ARTICLE OF THE MONTH: WHAT IS NARCONON?

Article: An International Drug Rehabilitation Program Saving Lives
(Text from: http://www.scientology.org/narconon)

Global drug abuse has led to what can inarguably be described as a world awash in blood and human misery.

In reply stands Narconon (meaning “no drugs”), the drug rehabilitation and prevention program founded in 1966 and based on the discoveries of L. Ron Hubbard.

The Narconon program not only addresses the mental and physical debilitation precipitated by drug abuse, but also the reasons why an individual turns to drugs in the first place.

As a result, the Narconon success rate is not merely the world’s highest, it is four times better than international averages.

But with drug abuse now ruining 200 million lives worldwide, the battle to eradicate abuse must also include prevention. To that end, Narconon graduates and volunteers conduct one of the most effective drug awareness programs on Earth. To date, it has provided more than 17 million young people with the facts about drug abuse.

Scientologists helped sponsor the creation of Narconon Arrowhead. Established in 2001, this is the premier facility of the Narconon network. It stands amidst 216 acres of woodland on the shores of Lake Eufaula in southeastern Oklahoma. In addition to being the world’s largest residential facility of its kind, Narconon Arrowhead also serves as the international training center for drug rehabilitation specialists. Since opening its doors, it has provided on-site internships for professionals from 13 nations and 43 US states.

Today, the worldwide Narconon drug rehabilitation and prevention network comprises more than 180 centers and groups across 47 nations—double the number of a decade ago.

More on Narconon.org:

Support from the Church of Scientology and Its Membership

L. Ron Hubbard, who developed the drug rehabilitation methodology which the Narconon Program utilizes, was also the founder of the Scientology religion. While the Narconon program is a purely secular program which is open to members of all faiths, it has enjoyed the support of the Church of Scientology and individual Scientologists since its beginnings.

In 1966, when Arizona State Prison inmate William Benitez wrote L. Ron Hubbard asking for help, it was Scientologist volunteers who helped him to set up the original Narconon courses inside the prison.

In fact, the majority of new Narconon facilities established since that time have been made possible by the volunteer and financial support given by Scientologists.

It is an important part of the Scientology religion’s social mission to reduce the suffering and degradation caused by alcohol and drug abuse on a worldwide scope. Scientology churches join churches of other faiths in seeking to improve living conditions as well as the social and moral environments in which we live. As part of this mission, Churches of Scientology actively encourage their members to support the Narconon program, by helping to open new centers for drug rehabilitation or drug education and by volunteering their time to assist existing Narconon programs.

Therefore, it is common to find Scientologists from all walks of life volunteering to help the Narconon organization by conducting fundraising drives, establishing new centers and making its solutions known to people in need.

The Narconon program brings new solutions to the field of drug rehabilitation and education to all peoples of the world. Scientology Churches and Scientologists are proud to support this program.

More exciting facts:

105 Comments

  1. Scientology doesn’t need “defending”. But the blog does say people can ask questions (unless they’re only here to make a statement and have no personal goal to learn – refer FAQ). I wasn’t aware that it takes more than 1 person to answer a question.

    • If Scientology doesn’t need defending, why are you? You rarely answer questions, but regular defend it against accusations and reality.

      So much so, that once again you’ve responded to me after I stop posting. I’m flattered, pat, that you feel the need to keep me here :) do you see that pattern, finally, that you post every time criticism starts to wane? Why is that?

      I’m curious- if it only takes one person to answer questions (a false premise, but your statement), then why are you here on louanne’s blog?

    • Asking a question is not “stopped responding”. I stand by what I said. From this point forward I won’t answer your questions. Evidently, you didn’t really want them answered.

    • Oh, Pat- you misunderstand! I LIKE what you’re doing; you’re encouraging criticism of scientology, and I think that’s a healthy thing. It just bothers me that you couldn’t be honest about what you’re doing. And instead of even considering that, you’ve gone with a “fine, I’ll take my ball and go home” all-or-nothing mentality.

      And, you may be right, that asking a question isn’t “stopping”- but when you have to fine a two-year old question to “answer”, then that’s just digging. Besides, most of your replies were more intentionally provocative, rather than anything that that could be called a question.

      But, if it bothers you so very much, I’ll stop pointing it out.

    • Case in point- your reply here. There was no question asked, and you didn’t answer anything. In fact, you merely responded to a much older comment that I made to another poster. What does that have to do with any question that I asked? Your argument would make sense if I were irrationally objecting to you answering questions that I ask of you.

    • Actually, that response is to a question by Mike B recently asked.

    • I stand cheerfully corrected on the specific point as to whom you were responding :)

    • Thank you

    • You’re very welcome!
      Do you have any theories, perthe question to which you were responding, as to why so few people online are speaking positively of Scientology, while so many inline are critical of it?
      As you believe that there are many millions of scientologists, one would expect to find far more extolling its virtues.

    • No, I don’t.

      I just know why I do it. I’m not “everyone else” to comment on the pros or cons of what I do. I’m able to confer my own point of view without trying to make it seem as if I represent “so many”.

    • That’s fair. I suppose that one is left to wonder why scientology is so poorly represented online and in surveys/census data. This is certainly notable as a contrast to most other religions, which have a rather robust presence online.

      If the numbers that you propose are correct, with scientologists numbering in the millions, one could only assume that the adherents are (for whatever reason) both unwilling to discuss their affiliation online and to disclose it when asked by survey takers.

    • May I ask what “cons” you’re referring to in your comment?

    • I don’t put my religion on my census because the Constitution doesn’t requite it. I only answer what the Constitution requires. I am sure I’m not the only one who thinks it’s none of the governments business. Just google census accuracy religion to see what the viewpoint is regarding that. Using it as a ruler for a census / survey (which I’ve never answered) is irrelevant to actual Scientologists that Scientology reports from rolls in the IAS

      As for your second question, I’m referring to the “everyone else” which, I repeat, I don’t know what “everyone else” have as pros or cons. I can’t answer that since I’m not “everyone else”.

    • You may have forgotten that you posted on March 29 2008, “Membership has increased from 6.1 million in 2000 to approximately 10 million at the end of 2007.”. Do you stand by that previous claim?

      You raise many interesting points. For one, there are specialized surveys that exist to gauge religious participation. Those are much more reliable, and find low membership in Scientology. Many countries also include religious affiliation in their official census, which is how we find more registered Jedi in certain areas than scientologists. You can also infer a great deal from online activity- there are thousands of new-age religion websites, with countless adherents claiming benefit. This does not exist in Scientology.

      We’re left, then, with self-reporting. You are in the unfortunate position of being told a particular fact, but not given the resources to find out for yourself. You do mention IAS membership, but that is a very small group. How can you extrapolate total membership based on those rolls?

      As we seek common ground, in your perspective are there any cons to Scientology, either management or any other aspect? I’m interested in your reply, as I’ve never known a religious adherent that wasn’t able to honestly acknowledge flaws in their organization, but I don’t think I’ve ever asked a scientologist.

    • I have no reason to not trust my Church and their numbers. Why on earth would you ask a Scientologist for critical comments? I find that insidious at best. You still just are not getting this concept of natter and the overt / motivator sequence. You’re trying to make a statement as well. That doesn’t warrant any further response from me.

    • Wow, pat- that’s quite an extreme emotional reaction.

      “I have no reason to not trust my Church and their numbers.”
      Why not? Is there anything else that you believe without having the opportunity to validate it? That mindset leaves open the possibility that one could be deceived, if they’re openly unwilling to question the data, and instead repeats it as truth without knowing for themselves.

      “Why on earth would you ask a Scientologist for critical comments? I find that insidious at best.”
      Insidious? Certainly not, and it’s offensive that you would take a simple question and make cruel accusations as to my intent, while I was very clear in my message, instead, I suspect that you are unable to answer the question, meaning that you’ve set clear conditions on what you will discuss- fair roads, good weather- while not discussing anything that is less than positive. That means that you can only be considered a trustworthy source for positive information, rather than t he complete picture.
      And why cannot someone be free to discuss that which needs to be improved within their religion? Any other religion, it’s memmbers feel free to do so, even at the highest levels. Why do no scientologists in good standing with the church acknowledge that which needs to improve? It seems that such an attitude could easily lead to stagnancy.

    • Besides, no ones asking you to be critical, but open about your views. For example, a good friend of mine is a catholic priest, and he was very open in his belief that the sex abuse scandal was handled poorly. Do you believe he is wrong for stating this?

    • More spin, Failed? I trust my Church and its leaders. I have NO reason to question since we are doing very well. I see no reason to further discuss it with you.

    • A simple question is not spin- its just a simple question. For one thing, you’re saying that there’s at least one thing that you believe to be true solely based on the fact that you’re told that it is so. I’m very curious as to that mind set. Other than that, is there anything wrong with honestly discussing flaws within an organization? They all have them.

    • Listen, Pat, I have zero interest in conflicting over this; if you don’t want to answer, that’s certainly your right.

      Perhaps, to change the subject, you can explain what you mean when you say the church is doing well- is that based on the same source from which you base the number of members?

    • My data comes from personal observation, not belief. The same principle that I keep hammering you about. I see it in my own local org that has moved 3 times in the last few years alone due to expansion. You don’t accept my data, because you’ve been bombarded with contrary data that you also haven’t observed.

      Can I accept what I’ve seen as true? You betcha.

      You continue to question me about my veracity instead of just going to look for yourself. You continue to try to push me into a condition of doubt about my Church, yet you refuse to look for yourself. I don’t see any ethics change in you, so I’m done with you. Good luck with your life.

    • But pat, you were saying last that you were merely accepting the numbers you were given as you “trusted the leadership” of your church. Now, you’re saying that your personal experience (which I have no way to validate) somehow lends credence to their claims. I assume that there are not millions of members of your local org, so all you can speak to (per your perpetual standards) is to the relative success of your local org. Which area is this in?

      But, how would this account for the Philadelphia org, which I have walked past every day for months and never seen it full, despite traveling past at different times of day? Or the San Francisco org, which is in a similar state based on my personal observation?

      For some reason, likely because it conflicts with your views, you assume that I haven’t based my conclusion on objective data. I’ve observed multiple orgs in multiple states; I’ve seen census and survey data; I’ve asked others; my conclusion is based on much more thorough research than you’ve claimed and is thus more accurate.

    • What’s the difference between drawing an inference from a very limited data set which allows for no way to validate the arguable conclusion and “belief”? It seems that both rely quite heavily on unproved assertations….

  2. Reposted in correct place on thread

    One Scientologist = “massive”? Do you realize how manipulative that sounds? I agree with you that her TRs went out. She likely got consequences for that which happens if one’s ethics go out. My bet is that she didn’t blow as a result and applied the appropriate ethics handling for that. Here you are several years later trolling and trying to create controversy over the action of one person out of present time, and trying to blame “Scientology”.

  3. Not the first time, won’t be the last…

    • One Scientologist = “massive”? Do you realize how manipulative that sounds? I agree with you that her TRs went out. She likely got consequences for that which happens if one’s ethics go out. My bet is that she didn’t blow as a result and applied the appropriate ethics handling for that. Here you are several years later trolling and trying to create controversy over the action of one person out of present time, and trying to blame “Scientology”.

    • I’m curious, why did you reply to me instead of the person whom you were addressing?

    • A mistake. It happens.

    • indeed it does. No problem.

    • I am curious, though, what do you think of someone that calls themselves “anonymous” and takes an action against scientology, perhaps committing a crime in the process. Do you hold the individual accountable, or a larger group of people accountable for their actions?

  4. hmmm, by the latest census data, Jedi now outnumber Scientologists in Australia.

    That’s just one example that shows that the numbers that they claim simply don’t exist. This is confirmed by every independent study, census or evaluation. Of course, ignoring any verifiable facts, there are still those that claim MILLIONS of members without any way to back up their numbers.

    • I sure hear a lot of hot air in here lately.

    • Oh? Please, correct me if I’m incorrect.

    • Tl;dr:

      “reporting on the multiple deaths at this facility and the multiple investigations is bigoted. Narconon works, but you have to take outer word for it”

      It’s notable that the president of narco on doesn’t comment on the deaths, just berates the reporter for reporting on the story.

      • Outer= our

      • Evidently you didn’t read the article because he does comment on the deaths.

      • Hmm, I’ll have to read it again, Pat- any mention seemed to be in passing, while his main goal appeared to be slandering the reporter. But, hey, perception, right?

      • Where does he comment on the deaths? For that matter, where did I claim that he didn’t?

        Did you ever read the statement from the previous president?

  5. Comment by fail_root on August 18, 2012 9:45 pm

    .LOL. Your spin that a Doctor that is also a Scientologist can not possibly know, when in fact they are best qualified to say if it works or not because they have first hand data. They’ve experienced the results. The test is Did it work? Not “did some official authoritarian test it in a lab”. There is no lab test behind anyone saying it’s risky and plenty of studies as referenced in the pdf I posted that there is empirical evidence that it works.

    Wisner may not be a doctor but he’s done studies that are published. Do you need to be a doctor to say it works? Do you need to be a doctor to say it doesn’t? The “science” gets questioned without even questioning if it works. Not gonna debate this with you. You and your cronies can diss this til the cows come home but that won’t change the fact that you have no first hand knowledge if it works. If it works, then there’s science that is being ignored. Science’s root is “knowing” from Latin SCIO.

    • So YOUR spin is that a doctor with a vested paid or spiritual interest in something is a reliable source of information? Let’s ask Dr. Boki of Hungary is Voodoo is an effective treatment method- I’d bet he’d say yes, as he’s also a Voodoo practitioner; by your standards, there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, that’s scientific! (if you use the archaic root of the word, of course, as you seem to do. That made a lot of sense when the word was adapted from latin thousands of years ago; you know, before we had the means to actually validate our “knowing”.)

      Seriously, if it’s so effective, why are so few OBJECTIVE professionals extolling its virtues? Why are those with anything positive to say about it either paid or otherwise compensated by scientology? If it really, truly works, why are so few people saying so?

      Do you need to be a doctor to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of something that’s inherently medical? Um…. Yeah. Yeah you do. If you look at Winsners “studies”, he does no original research- it’s all derivative work in which he’s clearly reached a conclusion before doing the study. Feel free to take a look, you’ll see that if you’re honest about it.

      Does Narconon work in some cases? Sure! But there’s no indication that it’s as effective as scientology claims (70%? Riiiiight). Also, the deaths and other reports from former patients warrant investigation- and that’s exactly what’s being done. Up to the governor’s office is investigating the causes for the deaths at arrowhead. We can wait to see what they say. You keep ignoring the question; do you feel ANYTHING about the three deaths at arrowhead?

      • Personal observation is empirical. You seem to think that that isn’t a true test. I contend that it is. You fight against something based on someone else’s comments.

        You have no personal first hand knowledge of the Purif or of the entire Narconon program, yet think you can authoritatively say it doesn’t work. I see no reason to put any significance or weight in anything you say about it.

      • “Personal observation is empirical. You seem to think that that isn’t a true test. I contend that it is. You fight against something based on someone else’s comments.”

        I suppose that’s why so many life saving treatments don’t need to be tested in the lab, right? Why so many scientific claims are considered “valid” just because someone “feels” they’re true?

        “A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses” (wikipedia)

        Again, how can you consider this to be valid in the face of actual scientific fact? The kind that doesn’t rely on personal experience. By your logic, narconon has an equally valid base as voodoo spells or love potions.

        “You have no personal first hand knowledge of the Purif or of the entire Narconon program”

        I assume you do?

    • Here is what is said OBJECTIVELY; this is what medical professionals who are not paid by the group say:

      1. “The Narconon drug treatment modality treats all drug addictions the same. No scientific evidence was produced to show that all drug addictions are properly treated in the same manner …

      The Narconon [detoxification] program requires its patients to sweat up to five hours per day, seven days a week, for approximately thirty days. The rationale, according to Narconon for the sweat-out is to rid the body of fat-stored drugs and chemicals through sweat. However, there is no scientific basis for the technique. Most drugs of abuse are removed from the body by detoxification and excretion through the liver, kidneys and (in some instances) through the lungs. Although minute quantities of some drugs may be found in sweat, the amount represents such a small fraction of drug elimination that no matter how much an individual sweated through exercise or saunas, the clearance of most drugs of abuse would not be significantly increased …

      The vast majority of time spent in the Narconon treatment plan and course work does not in any way relate to or involve education about drug and alcohol abuse treatment, issues, and/or addiction. The Narconon treatment plan thus has deficiencies which render it ineffective. The Narconon treatment plan is general in nature, applies categorically to all students and is not individualized. The treatment plan also lacks measurable individualized objectives which the students should seek to achieve in the program. For instance, the treatment plan sets a patient’s objective as follows: To have a clear mind. This objective is essentially meaningless. In order for a bonafide drug treatment plan to be effective it is essential to have individualized measured objectives which Narconon’s treatment plan lacks …

      There is no credible scientific evidence that the Narconon program is effective in the treatment of chemical dependency.

      There is no credible scientific evidence that exercise speeds up the detoxification process.

      Large doses of niacin are administered to patients during the Narconon program to rid the body of radiation. There is no credible scientific evidence that niacin in any way gets radiation out of the patient’s body. Rather, the more credible medical evidence supports the existence of potential medical risks to persons receiving high doses of niacin.

      There is no credible evidence establishing the safety of the Narconon program to its patients.

      There is no credible evidence establishing the effectiveness of the Narconon program to its patients.

      No scientifically well-controlled independent, long-term outcome studies were found that directly and clearly establish the effectiveness of the Narconon program for the treatment of chemical dependency and the more credible evidence establishes Narconon’s program is not effective. The Board determines that the Narconon Program is not effective in the treatment of chemical dependency.”

      (Findings of Fact regarding the Narconon-Chilocco Application For Certification by the Board of Mental Health, State of Oklahoma, 13 December 1991)

      2. “in general because of a lack of empirical data, the “Purification Rundown” concept cannot be considered medically sound.”
      (Everett R. Rhoades, M.D., Assistant Surgeon General – letter to Garry Bilger, Mayor of Newkirk, Oklahoma, 22 December 1989)

      3. “To subject people to potentially serious side effects on the pretense that they are being “detoxified”, “cleared” or “purified” is quackery.”
      (James J. Kenney, Ph.D., R.D., National Council Against Health Fraud, Santa Monica, CA – letter to Dr. John Chelf, copied to R.W. Lobsinger, 5 January 1991)

      4. “Basically Hubbard’s theories in general are just that – theories without controlled proof. He flings facts around wildly in excess, i.e., to drown the reader in facts in order to convince them that he knows, but he has little to reference and document the facts. A review of Hubbard’s communications is that these directives are only theoretical observations without substantiating facts or details and with no reference for the reader to “check the source out.” ”
      (William B. Svoboda, pediatric neurologist, Wichita, Kansas – letter to R.W. Lobsinger, 30 April 1990)

      There’s a ton more, but you can see that the general medical / scientific consensus is that the program is unsound at best.

      • So? That still doesn’t deal with the fact that those who saw it work, endorsed it. You’re stuck on whether some non-Scientologist approves of it. That becomes irrelevant in the face of workability. Done with this.

      • But of course, you’re “done with this”, Pat. You only have one argument- people saw it and it seems to work in some, but not all, cases. That’s not very much to work with, is it? You see, you started the “bandwagon” argument- “hey,” you said, “here’s a list of experts that think it’s a good thing!” So where can I go with that? Of course I look at your “experts”. And what do I find but a mix of vested financial interests and people who have abandoned the accepted scientific method and reached a conclusion before testing the data. In addition, these doctors (and non-doctors)- they’re not scientists. When you look at what actual scientists are saying- those that are actually LOOKING at what’s going on in the body, they find that hubbard’s claims are unfounded in observable science. In other words, any actual study or research has revealed that hubbard’s program is based on junk science and inaccurate beliefs. No independent study has ever found the program to be valid. And workable? How would we know? Narconon only self-reports; it has NEVER validated their wild claims. Even the former head of the narconon center in Oklahoma criticizes their methods!

      • Do you have any idea how many voodoo practitioners validate that voodoo works? Care to guess how many wiccans validate the magick spells that they practice? Probably a large majority- you’d say that their claims are validation to you?

        I wonder- how long since you’ve been through the narconon program?

      • I have never seen it NOT work. There’s sure a lot of “no empirical evidence” in these which comes right back to personal observation. What kind of doctor says that without actually running someone thru it to test it for themselves? It pretty much makes their arguments non-scientific since it wasn’t tested.

      • “I have never seen it NOT work. There’s sure a lot of “no empirical evidence” in these which comes right back to personal observation. What kind of doctor says that without actually running someone thru it to test it for themselves? It pretty much makes their arguments non-scientific since it wasn’t tested.”

        That’s a great question- what type of doctor would ignore scientific fact and procedure in favor of anecdotal evidence? Not a good one. And you’ll notice that NO actual, professional scientist considers that (that process or narconon as a whole) to be valid, as well. Would you trust a doctor that ignores observable, repeatable and testable scientific fact in favor of “I saw this work before”?

        How is it that you’ve “seen it work” enough times to make it statistically significant?

      • “I have never seen it NOT work. There’s sure a lot of “no empirical evidence” in these which comes right back to personal observation. What kind of doctor says that without actually running someone thru it to test it for themselves? It pretty much makes their arguments non-scientific since it wasn’t tested.”

        That’s a great question- what type of doctor would ignore scientific fact and procedure in favor of anecdotal evidence? Not a good one. And you’ll notice that NO actual, professional scientist considers that (that process or narconon as a whole) to be valid, as well. Would you trust a doctor that ignores observable, repeatable and testable scientific fact in favor of “I saw this work before”?

        How is it that you’ve “seen it work” enough times to make it statistically significant?

      • apologies for the double post

    • Also, let’s talk science- what do we KNOW? It may be scientific to you that Niacin (a core component of the narconon treatment) is of medical benefit. But, we have ACTUAL science, where we can actually see what’s going on with the body! We can move from “knowing” to “seeing”:

      “This “purification” or “detoxification” program is claimed to help “clear” the mind of toxins such as drugs, pesticides and chemical pollutants. It consists of large doses of niacin, vegetable oil, exercise and “low temperature” saunas. According to the followers of L. Ron Hubbard, the large doses of niacin works by stimulating the release of fat into the blood stream and this is accompanied by various “toxins” trapped in the body’s fatty tissues. According to science, large doses of niacin actually block the release of fat from fat cells. This has been observed both at rest [Acta Medica Scandinavia 1962, 172(suppl):641] and during exercise [D. Jenkins, Lancet 1965,1307]. In other words, the scientific evidence shows that the exact opposite of what Hubbard’s theory predicts. There is no credible support for claims that large doses of niacin clear toxins from the brain, fatty tissue or any other part of the body.
      To make matters worse, large doses of niacin are hepatotoxic and can cause serious liver damage. It may also trigger gout, raise blood sugar into the diabetic range, cause itching, flushing and a rash. Nausea and gastritis are other side effects of large doses of niacin. To subject people to these potentially serious side effects on the pretense that they are being “detoxified”, “cleared” or “purified” is quackery.”
      (James J. Kenney, Ph.D., R.D., National Council Against Health Fraud, Santa Monica, CA – letter to Dr. John Chelf, copied to R.W. Lobsinger, 5 January 1991)

      Why would anyone who is informed go to a program that has such a limited understanding of the actual science? I don’t want my doctor to say, “well, I don’t know HOW it works, but I really know it because I’ve seen it happen!” Okay, dude- you must go to pieces around a good magician ;)

      • As a free bonus, here’s another example:

        “This program enables the body to flush out drug and alcohol residues that lodge in the fatty tissues, that have no other way of being flushed out” (narconon)

        Alcohol is water soluble- it is not possible for it to be stored in fat cells. Yet narconon not only claims that it CAN, but has a treatment program that targets that false assumption. Again- why could you consider a program with such a limited understanding of the actual medical facts to be valid? There’s plenty of other examples, but that’s a very basic one. The medical / scientific “knowledge” of hubbard, as used by narconon, has been disputed and disproven by such agencies as the PA attorney general and countless other medical studies and professionals. Hubbard was not a medical professional, which explains his lack of scientific accuracy. That’s why one has to rely more on “personal knowing” rather than actual scientific validation.

      • j”“This “purification” or “detoxification” program is claimed to help “clear” the mind of toxins such as drugs, pesticides and chemical pollutants. It consists of large doses of niacin, vegetable oil, exercise and “low temperature” saunas.”

        False. The mind itself is not physical. We are referring to a spiritual result. There is no testing of the body in relation to whether toxins are gone or not. Those who deny the existence of us as the spiritual being are going to have a hard time differentiating, so continue to try to place this in the realm of physical science. You might want to read the book for yourself, instead of relying on authoritarianism telling you what to think.

      • “There is no testing of the body in relation to whether toxins are gone or not”

        Exactly. It’s unvalidated, at best.

        “Those who deny the existence of us as the spiritual being are going to have a hard time differentiating, so continue to try to place this in the realm of physical science”

        I thought narconon was a secular program?
        So are you at least agreeing that the “scientific” claims have no backing in the physical world?

      • Read the book

      • That’s a cop-out. learn the science.

        (I actually have read the book, by the way. That’s how I know first-hand that it’s a rough collection of anecdotal evidence and poor scientific understanding. Anyone that thinks that hubbard understood biology, modern science or medicine is ill-informed.)

      • LOL. Same thing applies. Read the book, do the program, then you’ll have the data. Til then, you have no standing here.

      • And how many times have YOU done the program? You keep missing that question.

        You say I have no standing. I beg to differ. I have verifiable scientific data and an understanding of the scientific method. You have anecdotes. NO actual scientist would ever agree with you, so you have to settle for a small number of medical practitioners (who you consider qualified to evaluate a “non-medical program”, for some reason).

        I’m curious, have you read what the former president of Narconon Arrowhead said of the program, or did you miss that data?

    • Lastly, you say that your pdf proves that it works… where? I see derivative research in which the author INFERS that it works. But the links, the cites, they support the well-known concept that some drugs stay resident in fat for a relatively short period of time. I can’t find a single one of them claiming that narconon works as you claim. So you can’t say that the pdf supports the program; the only real science in there is used to infer that it does.

      • Read the book.

      • That’s a cop-out. Learn the science.

      • How can you ignore all of the scientific research that disproves so much of what hubbard claimed? Do you purposely ignore scientific truths, or do you just not see the need to learn facts about the world around you?

        I’m not trying to accuse you, I’m genuinely fascinated by that mindset.

      • True research would be to do the procedure in the book to test it.

        If you don’t know what that is and haven’t read the book then you don’t know what was done to research it. You diss the actual research on the basis that its non factual when anyone can test it by doing it.

        Knowing means first hand experience that it works (as stated earlier science comes from SCIO meaning knowing or knowledge) and there can’t be true research unless it tests the procedure without entering in others’ opinions and bias.

      • In a way, you’re right. And yet you suggest that one relies on subjectivity rather than objectivity. As such, the question (and many others) remains unanswered. How do you reconcile your “knowingness” with verifiable and contradictory facts?

        For that matter, what’s the difference between “knowing” something that is easily disproven and being insane?

      • by your own examples, isn’t that hearsay?

    • Finally found the study I’ve been looking for: http://www.nydetox.org/images/townsend.pdf

      • I’m ever so excited to read this! Please, what entity performed this study?

      • Chemical Exposures at the World Trade Center
        by Marie A. Cecchini, MS; David E. Root MD, MPH;
        Jeremie R. Rachunow, MD; and Phyllis M. Gelb, MD

        Published by Townsend Letter

        Was on first page.

      • I saw that, but was wondering if the journal of “alternative medicine” was the sponsoring organization, or if it was one that was more… Reputable… After all, the Townsend letter itself says, “We encourage reports which frequently are not data-based but are anecdotal. Hence, information presented may not be proven or factually correct.”

        But that’s okay- that just might be the entity that feels the Hubbard method is scientifically sound! I shall read when I have a moment.

  6. Read the article on David Love. You see the Scientology side of things anywhere that dispute what you just said? No? Well, good for you for acting on an obviously slanted hit piece that fills your confirmation bias.

    You need to look for yourself before you jump into this quagmire.

    • “You see the Scientology side of things anywhere that dispute what you just said?”

      Referring to the lack of Scientology data in the hit piece. Doesn’t it make you curious, that if the reporter had that data, why wasn’t it included? Look for yourself.

    • Has scientology released a statement about it yet? They seem to be pretty good about that. Normally, we’d hear from Tommy Davis on that, but he hasn’t been seen ever since he said his famous statement, “Of course, if it’s true that Mr. Hubbard was never injured during the war, then … then Dianetics is based on a lie, and then Scientology is based on a lie.”

      I wonder where he is now, especially since there’s clear evidence that Hubbard lied about his war injuries…

    • Pat,
      I think that most of us who make up our mind do so with multiple sources of information. Now, you’ve said that you “looked at both sides” after having already decided that anything critical was already wrong (in other words, very closed minded and pre-decided), but the rest of us tend to gather multiple sources of data.
      I’ll give you an example; I knew someone some time ago- he and his brother hate scientology, but still love their scientologist mother. He told me stories about how scientology drove their parents apart when his father tried to study independently; he felt that his mother chose the church over the family! The family broke up, with only his sister and mother still believing that scientology is anything good. There he is, trying to explain to his mentally challenged other brother what’s going on, and all he can think is that his is another family destroyed by scientology- his mother, you see, was only following what she was told. He hates the group, as do his bothers, and he escapes into his art (which he tells me his mother ignorantly posts to facebook, not understanding the significance) because he has so much repressed sorrow after scientology touched his life.
      After hearing so many stories like this, one can’t ignore the impact. I mean, how could one take family and marriage advice from someone (hubbard) that had three failed marriages, even cheating on one wife, while two of them called him abusive and psychotic? Is that man really fit to teach anything about the family dynamic, when his most recent wife was a criminal?

    • Comment by fail_root on August 18, 2012 3:56 pm

      Just once, I’d like to see some first hand knowledge versus continued forwarding of hearsay.

    • “The family broke up, with only his sister and mother still believing that scientology is anything good. There he is, trying to explain to his mentally challenged other brother what’s going on, and all he can think is that his is another family destroyed by scientology- his mother, you see, was only following what she was told”

      That’s one big honking assumption there that “she was told” and what these apostates would like you to believe, when what he’s really saying is that his mother and sister were incapable of self-determined action and their own thoughts about something. Good one!! More hearsay. What first hand data do you have that this was something “Scientology” did versus a woman and her daughter taking action to leave someone?

    • Mike, Don’t you just hate it when people sit there and tell you it’s something it isn’t when it clearly is, if one actually took the time to look for themselves?

    • “More hearsay. What first hand data do you have that this was something “Scientology” did versus a woman and her daughter taking action to leave someone?”

      See, Pat, that’s where you and most people would disagree. Most people would call it “testimony”- first hand experiences. By your account, everything in the world is hearsay, including all but ONE positive experience with scientology! And I’ll give you that- I could believe that there’s ONE valid experience with scientology :)

      But, there are too many of these stories for you to discount. Yet, you do. Of course you do- you’ve already made up your mind about critics, haven’t you? Those children, they miss their mom. They say she’s not “normal”- but seem to very easily discount the thousands of similar stories.

    • I know a group that can help you with that… ;)

  7. Is it true that narconon bases part of its treatment on the belief that drugs can be stored in fat cells for years?

    • A simple google search came up with multiple links from non-Scientology sources. Data has been around a long time.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=drugs%20stored%20in%20fat%20cells&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

      • Im very confused, pat- why would you give me data that proves that narconon’s claims are unscientific and demonstrably false? I appreciate your honesty, but…

    • I just showed you that the idea is not exclusive to Narconon. That’s all. If you want to create conflict over it, I’m not playing.

      • That’s true- the idea was not unique even when Hubbard thought it to be true. It’s just widely discredited is all. There’s no solid science behind the “purif”- the scientific claims- of Scientology.

        But I think we can agree that there’s no solid medical science behind narconon. It’s fine, I know it works in some cases- there’s just nothing supporting the 70% claim that they make.

      • Where did you get that idea that it’s been discredited or that there’s no science behind the fact that fat cells can hold drugs?

      • Here’s the scientific study complete with cites.
        http://www.able.org/studies/detox/drug_storage.pdf

      • Ah, yes; the Able study… The only study that in any way validates narconon was commissioned by a scientology organization and conducted by scientologists.

        It’s well known that SOME drugs stay resident in fat cells for a period of time. Once again, that’s an idea that Hubbard… borrowed… from someone else. To a limited degree, it’s correct.

        But let’s take one example that proves the limited medical / scientific understanding of narconon:

        “Marijuana contains known toxins and cancer-causing chemicals which are stored in fat cells for as long as several months” (narconon)

        That’s just one example- you don’t need any more. If those “drug addiction experts” get such a basic fact wrong, what else have they missed?

        But even Louanne admits it’s not a medical program.

      • The tests were not conducted by Scientologists. Where did that idea come from? Look up the references.

      • Further proof that you didn’t even read the pdf is that it wasn’t itself a study (I mistakenly called it that), but a report of the many studies that were done outside of Scientology to test fat repository data (independent of any Scientology related data or connection). This report has all the references at the bottom.

        Don’t you just hate it when people sit there and tell you it’s something it isn’t when it clearly is, if one actually took the time to look for themselves?

      • well, heck, ABLE called it a study in their tax forms for that year- but I’m sure you’re right, it’s not a study. They’re clearly mistaken.

        You miss my point. I’ve given you a very clear example of narconon being wrong about a very simple claim- that may not mean something to you, but if we’re expected to take them seriously as “drug addiction specialists”, they should at least be correct in their basic understanding of the science.

        True, SOME drugs remain resident in the fat cells for a short period of time- certainly not “years” in the context of my original question. You answered a question I didn’t ask, but more power to you.

        Interestingly, the only organization that claims that narconon is any more effective than any other program is… scientology. That mean anything to you? In fact, the only “success rates” that they claim are unverified and unsupported even by their own records!

        Similarly, does it mean anything to you that THREE people died in narconon care within the last year?

      • And, like has been said before, Hubbard merely took his understanding of the science of the time and applied it to his own system. Even his understanding of drugs is taken from other research; once again, not unique. The only difference is that we have a much better understanding of the actual science behind drug addiction, so other programs are able to more effectively treat it. That’s why even louanne says that narconon isn’t a “medical” program, but a lifestyle one- because modern science is so much better at the medical part. I mean, if narconon believes that teaching people about scientology will keep ’em off drugs, that’s fine. But if someone were to ask me where to go, I’d recommend a place that actually IS a medical facility. We’ve seen what happens when someone goes to a place that wasn’t…

        I mean, seriously, who lets a young girl detox in a room by herself without letting the doctor take a look at her first? Or monitor the process. That irresponsibility is, in this case, deadly. Does that bother you at all?

      • So, you didn’t look at the references?

        “I mean, seriously, who lets a young girl detox in a room by herself without letting the doctor take a look at her first? Or monitor the process. That irresponsibility is, in this case, deadly. Does that bother you at all?”

        Based on what? Where did the data come from that she hadn’t seen a doctor? Was it verified or more hearsay?

      • They called their Pdf a study? Really? link pls, because I’m talking about the pdf when I say it wasn’t a study. There were clear cites for the report on studies.

      • I told you how to find it in the same way YOU do to people. If you want to find it, go ahead. But it’s irrelevant; once again, you’re getting caught up in minor points in order to comfortably ignore the big picture.

        Why is no one but scientology / able claiming that narconon is effective? Where are the experts that lend credence to their methods? and why do people keep dying?

      • “Based on what? Where did the data come from that she hadn’t seen a doctor? Was it verified or more hearsay?”

        You clearly didn’t watch the video. If you’d like, you can wait for the multiple legal inquiries to be completed.

      • Comment by fail_root on August 18, 2012 6:46 pm

        So, you’re saying that this video is the source that she didn’t see a doctor?

      • Comment by fail_root on August 18, 2012 6:45 pm

        Again, you’re operating on hearsay about there only being unfavorable reactions, so … http://www.think-clearly.org/purification-endorsements.html

      • “So, you’re saying that this video is the source that she didn’t see a doctor?”

        Yup, as narconon is particularly mum on the issue. As you know, there’s multiple legal and governmental inquiries into the deaths- feel free to wait until those are complete, if you’d like.

        Thank you for the reference, with the list of purification rundown supporters. Please allow me to digest said list, and I will happily reply. It’s a short list, it won’t take long.

      • There are several experts on this list; it’s interesting that you refer to some experts, when they say something positive about the group, but not when they criticize the group. Oh, well, I guess I can’t blame you on that. Okay, so what people are publicly supporting this program?

        Dr. Megan Shields, M.D.: Has a paid position with Narconon international. Also is an active scientologist

        David E. Root, M.D: Paid member of the Narconon advisory board.

        James G. Barnes: Not a medical professional, but is a scientologist “clear”. Claims to be an expert in radiation, but has no experience in drugs.

        Michael Wisner: Not a medical professional, but is a scientologist. Former head of narconon.

        William E. Wheeler, Ph.D.: Can’t validate claim- only reference to his quote appears to be within scientology. But I’m feeling generous tonight; I’ll give you this one.

        Julian Whitaker, MD: was criticized by the National Council Against Health Fraud for false claims and for conflicts of interest, and by other doctors for promoting products not validated by solid evidence (as reported in LA times on 23 February 2009).

        Dr. Kathleen Kerr: A paid director of a narconon clinic and a practicing scientologist.

        So, let’s recap, of the seven that are listed as “supporting” the purify program, four (over half) of them are scientologists! Why the site wouldn’t mention that is, of course, up for interpretation. Of the three remaining, one is paid by narconon (some of the active scientolgists are, too), one is a controversial figure that is known for promoting cures and treatments without evidence and the last one (which I’ll give ya) doesn’t have anything to say about the program outside of the book itself. Maybe he really did say that, but all I have to go from is hearsay (which you seem to accept in THIS case).

        Furthermore, none of the non-scientologists seem to talk much about the treatment outside of the website. Maybe they had something nice to say when asked or paid, but they don’t talk much about it otherwise.

        I’m curious, though, why are you accepting what you call hearsay?

  8. Wow, this is explosive. No wonder louanne posted this article.

    • Yeah, it’s a good write-up, as well as the one on David Love. Gotta love those unbiased TV shows :P

    • Do you have additional information?

  9. Got it.

  10. Thank you for your input.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos