Narconon "works" for some people? Well, not really.
Fredric L. Rice
Scientology's quack medical fraud they call "Narconon." The question
was why some people find -- or at least think -- that it works for
them. Here's my reply mixed in with the query though I've removed
things which could be used to identify the people who are mentioned.
The fact is that doing _anything_ to stay away from narcotics helps,
includind standing on your head. But the success rates are very low.
-=-
>Hey, I'm really happy that you've been so enlightening
>on your NarCONon website. You've really shown me how
>horrible Narconon and Scientology are. But I have one
>problem... how do you explain the miraculous successes
>coming out of Narconon? One person once told me that
>it was "all fabrications, half those people didn't go
>in there with addictions anyways."
They actually have about a 6% success rate, by all
actual studies that have been performed so far. The
cult lies about is claimed success rates because the
quack medical procedures were contrived by L. Ron
Hubbard and they as cult followers have the notion
that L. Ron Hubbard was never mistaken or wrong in
anything he wrote. So though the Narconon program
has a "success rate" lower than recovery rates
attained when people who are addicted do nothing but
stop, Scientology really has no choice but to claim
otherwise.
And you'll note that they can't show actual tests or
studies which back up their claims. Narcotics Anonymous
has a much better success rate but even that's low --
some 11 to 20 percent. Real drug treatment programs
aren't miracles; there's no miracle cure, certainly
none offered by criminal cults.
Real people actually sign up for Scientology's quack
medical procedures so we do find real addicted people
getting suckered in. Scientology is the _last_ thing
these poor people need, of course.
>But, see, I've got this problem; a really close friend
>of mine was addicted to a little less than a dozen drugs
>--some designer/party drugs, some hardcore drugs, and
>two or three drugs designed to get her OFF of the drugs
>she was addicted to.
Good grief. How horrible. I've never been addicted to
anything so I can't honestly claim to know how hard it
is to get off of drugs. The worst was when I was shot in
the back in the Air Force -- accidentally -- and was on
codine for a long time but even then it was easy to just
stop taking it and deal with the pain.
Your friend must be going through Hell. And I never did
understand why administering _more_ drugs to addicts is
considered a cure by so many medical doctors. I would
have thought that simply stopping taking the narcotics
and getting together with affinity groups when the cravings
become unbearable to be the best solution to addiction.
>At one point...[cuts...flr...] She went cold-turkey for two
>months just forced into that... and she was still addicted.
I don't doubt it. If it were easy, people wouldn't
smoke, either.
>We've helped her get to rehab shelters, transported her
>to different places so that she didn't know local drug
>hookups.... It didn't end. Crying, we (well, maybe more
>I than the rest of my family, but still) had to accept
>that she was just going to die, and that there was nothing
>that could be done about it.
>Doctors didn't work. Rehab clinics around the US didn't
>work... One day she just kinda came over here with a
>duffel bag and told us that she was going to Oklahoma...
>and that she was gonna join Narconon. She knew it was a
>scientology clinic, and my parents told me about it a
>little then (not as in-depth as you have informed me now),
>and I said, "fuck it, it's your life, and if it works,
>it works."
People can trade one addiction for another, yes, and
what Scientology does is they offer that affinity group
that I mentioned -- along with the quack medical scams
that are dangerous. Some people -- those who have the
cult mindset -- can find Scientology to be a worthwhile
replacement for drugs though the cravings don't end
due to anything Scientology does, it's due to the person
not being able to acquire and take narcotics over time.
>This was two years ago... she's still fuckin alive. In
>fact, she's off of all drugs except for two--nicotine
>and caffeine (which actually weren't in the original
>list, but they should have been). It's crazy... she's
>still alive.
That's great for her. And congradulations for her. It's
a shame that she felt the need to go to Scientology when
she could have gotten the same -- without cost and
without the cult control -- from volunteer organizations
such as Narcotics Anonymous. If she paid Scientology any
money -- and I'd bet she did -- that's the sole reason
they allowed her into their affinity group in the first
place.
I'm not very big on Catholic or other Christian groups
that help people overcome their addictions, but they're
also a far sight better than signing up with a criminal
cult that has such a lengthy criminal history.
>I know that Scientology is a mountain of lightly perfumed
>moose shit, and hearing more about the two have convinced
>me about this... but how do you explain those successes?
>I mean, I'm sure you've thought about it... they report
>a higher success rate than any other rehab clinic (I think)
>and I find this hard to reconcile
What they report is pure bunk and what they prove concerning
their claimed success rates is non-existant. Recovery for
people who get rooked into Scientology's quack procedure
was found to be about 6%. Recovery rates for people who
don't use _any_ kind of procedure and simply quit is higher
than that -- some 11 percent, on a par with Narcotics
Anonymous' minimum success track record.
Some people will find that Scientology -- by virtue of
being a group of people who pay attention to them and keep
them from purchasing narcotics -- works for them. The
same can be said for any cult that either uses quack
medical notions or doesn't use any procedures at all. Any
people who find Scientology worked for them could have
gone to a monistary, a nunnery, or the middle of the
Mojave desert and, given time, accomplished the same goal.
Scientology's quack medical notions had nothing to do
with it. Time and being kept from acquiring narcotics has
everything to do with it.
One of the thing that skeptics like myself encouter daily
are questions from people who wonder why "psychics" and
Tarot cards, astrology, dowsing, and what not work for
some people. We're often asked why praying and quack
medical notions, potions, and electronic devices some times
cure cancer. The thing is, with any mental, emotional,
or physical malady, there's always ging to be a percentage
of the populace that'll go into spontaneous remission,
and there's always going to be a percentage of the population
that will get well without doing anything -- like having
a [cold] every year; some people purchase cold remedies and
others do not. It doesn't matter because eventually the
cold goes away regardless of whether one purchases patient
remedies or not.
It's great hearing that this friend of yours found
Scientology's Narconon to work for her. Narconon _will_
work for a small percentage of the populace -- which turns
out to be around 6%. But then anything one can do or
don't do also works at some degree. It's a phenomena that
comes out often in skeptics publications, in fact. There's
the well known placebo effect that accounts for a percentage
also.
If Scientology's claims were true, the world would be
beating down their doorstep and people -- like me -- would
be among the loudest proponants for their procedures. The
fact that they can't produce evidence for their claims,
and the fact that they have a history of lying and crimes
means that anything they claim is rationally dismissed.
Any way, I didn't mean to ramble on so long. I think
that drug addiction is such a hard and difficult problem
for people and for society that it's equally horrible to
see criminal financial enterprises taking advantage of
people who are addicted and it gets my goat to see it.
---
Yes, George W. Bush is an unelected baby killing fascist dictator.
Also: Scientology's International President (Audio files of this
nutter available at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice )
Ken Milhone
> Someone wrote to me through e-mail about a friend that went through
> Scientology's quack medical fraud they call "Narconon." The question
> was why some people find -- or at least think -- that it works for
> them. Here's my reply mixed in with the query though I've removed
> things which could be used to identify the people who are mentioned.
Hi Fredric,
Good reply.
The person who emailed you said this: quote:"This was two years
ago... she's still fuckin alive. In fact, she's off of all drugs
except for two--nicotine and caffeine (which actually weren't in the
original list, but they should have been). It's crazy... she's still
alive." unquote
Did this person say where "she" is now? It would be interesting to
know if she joined "staff" (Scientology). It is my understanding that
most who are "cured" do join Scientology/Narconon staff, i.e. replace
drug fixes with SCN. fixes.
Also how much did her "cure" cost? And how long did it take? Has she
been clean for the entire two years? If NarCONon works, why didn't
it cure her of her nicotine addiction even if it wasn't on the "list"?
The same Purif Rundown, niacin, Hubband cocktail, etc. that "cured"
her of her addiction to all those other drugs should have done
something for her nicotine addiction, shouldn't it? But NarCONon was
probaby allowing her to smoke packs a day. Has NarCONon ever clamed
to cure an addiction to tobacco?
Several years ago I attended a lecture about how niotine works and
nicotine (smoking) was said to be more addictive than heroin. This
website seems to cover informtion that was in that lecture about the
rewiring of the brain, there being only a ten percent cure rate, most
people can only stay away from nicotine for about a week and people
will smoke even when they can't breathe without oxygen or are dying of
lung cancer.
Howstuffworks "How Nicotine Works"
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nicotine.htm Changed:7:30 AM on Saturday,
November 8, 2003 (See especially "Addiction and Withdrawal")
People who have never joined SCN and/or have never been addicted to
anything (many times) do not/can not understand why someone just can't
quit.
Alcoholics are "cured" if they don't drink alcohol. At one time
Narconon was claiming that it could "cure" alcoholics and they would
be able to drink socially again. Does anyone know if this is still
one of NarCONon's claims?
I think there is more to be known than this person has disclosed to
you before he/she or anyone else can consider this a "cure".
Perhaps this person will disclose more now and will come back and
disclose where "she" (the cured one) is a year from now.
Ken
Fredric L. Rice
>fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<vqu883q...@corp.supernews.com>...
>Did this person say where "she" is now? It would be interesting to
>know if she joined "staff" (Scientology). It is my understanding that
>most who are "cured" do join Scientology/Narconon staff, i.e. replace
>drug fixes with SCN. fixes.
I'll ask and hopefully will get an answer. Scientology's Narconon has
been recognized as a recruitment front in various judicial proceedings
over the years and the question of how many victims thereafter sign up
for formal Scientology processing has come up from time to time. If I
remember properly, something less than 25% of the victims sign up for
further abuse.
>Also how much did her "cure" cost?
Anywhere from $20,000 on up. In actual fact many people find that it
costs all the money they can scrape up, bed, steal, borrow, mortgage,
and maximize their credit cards. Scientology doesn't have set prices
that are carved in stone; they're usually all the market will bear.
>And how long did it take? Has she
>been clean for the entire two years? If NarCONon works, why didn't
>it cure her of her nicotine addiction even if it wasn't on the "list"?
L. Ron Hubbard said that not smoking enough causes cancer so smoking is
one of the things you'll find a lot of Scientologists doing outside of
their business offices.
>Has NarCONon ever clamed to cure an addiction to tobacco?
Not that I've seen but they _do_ claim to cure just about any mental,
emotional, or physical malady you could care to name. If you phone
them up and say you need to beat HIV or cancer, they'll claim they can
help you with it and all but tell you over the phone that they can
cure you. Face to face once they know you're not recording, they'll
sell you Mars with a straight face, though.
...cuts...flr...
>Howstuffworks "How Nicotine Works"
>http://www.howstuffworks.com/nicotine.htm Changed:7:30 AM on Saturday,
>November 8, 2003 (See especially "Addiction and Withdrawal")
>People who have never joined SCN and/or have never been addicted to
>anything (many times) do not/can not understand why someone just can't quit.
Interesting. I don't doubt it's harder than herion. I know a guy who
weighs much less than I do and hacks all day but still smokes. And once
when I suggested he have a doctor look at that, he said that it was too
late for him.
People know they're killing themselves but they can't stop. I can't
pretend to know how hard it is since I don't even like taking antibiotics
leave alone over-the-counter drugs and narcotics; I'd rather remain clear
headed and unaltered; I've never smoked pot, never taken any narcotic
that wasn't required for surgery... but I can see how hard it must be.
>Alcoholics are "cured" if they don't drink alcohol. At one time
>Narconon was claiming that it could "cure" alcoholics and they would
>be able to drink socially again. Does anyone know if this is still
>one of NarCONon's claims?
I don't believe I've heard that one either. I have a lot of their paper
advertisements here, though, and among the most notoriously criminal is
their NarCONon claims wherein it's a wonder the U. S. Postal Service
doesn't file criminal charges for the outrageous claims -- leave alone
the FDA.
The crooks are supposed to have warning labels on their "e-meters," by the
way, thanks to a series of Federal raids wherein agents raided the cult
and seized all they could find. The reason was because Scientology uses
it as a quack medical device.
Scientology continues to use the quack medical device as they always have
without the warning labels the Judge mandated in Scientology's indictments,
knowing that the FDA has abdicated their charter to protect the populace
from criminals like them.
>I think there is more to be known than this person has disclosed to
>you before he/she or anyone else can consider this a "cure".
>Perhaps this person will disclose more now and will come back and
>disclose where "she" (the cured one) is a year from now.
Hopefully I'll find out how well it went. If the person swapped narcotics
for Scientology, their life expectancy increased but the safety of their
sanity dropped to near zero.
jk
> One of the thing that skeptics like myself encouter daily
> are questions from people who wonder why "psychics" and
> Tarot cards, astrology, dowsing, and what not work for
> some people.
This actually invites another question---what does "work" mean?
Also:
> It's great hearing that this friend of yours found
> Scientology's Narconon to work for her. Narconon _will_
> work for a small percentage of the populace -- which turns
> out to be around 6%.
Wouldn't 6% effectiveness (at least) be experienced by doing nothing
at all? Again, what does "work" mean and how is it measured?
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Tarot News:
http://www.jktarot.com/news.html
************************************
Fredric L. Rice
>fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<vqu883q...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> One of the thing that skeptics like myself encouter daily
>> are questions from people who wonder why "psychics" and
>> Tarot cards, astrology, dowsing, and what not work for
>> some people.
>This actually invites another question---what does "work" mean?
"Work" to be meaningful means it has to show a success rate that's
significantly greater than doing nothing (a control group) and greater
than a placebo (doing something neutral.) In order to "work," a claim,
a process, a procedure, or a mathematical formula has to produce
results that are claimed. Also to be shown to work, the evidence has
to be reproducable and subject to falsification.
I'm no expert; I've never taken illegal narcotics and was fortunate
enough to never need legal pain killers for any protracted periods
of time, but my understanding is that heavily addicted people
apparently have something like an 11% probability of proclaiming a
day when they're going to stop using narcotics and actually doing so.
People who sign up for Scientology's Narconon apparenbtly have
something like a 6.6% probability of success; it's as good as doing
nothing.
6.6 and 11 percents are comparable when dealing with human beings so
signing on with Scientology is as good as doing nothing only with
Scientology you wind up losing all the money you can scrape up -- and
face an even worse problem than drugs: recruitment.
Scientology works wonderfully -- if the claim is that Scientology was
created to rook and swindle people out of large amounts of money.
So far Scientology has been unable to provide any verifiable, testable
evidence to back up their outrageous claims. They're claiming miracles
and outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. If their claims
were half accurate, the world would be beating down their doors trying
to get in and they would be building new facilities as fast as the
company could build them.
>Also:
>> It's great hearing that this friend of yours found
>> Scientology's Narconon to work for her. Narconon _will_
>> work for a small percentage of the populace -- which turns
>> out to be around 6%.
>Wouldn't 6% effectiveness (at least) be experienced by doing nothing
>at all? Again, what does "work" mean and how is it measured?
It's the same question that gets asked about self-proclaimed "psychics,"
astrologers, palm readers and all. 6% is nothing significant -- except
to that 6%, of course, which rightly or wrongly attribute their lack of
narcotic intake to the cult. Another 11% or so who _don't_ sign up for
Scientology's procedures also kick the addiction yet, lacking any
external motivational force, they don't vocally attribute it to anything
other than, perhaps, their deity constructs or to their own willpower.
The first step in any step-based program is to recognize that one has
a problem that needs to be fixed. People who sign up with Scientology
or a real drug treatment organization have taken that first step so
it's no surprise that a percentage of them will succeed. But they
could just as well have become Scout masters, joined the Elks club,
or gotten involved with a real church to acquire an affinity group
that would help keep from acquiring narcotics.
It's an interesting phenomena: people actually honestly believe that
praying to gods helps cure them of physical problems and most medical
problems human experience leave on their own after a period of time.
It doesn't stop the believer from attributing it to their gods,
though.
Then among those who engage in prayer are a percentage who have fatal
diseases. A percentage will acquire medical attention and will at the
same time pray. If they a percentage of those people will go into
remission and a percentage of _that_ group will attribute the cause
to their gods.
Then there are an extremely small percentage of cancer patients who
decide to stop all medical treatment and pray. While nearly all of them
die as scheduled, an extremly small percentage will go into spontaneous
remission, some to the point where cancer can no longer be diagnosed.
They, too, will attribute their survival to their gods.
In truth it's all a factor of probability and humanity's general
inability to internalize what's probable and what's improbable. It's
why Las Vegas exists, "psychics," astrologers, and governments exist.
My opinions, all, of course, and nobody else's.
Ken Milhone
It's my opinion, too, Fredric. Thank you for stating it so clearly.
Ken