Customize

Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

Discussion in 'Narconon' started by XenuLovesU, May 3, 2008.

  1. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    NARCONON Chilocco, 1989-1993 summary

    I don't need much more than that to demonstrate what I need to know about Narconon and the con. Never a more aptly named bunch of snake oil existed. I'm a freezoner's worst nightmare I fear, a professional in healthcare who won't be satisfied until the practice of certain aspects of Scientology are either licensed and regulated, or in the alternative outlawed as the unlicensed practice of medical and mental healthcare.

    Hubbardism is toxic to the human condition and there is no way to seperate out what little apparent good there is from the so clearly poisonous bulk of the remainder. If the only difference between the Freezone and the "church" is price, then I'm not on the side of the middle of the road folks who say "let be when the monster falls from within."
  2. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    It was I who first pointed out problems re Chilaco. My sources were on the ground live people involved. Seems to match my brief look at your URL.

    ME
    "They had a place in Chiloco Oklahoma. They got kicked out for non payment of rent. Staff were not paid properly. They abandon attendees easily and its hard to get a refund. They take them to a hotel a long way away and ask the parents to take their kids back. They are not properly staffed by medical personel I've read. And they're used as an instrument to
    get money from the COS parishioners. They should spend the money nessessary to run the program properly and not try and use it to make bucks both ways."

    You are not this freezoners worst nightmare. I see us as allies of sorts despite your invective.

    " a professional in healthcare who won't be satisfied until the practice of certain aspects of Scientology are either licensed and regulated, "

    As such regulating Narconon, and the purif seems desirable.

    Regulating anothers beliefs and philosophy is another matter.
  3. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Your firm belief that "the purif" works and therefore should be licensed is not a matter of "belief and philosophy" without secular consequences. Until you can cite double blind data saying your program does more than put people at risk of self-induced hepatitis, don't dare to imply either that I: a) support licensing your beliefs as healthcare, or b) will let you get away with justifying an argument for licensure based on non-existent 'evidence.'

    My invective is purely as a result of the recurring nonsensical argument put forward by present day, and many past, Scientologists that their "tech" works. The study tech's been shown to cause retrogression in students to the point where they aren't fit to even learn at a prison level! Stop trying to imply there's any evidence in support of the idea that NarCONon works and, if you feel so strongly, sponsor some serious study.

    Til then, your statements in support of psychobabble are more in the way of annoying jokes from hecklers in a crowd, asking if maybe there's not some way Mephestopheles might see his way clear to letting Faust off the hook. Invective in the face of abject and repetitive nonsense is perhaps uncalled for, but most certainly it is understandable.

    Don't, even by implication, try to put words in my mouth. There's no way on Earth I'll let it go by without a response. NarCONon needs to be SHUT DOWN. If someone wants to try to get an IRB to approve it despite the potential risks to human life and / or sanity it may represent, then let it be properly evaluated and show it's efficacy. Until it has done so, shut it down and lock its doors.
  4. noitulover Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    yeah, so there!
    :flowers:
  5. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I have no belief re the purif. Did it twice to good results and so on.

    I'm making the point that the methods need better study. Gave data
    which you seem to reject/ignore.

    Seems no point in further communication.
  6. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    The "data" you gave would not qualify even in a purely qualitative study of NarCONon. Rejecting data is in fact what research scientists do every day when looking at datasets - it's called "cleaning" data and it involves removing data of questionable validity from analysis based upon guidelines and criteria for doing so. It's an attempt to avoid "garbage in, garbage out."

    As to your final statement, I'd expect nothing less from a Scientological worldview. Failing to have inspired as "truth" the subjective worldview of Scientology as "science," unable to find supporting data with which to buttress false claims, typically the next step is quiet withdrawl from the field to ponder how next to achieve the desired result.

    Might I suggest, in my case at least, that you would do well to skip the part about digging for evidence of past crimes and instead that your time would be better spent in an attempt to find academics who can be persuaded to give you the results you desire for an affordable price? You will do far better spending millions to buy outcomes that are completely falsified and designed to produce parsimonious results without visible flaws, than you will trying to peddle hogwash as acceptable practice in the field of addiction and recovery. Those of us "in the game" take very seriously these attempts to "normalize" and "legitimize" NarCONon, and at last the time has come when academics will no longer sit idly by and watch whilst Hubbard's minions invent "science."
  7. Plups Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Please, stay on target.
  8. noitulover Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    fuck I'm getting sick of these posts!

    How is AnonMSW off target??

    Her contribution to this thread is no less than EPIC --

    if you think debunking NarCONon is off-target, perhaps it's you who's not on target???
  9. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Was just reviewing the entire thread in relation to comment regarding "staying on target" to ensure that I had done and was aware of where I was aiming my contriibution to this thread / line of reasoning. My apologies that I've not had time to do more than refute obvious stupidities, but I've got my own papers to write / publish / deal with irl.

    As to the number of students who've been exposed to / tried drugs by whichever grade, ALL of those sorts of statistics may be had at the website of the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Website - pronounced in the "biz" as "sam-sah")

    When I get the time I'll review what materials have / are being provided to me as a result of feelers I've put out. Hopefully before too long goes by I will have a full set of NarCONon books and will be pouring through them looking for their underlying theoretical foundations (my specialty is basic research and development / implementation of new treatment methodologies / actual pilot programs in agencies all over). I'll try to find some time somewhere to contribute to the Wiki as I can.

    There are complete sets of Hubbard materials available at reasonable prices on Ebay, and I may just go there and buy a set on NarCONon rather than relying on grad students on an easter egg hunt for bonus points! :wink:

    I believe I've stayed on point, though at times fallen fail to tl;dr and for that I apologize. The reality is that there is no evidence at all to support the use or licensure of NarCONon facilities, and moreover there is ample evidence to suggest it is of extreme importance that they be closed immediately. I have begun to inform my colleagues in social work, and we've begun to inform others, including licensure boards, with the information being gathered in places like here and the Wiki.

    The "target," for me, is the dismantling of false "science" in the form of Scientology. The reification of "Science" in the western european descended narrative is already far too harsh and controlling in many ways for my own tastes, and it need be made no more complex than it already is by the global selling of a work of fiction as fact upon which to base decisions like, "What's the best way to kick meth?"

    When Scientology comes with a health warning like a packet of ciggarettes, and when anyone caught promising results without supporting evidence is thrown into prison for fraud, life will be ever so much easier for already at-risk people to live!

    My "target" is clear, and it is debunking even left-handed attempts by Freezoners attempting to make parts of Scientology seem acceptable and even useful based on nothing more than Scientology cited as its own evidence of success. I congratulate the participants in this conversation for their myriad of talents and contributions, and if the author of the original "study" is listening, we're coming after your credentials if you continue to produce such shoddy and obviously biased work.

    We're professionals! we go where the data leads us, even if we don't like the answers or they don't support our hypothesis. If we're ethical, we don't skew or spin our results in such a way as to promote the idea that we know things as fact which have no substantiation in reality. If we're unethical, we sell our souls and say things are wonderful when we're not sure of whether or not what we're doing works, or perhaps even kills.

    Advanced degrees aren't licenses to kill, nor to produce bad work product. Advanced degrees are an invitation to throw your hat into the ring of inviting criticism and admiration for your attempts to extend the boundaries of "what is known." The author of the original work would do well to remember, that the halls of academe can be powerfully lonely when one is seen as nothing but a mouthpiece for hire, clutching bitterly to a piece of paper of now-dubious or questionable value.

    One of the editors / staff of the open source project which saw fit to publish this travesty of "science" has been in touch with me regarding the original choice to publish as well as the editor's responses. I find their concern over our response to be a very good sign that the academic world is alive and well in the body of Anonymous, across the disciplines, and I applaud their concern.

    I have suggested to them that in my opinion, backed only by my anonymity and a piece of paper that says I'm entitled to a professional one (non-standard credentials in the non-Anonymous academic world), it is not what they have done which is at issue here, but what they now choose to do. I have suggested they request the original author's raw dataset, and that they review the conclusions derived therefrom.

    I have further suggested, should the data not be forthcoming or should the conclusions not be borne out therefrom, that the editor of the journal should write a letter to the readership regarding fautly assumptions of purely ethical motives in authors. I believe the journal should base the letter's content on present-day experience with the original article's author and their links (if any) to Scientology programs and interests.

    It's time for examples to be made. The police have chosen not to prevent Scientological harrassment and assault of our younger Anonymous and allies so busily and bravely occupied in holding the front-lines, face to face with Scientologists at protests and raids. In academia, we are our own police. In academia, in basic healthcare research most importantly, we are our own enforcement agents and the numbers are our weapons.

    The time has come, and the transdisciplinary fields which are the sum of us are ours! Amongst us are the needful disciplines to staff a hospital or to run a major corporation. We have the means and the method, borne of years of labor at our studies, and ethics demand it of us.

    Thus far and no farther; examples must be made.

    We are Anonymous.

    We are Legion.

    We do not Forgive.

    We do not Forget.

    Expect Us.

