Customize

Dutch Narconon all but closed by the Health Inspection!! (june 25th)

Discussion in 'Narconon' started by Anonymous, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 18
  2. Anonymous Member

    Dutch version of the letter sent by the Health Inspection:

    Bij deze deel ik u mede dat Stichting Narconon Nederland (hierna: Narconon) te Zutphen per 24 mei 2013 voor een periode van zes maanden onder verscherpt
    toezicht is gesteld. De inspectie voor de gezondheidszorg (hierna: de inspectie) kan deze periode zo nodig verlengen.

    Het verscherpt toezicht is ingesteld na een onderzoek van de inspectie. Op 28 februari 2013 en 14 maart 2013 bracht de inspectie een onaangekondigd
    bezoek aan Narconon. Het inspectiebezoek was naar aanleiding van anonieme meldingen uit 2012. De inspectie stelde op 23 april 2013 met een brief aan Narconon de bezoekverslagen en de gemaakte afspraken vast.

    Op 16 mei 2013 bracht de inspectie wederom een onaangekondigd bezoek aan Narconon om te verifiëren in hoeverre Narconon aan de gemaakte afspraken voldeed. De inspectie constateerde tijdens dat bezoek dat u de afspraken niet nakwam waardoor de patiëntveiligheid in het geding was. Dit was voor de inspectie aanleiding om u een voornemen tot bevel te sturen op 17 mei 2013.

    Het voornemen bevel luidde dat:
    - Narconon geen cliënten mag opnemen met een actuele verslaving;
    - Narconon aantoonbaar maakt aan de inspectie dat er afspraken zijn gemaakt met de arts over het beoordelen van nieuwe cliënten voorafgaand aan de opname;
    - Narconon er voor zorg draagt en aantoonbaar maakt dat de arts elke nieuwe cliënt beoordeelt voorafgaand aan de opname;
    - Narconon de gemaakte afspraak ten aanzien van het intrekken van de
    toelating ex Wtzi nakomt;

    Op 21 mei 2013 heeft u van de mogelijkheid gebruik gemaakt om uw zienswijze te geven op dit voornemen. Tijdens het zienswijze gesprek op 21 mei 2013 hebt u het volgende aangegeven:
    - De cliënt die op 15 mei 2013 werd opgenomen heeft een cocaïneverslaving. Hij had tot 04.00 uur op 15 mei 2013 cocaïne gebruikt. U bent van mening dat een cocaïneverslaving niet gepaard gaat met lichamelijke afkickverschijnselen. Als een cliënt, die alleen maar cocaïne gebruikt later op de avond wordt opgenomen, kan hij
    de volgende dag naar de arts.
    - U zegt uit de gemaakte afspraken begrepen te hebben dat deze alleen van toepassing waren op mensen die lichamelijke ontwenningsverschijnselen zouden kunnen krijgen.
    - Door drukke werkzaamheden was u nog niet toegekomen aan het intrekken van de toelating ex Wtzi. U hebt per brief d.d. 16 mei 2013 dit verzoek ingediend bij het CIBG.
    - U overhandigt de schriftelijke vastlegging van de afspraken met de arts over het beoordelen van nieuwe cliënten voorafgaand aan de opname.

    Naar aanleiding van deze zienswijze heeft de inspectie afgezien van haar voornemen een bevel op te leggen. Echter hebben de bevindingen van 16 mei
    2013 in samenhang met de gemaakte afspraken en uw zienswijze wel aanleiding gegeven tot het onder verscherpt toezicht plaatsen van Narconon. De inspectie
    heeft mede op basis van de waarnemingen op 16 mei twijfels over uw bereidheiden vermogen om te voldoen aan de afspraken zoals gemaakt met de inspectie.

    Te nemen maatregelen
    De inspectie constateerde bij haar bezoek op 16 mei 2013 dat u zich niet houdt aan de met de inspectie gemaakte afspraken, zoals deze werden bevestigd in de
    brief d.d. 23 april 2013. Namelijk:
    - Het niet opnemen van cliënten met actuele verslavingsproblematiek en/of actuele/ernstige psychische/psychiatrische problematiek;
    - Het beoordelen van een nieuwe cliënt door de arts voorafgaand aan de opname;
    - Het intrekken van de toelating ex Wtzi.

    Tijdens de zienswijze op 21 mei jl. heeft u aangegeven zich te willen houden aan de gemaakte afspraken en geen cliënten op te zullen nemen met elke actuele
    verslavingsproblematiek en/of actuele ernstige psychische/psychiatrische problematiek. Tevens hebt u aangegeven dat alle cliënten voorafgaand aan
    opname worden beoordeeld door de arts.

    De inspectie stelt verscherpt toezicht in om deze afspraken te toetsen. Zij zal dit doen door middel van onaangekondigde bezoeken. Binnen de periode van het verscherpt toezicht verwacht de inspectie van u een afschrift te kunnen ontvangen van het CIBG waarin de toelating ex Wtzi van Stichting Narconon is ingetrokken.

    Het verscherpte toezicht zal na zes maanden worden opgeheven als naar het oordeel van de inspectie de gemaakte afspraken aantoonbaar gevolgd worden door Narconon.

    Als er binnen uw instelling tijdens en na afloop van de gestelde termijn van zes maanden nog steeds risico’s voor de patiëntveiligheid zijn, dan overweegt de
    inspectie de minister een advies tot aanwijzing of een andere maatregel te geven in het kader van de Kwaliteitswet zorginstellingen.

    De beslissing tot het instellen van verscherpt toezicht is geen besluit in de zin van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht en derhalve niet vatbaar voor bezwaar en beroep.

    Het besluit tot het instellen van verscherpt toezicht wordt, samen met een persbericht en een afschrift van deze brief zo spoedig mogelijk op de website van
    de inspectie (www.igz.nl) geplaatst.

    Op 24 mei 2013 hebt u bezwaar geuit tegen het openbaar maken mijn brief en begeleidend persbericht. Gelet hierop zal ik een beschikking in het kader van de
    Wet openbaarheid van bestuur (Wob) maken. Hiervan ontvangt u separaat bericht.

    English translation to follow.
    • Like Like x 7
  3. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 11
  4. Anonymous Member

    English translation of letter:

    I hereby inform you that Narconon Netherlands Foundation (hereinafter Narconon) in Zutphen is placed on increased supervision for a period of six months starting by May 24, 2013 . The inspection for healthcare (hereinafter the inspection) may extend this period if necessary.
    The increased surveillance is the result of an investigation by the inspection. On February 28, 2013 and March 14, 2013 the Inspection made unannounced visits to Narconon. This was in response to anonymous reports from 2012. [red: those reports were mine, see earlier threads]. The inspection documented the visit and agreements made on April 23, 2013 with a letter to Narconon.
    On May 16, 2013 the Inspection made another unannounced visit to Narconon to verify to what extent they fulfilled the agreements made. The inspection found during that visit that you were failing to satisfy the arrangements, putting patients at risk. This promted the Inspection to send you an 'intention to order' [red: this basically means: We are giving you are heads up that we are about to issue an order in which we are going to command you what to do. If you don't comply with that, we will shut you down] on 17 May 2013.
    The order would include the following commands:- Narconon cannot take in clients who have an immediate/current addiction; [red: a bit difficult to translate, not clear what this means exactly]- Narconon evidences that agreements are made with a medical physician that each new clients is assessed prior to admission;- Narconon ensures and documents that every new client is assessment prior to admission by a medical physician;- Narconon provides provides proof they have withdrawn from the WTZi [red: this is a law that enables them to do charge to insurers. Not sure if it also means they aren't allowed to do in-house counceling.

    On May 21, 2013 Narconon made use of the possibility to respond to the 'intention to order'. Your view was expressed during a meeting on May 21, 2013 as follows:- The client that was admitted on May 15, 2013 has a cocaine addiction and he had been using cocaine until 4:00 pm that day. You believe that a cocaine addiction does not involve physical withdrawal symptoms. A client, which has only used cocaine, can safely be admitted and see the doctor the next day.- You said you understoord the agreement only applied to people who could have physical withdrawal symptoms.- Due to busy work you had not gotten around to withdrawing the admission for the WTZi. You submitted this application to the CIRB by letter on May 16, 2013.- You will send the written agreement with the medical doctor about assessing new clients prior to admission.

    Following this conversation, the inspection decided not to impose the order. [red: so, they had a very narrow escape] However, given the findings of 16 May2013 in conjunction with the agreements made and your view, we have decied to place you under enhanced surveillance. The inspection is doubtful, partly as a result of the observations on 16 May, about your readiness and ability to comply with the agreements you made with the inspection.
    Measures to be taken
    The Inspection noted during her visit on May 16, 2013 that you failed to comply with agreements made with the inspection, as confirmed in the letter dated April 23, 2013. These agreements were:- Not taking in clients with current addiction problems and/ or current/severe psychological/psychiatric problems;- Assessing each new client by a physician prior to admission;- Withdrawal from WTZi.
    In the meeting on 21 May last, you confirmed you willingness to adhere to the arrangements made and no admit clients with a current addiction and/or current severe mental/psychiatric problems. You have also indicated that all clients prior to recording will be assessed by the physician.

    [red: I am unclear what this means. I most definitely means that people cannot do a cold turkey any longer in Narconon. Possibly, they can still undergo the sauna/niacin regime, which would allign with having to see a doctor. If this is true, I am very dissappointed in the Inspection. However, it could also means that Narconon is only allowed to do TRs and shit.]

    The inspection will conduct an increased surveillance in order to test compliancy with these arrangements. They will do this through unannounced visits. The Inspection also expects to receive a copy of the letter from the CIRB confirming the withdrawal from WTZi

    The enhanced surveillance will be lifted after six months, if the inspection considers the arrangements to be demonstrably followed by Narconon.
    If your institution still places patients at risk during and after the period of six months, then the Inspection will consider requesting the Minister to close down Narconon or any other measure that can be given under quality of healthcare laws.
    The decision to install enhanced surveillance is not open to objection and appeal.
    The decision to establish enhanced surveillance, together with a press release and a copy of this letter, will be published as soon as possible on the website ofinspection (www.igz.nl). [red: as is standard procedure]
    On May 24, 2013, you have objected to the disclosure of this letter and the accompanying press release. [red: lol] In view of this, I will take a decision in the context of the Freedom of Information Laws shortly (WOB). You receive communication regarding this separately. [red: it may be that Narconon has submitted a Freedom of Information Act to find out my name. I don't quite understand why else FOIA regulation would be mentioned in this letter. If they tried they will fail by the way, the Inspection will not disclose my name.]
    • Like Like x 16
  5. Anonymous Member

    Also, this is pretty big news. Why such a luke-warm reception?
  6. Anonymous Member

    I can't edit previous post with its crappy lay out due to anonymous posting. Let me try again:

    I hereby inform you that Narconon Netherlands Foundation (hereinafter Narconon) in Zutphen is placed on increased supervision for a period of six months starting by May 24, 2013 . The inspection for healthcare (hereinafter the inspection) may extend this period if necessary.

    The increased surveillance is the result of an investigation by the inspection. On February 28, 2013 and March 14, 2013 the Inspection made unannounced visits to Narconon. This was in response to anonymous reports from 2012. [red: those reports were mine, see earlier threads]. The inspection documented the visit and agreements made on April 23, 2013 with a letter to Narconon.

    On May 16, 2013 the Inspection made another unannounced visit to Narconon to verify to what extent they fulfilled the agreements made. The inspection found during that visit that you were failing to satisfy the arrangements, putting patients at risk. This promted the Inspection to send you an 'intention to order' on 17 May 2013 [red: this basically means: We are giving you are heads up that we are about to issue an order in which we are going to command you what to do. If you don't comply with that, we will shut you down]

    The order would include the following commands:
    - Narconon cannot take in clients who have an immediate/current addiction; [red: a bit difficult to translate, not clear what this means exactly]
    - Narconon evidences that agreements are made with a medical physician that each new clients is assessed prior to admission;
    - Narconon ensures and documents that every new client is assessment prior to admission by a medical physician;- Narconon provides provides proof they have withdrawn from the WTZi [red: this is a law that enables them to do charge to insurers. Not sure if it also means they aren't allowed to do in-house counceling.

    On May 21, 2013 Narconon made use of the possibility to respond to the 'intention to order'. Your view was expressed during a meeting on May 21, 2013 as follows:
    - The client that was admitted on May 15, 2013 has a cocaine addiction and he had been using cocaine until 4:00 pm that day. You believe that a cocaine addiction does not involve physical withdrawal symptoms. A client, which has only used cocaine, can safely be admitted and see the doctor the next day.
    - You said you understoord the agreement only applied to people who could have physical withdrawal symptoms.
    - Due to busy work you had not gotten around to withdrawing the admission for the WTZi. You submitted this application to the CIRB by letter on May 16, 2013.
    - You will send the written agreement with the medical doctor about assessing new clients prior to admission.

    Following this conversation, the inspection decided not to impose the order. [red: so, they had a very narrow escape]. However, given the findings of 16 May 2013 in conjunction with the agreements made and your view, we have decied to place you under enhanced surveillance. The inspection is doubtful, partly as a result of the observations on 16 May, about your readiness and ability to comply with the agreements you made with the inspection.

    Measures to be taken

    The Inspection noted during her visit on May 16, 2013 that you failed to comply with agreements made with the inspection, as confirmed in the letter dated April 23, 2013. These agreements were:
    - Not taking in clients with current addiction problems and/or current/severe psychological/psychiatric problems;
    - Assessing each new client by a physician prior to admission;- Withdrawal from WTZi.

    In the meeting on 21 May last, you confirmed you willingness to adhere to the arrangements made and to not admit clients with a current addiction and/or current severe mental/psychiatric problems. You have also indicated that all clients will be assessed by the physician prior to admitting them.

    [red: I am unclear what this means. It most definitely means that people cannot do a cold turkey any longer in Narconon. Possibly, they can still undergo the sauna/niacin regime, which would allign with having to see a doctor. If this is true, I am very dissappointed in the Inspection. However, it could also means that Narconon is only allowed to do TRs and shit.]

    The inspection will conduct an increased surveillance in order to test compliancy with these arrangements. They will do this through unannounced visits. The Inspection also expects to receive a copy of the letter from the CIRB confirming the withdrawal from WTZi

    The enhanced surveillance will be lifted after six months, if the inspection considers the arrangements to be demonstrably followed by Narconon. If your institution still places patients at risk during and after the period of six months, then the Inspection will consider requesting the Minister to close down Narconon or any other measure that can be given under quality of healthcare laws.

    The decision to install enhanced surveillance is not open to objection and appeal.

    The decision to establish enhanced surveillance, together with a press release and a copy of this letter, will be published as soon as possible on the website ofinspection (www.igz.nl). [red: as is standard procedure].

    On May 24, 2013, you have objected to the disclosure of this letter and the accompanying press release. [red: lol] In view of this, I will take a decision in the context of the Freedom of Information Laws shortly (WOB). You receive communication regarding this separately. [red: it may be that Narconon has submitted a Freedom of Information Act to find out my name. I don't quite understand why else FOIA regulation would be mentioned in this letter. If they tried they will fail by the way, the Inspection will not disclose my name.]
    • Like Like x 5
  7. wolfbane Member

    I came! Well done and well played Anon. /SALUTE
    • Like Like x 4
  8. rickybobby Member

    AWESOME! GOOD WORK!
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    Well done Anon! Truly inspirational!
  10. Anonymous Member

    It is indeed, it just takes a minute to read and comprehend all the terminology. Should have posted in it in Sci speak, we're all fluent in that :p
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Anonymous Member

    Just wanted to add my response on Tony's blog with some more thoughts:

    Full English translation of the letter in question is now included in the thread.I think it's a bit too long to post here, so let me give some additional thoughts.

    The Inspections are a result of a series of five or six complaints that I made to the Inspection between June last year and March this year. I actually have another draft complaint sitting in my e-mail box, imploring the Inspection once more to act. I'll still be sending that complaint though, as it contains new information about Narconon which I don't think the Inspection is aware of yet.

    I'm not entirely certain at this stage what to make of the limits the Inspection has placed on Narconon. They are most certainly not allowed to do cold turkeys any more. It appears they are still allowed to place patients on the Sauna/Niacin program though after they gone through withdrawal. If this is true, I am rather disappointed in the Inspection. It may also be the case though that they are only allowed to do the TRs and stuff like that.

    At least one journalist I spoke to has called the Inspection to try to get clarity on this, but it is still unclear to me at this stage. It would perhaps be useful if a journalist with a deep knowledge of Narconon would place a call with the Inspection (paging Tony?).

    Funnily enough Narconon tried to prevent the Inspection from publishing the decision to place them under increased survaillence. Unfortunately for them, it's standard procedure and there has already been quite a bit of Dutch media attention (with more to follow).

    It also appears (but I could well be wrong) that the cult attempted to find out my name through a FOIA request.

    Unfortunately for them, I will be keeping the pressure up.
    • Like Like x 9
  12. RightOn Member

    YAY!!!!!!!
    any way some Netherlands Anon can send the Health Inspector or whomever a report of the one closing down in Canada and the stuff on the deaths at OK NN?
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Anonymous Member

    Dear RightOn,

    The poor Health Inspector working on this case has been inundated with this information for over a year now.

    ML,
    some Netherlands Anon
    • Like Like x 3
  14. moarxenu Member

    Well done, anon!!!! Keep up the pressure. How can we help you out in this excellent operation?
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Anonymous Member

    Honestly, I just wish other Anons would do the same thing: report their local Narconon with the Health Inspection. Chances are very high that your Health Inspection will initiate investigations, and as the Dutch Narconon shows once more: they will find problems. I genuine believe it's the most effective action any Anon can take at the moment. Narconon centres are prone to falling over right now, but they won't fall all by themselves. Activists still need to be involved to push them over.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. RightOn Member

    YAY again!
  17. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4
  18. moarxenu Member

    This is an excellent message for anons.

    Getting information to authorities and getting them to recognize there is a problem is the easy part.

    The hard part is getting them to act and do something. You have to keep after these bureaucrats because they are afraid to act and like to stonewall. This has been a pattern in Quebec and Oklahoma.

    However, the police did raid Narconon Georgia for insurance fraud, and that is a hopeful sign.

    I am wondering if it is possible for people defrauded by Narconon in the Netherlands to bring lawsuits for fraud and perhaps get the police involved that way.
    • Like Like x 3
  19. Anonymous Member

    Lawsuits are difficult to arrange in the Netherlands as most patients are from Eastern Europe. I don't think it will happen, but of course I will monitor this.

    And you are right about burocrats stonewalling. I had to keep the pressure up on the Dutch Inspection quite a bit as well to get them to act. But it is possible. And with one more showcase to add to the list (France and Germany in a previous era, more recentaly Quebec, OK, Georgia and now Netherlands) the improptu to act becomes larger and larger.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. jensting Member

    Excellent work, just excellent!
  21. moarxenu Member


    WOW! Eastern Europe - this is new information for me. Can you say more like what countries they come from?

    Perhaps there is something we can do from that angle.

    Another point: are any of these victims willing to speak up and tell their stories to the media?
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Anonymous Member

    The journalist who made an inquiry with the Inspection has now posted his article:

    English version:

    So this indicates they would have to stop with the niacin overdoses, However, the final verdict is still out IMO.
    • Like Like x 5
  23. Anonymous Member

    The girl that died in 2007 was from Hungary. Honestly, I am not entirely certain about demographics. There seem to be quit a few English patients as well, also from before the English closure.

    As far as victims willing to speak out, I'd rather not comment on that.
    • Like Like x 2
  24. amaX Member

    EXCELLENT! <3
  25. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 5
  26. anonamus Member

    ^^^^ THIS!!
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    I would be delighted to do the same thing. We just need some valid complaint regarding health code violations.
  28. moarxenu Member


    The dude who wrote the article is Robin de Wewer. He looks like the kind of guy who could really carry forward the Fight Against Narconon in the Netherlands in the Dutch media.

    His site is www.robindewewer.nl and his bio says that he is an investigative journalist and religion scholar. His big stories usually appear first in Trouw.

    Here is his CV:

    http://www.robindewever.nl/cv.pdf

    He was born in 1987, and his wife's name is Heleen. He has a Bachelor's in Journalism and a Master's in Religion and Philosophy from the Free University.

    He is on the Twitter: @rdewever

    Email: robindewever@gmail.com
    • Like Like x 5
  29. RightOn Member

    US fags can add this on to OK NN! Send it to the Mental Health Dept in OK?
    Or whomever is handling the fail from that place. Is anyone handling it? the sheriff was TOTAL fail
  30. Anonymous Member

    He is going on holiday though, so I'm not expecting more from him in the next few weeks :)

    But yeah, I do like his articles. He is a thorough journalist and does his fact checking.
    • Like Like x 3
  31. Anonymous Member

    Good point! I've pointed Luke, David & Colin to this thread.
    • Like Like x 3
  32. BLiP Member

    Dutch Narconon all but closed by the Health Inspection!!



    tard2yq7vf7.gif
    • Like Like x 8
  33. Anonymous Member

    Which Narconon are we talking about here?

    Anyways, I believe the niacin overdoses are probably a better talking point with any Inspection rather than health code violations. In most jurisdictions, they have rules or legislation against that. I believe this is the easiest way to give the Inspection a concrete violation to start with. What really helps though is to spend a few hours Googling for the actual local legislation around this.

    It shows respect for the Inspectors if you take that trouble so your complaint is much more likely to be taken serious.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Chipshotz Member

    Excellent work Anon. Much respect to you.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. anon walker Moderator

    Surely there must be provisions for businesses who rely on foreign custom to succeed. Training camps, resorts, drug rehabs...If I as a French citizen get screwed over by a business in the Netherlands, to whom would I turn for assistance?
  36. TrevAnon Member

    Posting in epic thread
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Quentinanon Member

    Scientology enterprises do not function well under government scrutiny, because fraud and misrepresentation are their whole business model.
    What happens under these conditions is kind of like that of a worm too long in the sun.

    Earthworms5L.jpg
    • Like Like x 7
  38. Anonymous Member

    YAY! Epic Work, Anon!
  39. Clusterdux Member

    FUCKING EXCELLENT!
    I very much doubt NN will be able to satisfy the requirements of the Heath Inspection in the next six moths. If the didn't honor the earlier agreements with the Heath Inspection its most likely because they know they can't operate that way.

    NN is still tax exempt here (while CoS is not) so this fucker closing down will also mean one less slush fund to funnel money though.

    I am unsure.
    Nobody needs a permit to give out vitamins and sauna's and this is exactly why NN gets away with the dangerous overdosing of both.
    • Like Like x 3
  40. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4

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