it. EAch one disgusted with the
knowledge of the political gains made to date.
All this in AMERICA
Ida
>
> > I shudder to think where I would be today had I chosen one of the
> > non-conventional methods of treatments these past years. The old dudes
> > would be missing me at the coffee shop each morning.
>
> They wouldn't be the only ones who'd miss you :)
>
> It's not that I object to natural medicine or alternative medicine in
> moderation. I swear by Evening Primrose, for example, as part of my morning
> vitamin regime. But if I have an actual medical problem or question, I'm
> going to consult a real doctor, and not just head off to the health food
> store for wellness potion and vitality tea.
>
> K
Warrior
>>
>>To start off, I think you raise an interesting point, and it's enlightening
>>to read the Hubbard PL that you claim is the root of this anti-medicine
>>bias on the part of Scientology and Scientologists.
In article <tdsogvkbsfohpr0c6...@4ax.com>,
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
>No, I didn't claim or imply that it's the "root." The anti-medicine
>bias goes back to the beginning of Scientology.
I agree with this. A reading of _DMSMH_ supports this. One
can easily find Hubbard's statement that most illnesses are
psychosomatic in origin and that Dianetics can "handle" or
"cure" ills. On page 106 of _DMSMH_ Hubbard claimed:
"About seventy per cent of the physician's current roster of
diseases falls into the category of psycho-somatic illness."
Hubbard tells us that dianetics is "scientifically tested" and
"contains a therapeutic technique with which can be treated
all inorganic mental ills and all organic psycho-somatic ills, with
assurance of complete cure...."
On page 107 of _DMSMH_ Hubbard tells us:
"Arthritis, dermatitis, allergies, asthma, some coronary difficulties,
eye trouble, bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, etc. form a very small section
of the psycho-somatic catalog." And he assures us on page 122:
"In short and in brief, psycho-somatic ills can now be cured. All
of them."
Gerry wrote:
>
>The policy Hubbard articulates in this PL is not even the "root"
>or the start of his blaming medicine and psychiatry for the cult's
>failures. The PL is, however, clear proof that he did order in 1971
>that medicine and psychiatry be blamed for those failures. It is
>very useful for understanding organization-wide anti-medicine
>hatred.
>Kady wrote:
>>
>>However, one of your conclusions do not seem to be borne out
>>by the facts. I'll snip, to explain what I mean:
>>Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
>>news:l9bogvcq1on0k6o4f...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> That Scientologists' hatred for medical doctors, and even their more
>>> obstreperous hatred for psychiatrists, is simply part of the
>>> Hubbard-Miscavige brainwash, is shown by the fact that virtually every
>>> person who leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred.
>>> Indeed, many people who escape the Scientology brainwash go on to
>>> academic study in the medical and psychological fields. But almost
>>> everyone who leaves the cult discovers that doctors are not the evil
>>> entities that they had been indoctrinated by Scientology into hating,
>>> and that doctors and medicine are certainly not responsible for the
>>> failures and overt products of Hubbard's "technology." The "tech"
>>> doesn't work, not because of what medicine did to the cult's
>>> customers. The "tech" doesn't work because it doesn't work.
>Kady wrote:
>>
>>This is, from what I can see, simply incorrect. Not the part about how
>>the "tech doesn't work", but the assertion that "virtually every person
>>who leaves the cult also discards the anti-medicine hatred." In fact, my
>>readings of ex-Scientologists right here on this newsgroup, and elsewhere,
>>would lead me to precisely the opposite conclusion.
I have shed my anti-medicine aversion.
Gerry wrote:
>
>Let us do a survey. I know that every ex-Scientologist to whom
>I am connected discarded the Scientology-inculcated hatred of
>psychs and medics. Two very good ex-Scientologist friends of
>mine went on to study wog (R) psychology. Pretty well everyone
>I know who became an ex-Scientologist sought and was grateful
>for medical insurance, which was utterly unavailable and scorned
>in the cult.
>
>Back in the early 1980's we used to talk about the steps out of
>the cult that included "talk to a psychologist," or "talk to a
>psychiatrist." As in, e.g., 1. leave; 2. criticize management; 3.
>criticize Hubbard; 4. criticize the "tech;" 5. blow a little weed; 6.
>talk to a shrink; 7. call Mike Flynn.
>
>Hasn't Tory talked to psych professionals since leaving the cult,
>and found them not to be the hated and hateful entities she was
>brought to believe they were while inside Scientology? I don't know
>one ex-Scientologist, among the dozens I know reasonably well,
>who has anything remotely resembling the irrational antipathy
>toward medicine and psychiatry he or she had while inside the cult.
>
>But let's ask the ex-Scientologists on a.r.s.:
>
> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>
>1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
>anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
Yes, without any doubt.
>2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
>or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
>Scientologist?
Absolutely, and quite happily, I might add.
>3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors
>and/or psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
>indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
Yes.
>4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
>psychiatry are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
>Hubbard's "technology?
Yes.
>Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
>appreciated.
>
> END OF SURVEY
<snip>
>It is harder to evaluate numbers in the pre-Scientology period, so
>I can only speak for myself. I had no hatred or fear of medicine or
>psychiatry before becoming involved with the cult that came close
>to what I developed during involvement.
Nor did I.
<snip>
>My belief is that it was not an anti-medicine or anti-psychiatry
>attitude that attracted most people to the cult. I think it was the
>promises the cult was making, promises which, of course, these other
>subjects were not making.
I was recruited into the Sea Org because I believed their lie that
Scientology was making this world a better place. I had no hatred
or dislike for conventional medicine or psychiatry before joining.
>And I think that it is these same promises which are key to
>understanding why Hubbard would *order* that psychiatry be
>blamed for all his cult's failures. The failures are failures to deliver
>on the promises.
I agree.
>The promises lured the customers in. The "tech" was how the
>promises were obtained. The promises were lies. The failure to
>deliver on the promises generated the "cases," the "upsets,"
>the flaps, the refunds and the lawsuits.
I very much agree.
>The scapegoating of medicine and psychiatry was the way to
>keep the scam operating. Blaming medicine and psychiatry
>excused the failures, gave the troops an "enemy" to hate, and
>charged them up for war.
Again, I very much agree.
>I did not get into Scientology to solve a medical problem, and I
>don't think all that many people do.
I didn't. I joined for the sole reason that I wanted to *help* make
this world a better place.
>Some certainly do, and Scientology certainly does suck in whomever
>it can with promises of curing their physical or mental ailments. The
>promise that Scientology would raise IQ about a point per hour, on the
>other hand was significant to me. That it promised to make the able
>more able was also significant.
This latter point was significant to me too. And to a lesser degree I
was interested in seeing whether "auditing" could handle my near-
sightedness as Hubbard claimed.
>Kady wrote:
>>
>> Even if that individual eventually leaves Scientology, as so many
>>do, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would be as quick to
>>shed that antipathy for the medical profession that may have been
>>one of the reasons that they became involved in Scientology in the
>>first place.
I have not observed that individuals joined Scientology due to any
antipathy for the medical profession.
Gerry wrote:
>
>As I said, my observation has been that a radical diminution or a
>complete loss of the standard Scientological antipathy to medicine
>and psychiatry has occurred in conjunction with the Scientologists
>I've known becoming ex-Scientologists. But perhaps the survey
>above in which I've invited ex-Scientologists to participate can give
>us some more data with which to work.
>Kady wrote:
>>
>>Oh, I think Hubbard definitely took full advantage of the propensity
>>of his followers to believe his claims of vast conspiracies aligned
>>against him, and, by inference, Scientologists as a whole. But I maintain
>>that many of the people who find themselves attracted to Scientologists
>>may have come to it already predisposed to be sceptical towards the
>>claims of conventional medicine.
Ed wrote something I agree with. He said:
"I disagree with your [Kady's] last point. The great majority of
people both now and in the past who are lured into Scn are young,
basically healthy, and neither interested in nor caring a hoot about
treatment of any kind, conventional medical or otherwise. They don't
have solid ideas on the subject. They are in a fog basically. They are
receptive to whatever ideas they get bombarded with by the cult
about medicine, etc., because they are neutral, lacking strong ideas
(or feelings) on the subject. Sure, some people are exceptions,
especially those who may have a close family member or friend with
very bad medical experiences. But overall, young people just don't
care about the whole subject of health and medicine usually until
they experience being ill enough to have their complacency shattered."
This is my observation too.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
FD
news:3F0DA0F1...@yahoo.com...
Another way to look at it is that Hubbard was a galactic-class narcissist
and therefore needed to off the competition by whatever means he could.
There is only one center-of-the-universe in the narcissist's world. Any
threat to the narcissist's grandiosity - itself a defense to the lowest of
self esteem - had to be neutralized. Indeed, we have the pathogenesis of
The Fair Game Policy. What a pitiful sick fuck.
sapphire5
> SURVEY FOR EX-SCIENTOLOGISTS
>
> 1. Since leaving Scientology do you believe you have discarded the
> anti-medicine hatred you had while in the cult?
I never adopted the anti-medicine hatred of which you speak. Nor did I
accept the hatred of psychiatrists. I did then, and still do, oppose the
use of medications to handle psychological issues except in acute cases, or
cases where that condition can be CURED by limited use of medication, as I
believe that the medicine bypasses the real cause of the problem.
> 2. Since leaving Scientology have you studied anything in the medical
> or psychological fields that you would not have studied as a
> Scientologist?
Both prior to studying scientology, and afterwards, I studied psychology in
college, and have read various texts written for the lay-reader from a
"psychology" perspective.
> 3. Since leaving Scientology have you discovered that doctors and/or
> psychiatrists are not the evil entities that you had been
> indoctrinated by Scientology into believing they were?
Although some did attempt to indoctrinate me in that fashion, they were
unsuccessful, because I am capable of perceiving truth, as well as wool
being pulled over my eyes. Besides, both my father and mother were in the
medical field, and I didn't then, and do not now find either of them evil.
> 4. Since leaving Scientology have you realized that medicine and/or
> psychitary are not responsible for the failures and overt products of
> Hubbard's "technology?
I never thought that they were. I recognize a party-line when I see one.
> Any comments you care to make on this subject would be helpful and
> appreciated.
>
> END OF SURVEY
Thank you.
Boudewijn van Ingen
So? What are you trying to tell us about your particular knowledge
about Hubbard?
>Zinj
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Boudewijn van Ingen
So? What are you trying to tell us about your particular knowledge
Boudewijn van Ingen
So? What are you trying to tell us about your particular knowledge
about Hubbard?
Am I right when I detect an aimless attack from you, directed at
"foreigners", Zinj?
I don't mind that you absolutely "hate" the Dutch and French people as
a whole, because on this newsgroup you sometimes come across some
citizens from those nationalities that seem to frustrate your
expressions.
But in this thread, we were discussing Hubbard....
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Zinj
bo...@xs4all.nl says...
<snip>
> So? What are you trying to tell us about your particular knowledge
> about Hubbard?
>
> Am I right when I detect an aimless attack from you, directed at
> "foreigners", Zinj?
>
> I don't mind that you absolutely "hate" the Dutch and French people as
> a whole, because on this newsgroup you sometimes come across some
> citizens from those nationalities that seem to frustrate your
> expressions.
>
> But in this thread, we were discussing Hubbard....
>
>
> --
> Groeten,
> Boudewijn.
Strange, I thought that thanks to you we were discussing
'Americans' and 'America' :)
And I *love* dutch people (and even like the French in France,
although I admit I find 'internationalist French' a bit hard to
take)
I'd even go so far as to say that the vast majority of Americans
are ignorant of global politics and sociology. As however are
'Euros', who almost universally suffer from a degree of
arrogance that is spared 'americans' due to their not-caring
about Euro sensibilities..
I do think I have a more extensive right to judge 'euro'
political sensibilities than the 'euros' I hear from have to own
them
Boudewijn van Ingen
>In article <fgjhhvsjih3rdcuev...@4ax.com>,
>bo...@xs4all.nl says...
>
><snip>
>
>> So? What are you trying to tell us about your particular knowledge
>> about Hubbard?
>>
>> Am I right when I detect an aimless attack from you, directed at
>> "foreigners", Zinj?
>>
>> I don't mind that you absolutely "hate" the Dutch and French people as
>> a whole, because on this newsgroup you sometimes come across some
>> citizens from those nationalities that seem to frustrate your
>> expressions.
>>
>> But in this thread, we were discussing Hubbard....
>>
>>
>> --
>> Groeten,
>> Boudewijn.
>
>Strange, I thought that thanks to you we were discussing
>'Americans' and 'America' :)
Please look up the previous postings in this thread and prove yourself
wrong. I was commenting on Hubbard, not on the US.
>And I *love* dutch people (and even like the French in France,
>although I admit I find 'internationalist French' a bit hard to
>take)
You posted a few unsollicited articles in this thread alone, in which
you apparently alleged something "wrong" with some historical figures,
apparently from Holland or France.
You alleged: "Nostradamus was dutch." I don't know about that, and
neither do I know the relevancy of such a remark. That made you look
rather silly...
Then, after no incentive from anyone but yourself, you came up with
"Gille de Rais was French."....
All in all, if you would share the relevancy of your remarks with the
rest of the world, they might carry some weight.
If you had a point to make...
>I'd even go so far as to say that the vast majority of Americans
>are ignorant of global politics and sociology.
OK. That was my impression too.
>As however are
>'Euros',
It would help a bit if you would stop denigrating other nations. In
fact it could have helped prevent the destruction of those twin
towers. But then again, you havent got a clue, have you? Poor sod.
>who almost universally suffer from a degree of
>arrogance that is spared 'americans' due to their not-caring
>about Euro sensibilities..
Let me at least *TRY* to explain. We "euros" are indeed overly
sensitive.
That is because we have to live together with the rest of the world.
In fact that is what we want.
The rest of the world can be seen as a beast that you do not want to
wake and make angry. We "euros" have succeeded in living happily
together with that beast for far longer than even the US has existed.
The "americans" apparently do not want to learn from what any "euros"
did in the past, so they're going to die again and again, like the
"euros" did a century ago.
>I do think I have a more extensive right to judge 'euro'
>political sensibilities than the 'euros' I hear from have to own
>them
I think you haven't got any bloody "right" at all.
Please justify yourself...
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Zinj
bo...@xs4all.nl says...
<snip>
> >I do think I have a more extensive right to judge 'euro'
> >political sensibilities than the 'euros' I hear from have to own
> >them
>
> I think you haven't got any bloody "right" at all.
>
> Please justify yourself...
>
>
> --
> Groeten,
> Boudewijn.
OK
I lived in europe for 10 years, during part of its most
interesting period, prior to the collapse of the warsaw pact
My son was born there; his first language was German
I dared to disagree with 'common belief' even then
So... yes, I think I have more right to judge europe and
europeans than you do to judge americans
Boudewijn van Ingen
Zinj,
That "experience" of yours was just that. Something you experienced.
You may have learned something from it. You may even have gained new
insights that you couldn't have gained otherwise from it. If your
brain has helped you, you might have even gained some insight and
perhaps even actual wisdom from it.
But if you insist that you somehow gained "rights" over other people
simply because of your experiences, I am still insisting that you
should show us on what lawbook or treaty these alleged "rights" are
based.
What you are saying above is, that you actually deny europeans their
"right" to their "own sensibilities". You state that your opinion of
these europeans should somehow be "rightfully" weighed as more
important than what they themselves have to say.
That "train-of-thought" reminds many europeans of what went wrong in
their own history....
If you really would have paid attention while living in Europe, you
might have actually understood the origins of these "sensitivities"
that you seem to misunderstand so blatantly.
So... No, You do have exactly the *same* "right" to critizise anyone
in europe, as anyone from europe has to critizise anyone in the US.
And you most certainly have not got any "right" to "judge" anyone,
anywhere in the world.
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.