    :anon:, MSW :teacher:

    PS. Tha's the first time I've ever articulated that motto "aloud," and I damn well mean it.

    tl;dr - sorry, but I AM on target.
  10. Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Epic thread
  11. mojo Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    indeed
  12. AnonX Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    wow , thoses noobs are actually supporting Narconon bullshit?

    Please post your ideas in thunderdome so that it can be really be debated , basic2basic.

    L Ron was a science fiction writer , not a doctor. Wtf is this bullshit.

    Awesome job Davey's Cat .
  13. Davey's Cat Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I've got a new comment up on the journal's website - the authors' response to my last comment was heavy on rhetoric and light on specifics so I've pointed out some contradictions within the report and asking for the authors to account for them. I can't really go into the backstory on this, but it's been somewhat protracted and whilst I'd like to say more in the comments section I think these queries are the best that can be done under the circumstances.

    The comment's here:

    Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy | Comments | The NARCONON drug education curriculum for high school students: a non-randomized, controlled prevention trial
  14. a-anon Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Tl;dr. probobly full of $cilon shit anyway.
  15. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published


    "It is important to publish findings of each step along the continuum of sound research. This note answers each question raised and shows where to find the information within the publication."

    I guess this is at the bottom of "the continuum?"

    Don't bother... it's clear that they are answering the questions they want to answer and ignoring the points you bring up by and large. Bad science is bad science. As for the "backstory," I can only imagine given the nature of the "It happens" email I received from the editorial staff.

    Your questions are legitimate, and I find their answers "lacking." Time for more research on the author I'd say. As for their not declaring COS affiliation and calling for you to declare Enturbulation as a "competing interest," I'd say that sort of says it all. If they didn't care about here, I would be a great deal less concerned than I am about Scientologist "scientists" and their attempts to make "science" of fiction.

    I wonder if I could get a SAMHSA grant to run a NarCONon study, hmmm... intersting thought that. I'd hate to "waste" the money, but seeing as how they're calling it "a success," perhaps it's time to attempt to replicate their data exterrnal to Scilon control.

    Nice work Davey, can't say I'm suprised with their response or the journal's seeming complete lack of one.
  16. Plups Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Maria Cecchini - formerly of the Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Education (FASE).

    At least some evidence (first person testimony) of the origins of FASE. Jeff Hawkins, in his magnificent chronicle of his life in the CoS says:

    Counterfeit Dreams: Chapter Eight: Revolution
  17. 13Heathens Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Uhh.. so Narconon drug education works better than none, did I read that article wrong? (i skimmed some of it)
  18. Mousey Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Terril is a known freezoner. If he's too distracting, report him and ask that he be banned from the thread. Standard rules of not feeding trolls apply, but Terril is a card carrying KSW free zoner.

    Just letting you know, since this thread is awesome and I'd hate for it to get derailed.
  19. 4Dlulz Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    1. epic thread is epic epic-win.jpg
    2. bump for moar epic
  20. Belladonna Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Moar Davey's Cat!
  21. Herro Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    The mighty woo-fighters at Science-Based Medicine have been notified of the work done by Davey's Cat in defense of good science.
  22. Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    YUP thats some scietolific medicining there. KSW!!!!
  23. Belladonna Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Ho ho ho what have we here.

    An interesting new press release:

    Narconon New Life Detoxification Program Backed

    Narconon New Life Detoxification Program Backed By Independent Studies
    snip
    snip


    I don't remember them taking this approach in a press release before. Is it too tinfoilly to ask why now?
  24. Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published



    Just another Blatant Lie by Narconon. Their non-scientific and medically dangerous detox program does NOT free toxins from the body.

    The scientific explanation: Toxins exit the body through the kidneys and liver, not sweat glands except perhaps a bearly traceable amount with their 30 day treatment plan with 5 hours per day in the overcrowded sauna.

    They charge up to 30 thousand for 1 month of in house treatment like this and advertise very misleading and untrue success rates of 80%. Estimates are closer to a 20% success rate for all who enter the program. That's $30,000.00, payable upfront (they'll set up charge cards for you), for 1 month. Good luck getting a refund when you leave their bullshit program.

    Narconon is a Scientology Scam of global proportions, it's all Scientology courses and rundowns, nothing else, Non-Secular, ...........<Ahhhh....Ahhhh..lying, scamming muthafuckas.....Cheeewww>, scuse me.

    Combine Hubbard's batshit insane detox with mega-doses of niacin and vitamins and you've got a very expensive recipe for disaster. imho, of course.
  25. Optimisticate Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    And in another press release, again on transworld to make it appear as if it is a real news source, this time claiming the detox is "proven".

    http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=140918&cat=2

    and

    Someone needs to be called on the carpet for this "proven" claim.
  26. tinfoilhatter Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins