Customize

Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

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

  1. L337Anon Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I just sent this little comment to saynotodrugs.org.uk, I know they won't get back to me, but someone must read it!

    > Say No To Drugs - Contact Customer Service

    To Say No To Drugs Customer Service,

    Your information on what drugs do to you, what their harmful affects are and the statistics that go with them are nothing but fakes. I've already read through two of your booklets and they are completely one sided and missleading. try Erowid or http:/www.thegooddrugsguide.com for real scientific information. You make me sick. Especialy coming from people whos founder said that NOT smoking enough causes lung cancer. What kind of a respectable, intelligent leader says that? It's no wonder why he wound up dead. Do everyone a favour and don't bother.
  2. Plups Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Well done, team (and esp. Davey's Catt). Love your work.

    I thought I'd look at the conflict of interests angle. I've not finished, but I'd better post this now, before I get too distracted.

    Let's see. Ms Cecchini did not disclose that she is a Scientologist and "Founding Patron". Maria Cecchini - Scientology Service Completions | Truth About Scientology Statistics Project

    In the Evaluation of the Narconon Drug Abuse Prevention Program, prepared for the California Department of Education by the California Healthy Kids Resource Center, January 2005 Ms Cecchini is cited as an author of a paper addressing the Narconon program:
    This unpublished manuscript is available through ABLE, which calls it a "white paper": Studies & White Papers - ABLE International
    In fact, the document appears to be a submission on behalf of Narconon International (which kind of affects her credibility as a researcher) and is signed:

    Ms Cecchini disclosed that "2000–2002 she was the Executive Director of a Narconon center". She was President and treasurer of Narconon Inc. (note: this is the Massachessetts company, not Narconon International) from 2000 - 2001.

    Ms Cecchini is now a researcher with FASE,
    And, finally, for the lulz, the ultimate conclusion of these "scientists" in the paper recently published, that Narconon’s program “is very promising and fills a vital need in substance abuse prevention”, is a MUCH watered down version of a previous conclusion:

    “The NARCONON™ drug abuse prevention program: A description of its school-based curriculum for high school students.” Richard Lennox and Marie Cecchini cache:uBMZ84dRM8oJ: - Google Searchwww.narconon.org/narconon_drug_prevention_curriculum.pdf+Cecchini+narconon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a
  3. AnonyFag Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I wouldn't fuck her with Skeptic's dick and my dog's ass pushing...
  4. Kilia Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Opps..sorry...already posted.
  5. Davey's Cat Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Sent following message to Ms Cecchini and Dr Lennox - asking for specific answers to some very basic issues with the study. I have not received a reply as yet. I would like to ask all research anons to critically and fairly consider the 3 numbered questions asked and let me know if you agree that my observations are correct and if they are if there are any possible alternative explanation for this situation other than either error or deliberate misinterpretation of results. If there is no authors' answer forthcoming and no-one can point out an alternative way of arriving at these seeming contradictions then it's back to the moderator and if they will not print these valid and highly pertinent questions then on to Biomed and the wider scientific press.

    -----------------------------

    Dear Ms Cecchini,

    I would like to thank you for taking the time to post a comment in reply to my remarks on your article and was pleased that you said that you'd answer every point raised. Having read your reply I must comment that there are some specific issues not addressed - I'd be grateful of the opportunity to raise them in more detail for your review and further comment.

    1. In Table 2. there is a disagreement in the number of participants when totaled by age group (779) and when totalled by gender (795) – are you suggesting that the reason for this disagreement is that “a given respondent may not answer all questions” or is this a data handling error?

    2. In Table 5. items D7 – D9 show that the control group views the regular smoking of marijuana and drinking to present a higher risk of harm to an individual than the group that has received drug education. Item D12 shows that the control group view the smoking of marijuana to be more wrong than the drug education group. The “direction of difference between treatment and control” does not correctly report these facts – stating instead that the drug education group views these items as riskier and more wrong respectively. You said in previous correspondence that this is explained by "the direction of the questions have been reversed", but this cannot be the case since this would render items D5, D11 and D13 incorrect. Could you explain how the data has been interpreted in this manner or do you accept that this is in fact an error? Perhaps you could email me a copy of the questionnaire so that I can see how you have treated the data?

    3. In Table 9. item D22 shows that a greater proportion of the control group feel that they can easily resist pressures to take drugs than the drug education group (78.8% compared with 74.5%). The text on page 11 of the report states that “students who received the curriculum were more likely to say they could now resist pressures to used drugs compared with those who did not received the program.” Could you explain this contradiction?

    It is not my intention to make "unwarranted assumptions" about your study, but given that you were Executive Director and Treasurer of Narconon Boston and that the study has been facilitated by ABLE and Narconon employees I think it is reasonable that your methodology and data handling be rigorously examined to ensure that it can be seen that your study is above suspicion of bias. It is my contention that anything published in an academic journal may be examined on any part of its methodology and the onus is on the author to answer each specific point raised - whilst I found your comments regarding the continuum of research most edifying, I would be grateful if you could provide answers to the three specific points above.

    I was interested in your explanation of the Narconon programme’s contructs as per the references cited in Table 1. especially citation 49 – the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The seeming inclusion of prescribed pharmaceuticals in the definition of “drug” used by this report suggests that you do not subscribe to the soundness of Psychiatry as a science. Could I ask you to confirm if this is the case or whether you believes a psychiatric journal is in fact a reliable source of information?

    I'm pleased that you've accessed my discussion of your article on publicly accessible forums and would like to emphasise that you are welcome to stop by and discuss any time, or by all means mail me if you'd like further information on anything discussed there.


    Yours,

    David Catt
  6. ptsAnnon Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mr. Catt you are a giant among men. Keep up the great work .
    </asskissing>
  7. AnonyFag Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I say... Mr. Catt must be having some lulz in batting about a Scilon in the field of actual scientific study, in which they, and their tech, have no place.

    Mr. Catt strikes me as someone who has done their homework with a considerable sense of SRS BSNS, and I'd go so far as to say I suspect he has a vested interest in the subject as someone who has likely actually done the fucking hard work of earning his laurels in the scientific community, as opposed to some charlatans out there *cough*Hubbard*cough*

    Well played, Mr. Catt... Please, do keep the pressure on and keep us updated! xD
  8. Orderous Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    To Davey's Cat

    Not a statistical scientist I'm afraid, so won't be much help with the current situation. Although it's rather plain to see from your posts that not much effort has gone into keeping the source material properly explained. However, soon as this debate turns into the avenues of psychiatric drugs, neuroscience, and drugs in general, let me know.
  9. Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    David Catt,

    I salute you. Your emphasis on, and continued use of, precisely correct statements and precisely worded objections is exemplary. Your method shows the meticulous care needed to unequivocally expose flawed logic. By pursuing this conversation earnestly and carefully, you raise the level of discourse to a level at which rational people find it accessible. They can then use the facts revealed to evaluate the validity of the claims and counterclaims made by this study's authors.

    The fact that you do so while also evincing a robust sense of humour makes you even more of a model of behaviour. You are an estimable example of what Anonymous can be, at its highest and most effective, when confronting Scientology's excesses and bogus science.

    TL;DR - You are teh chemomullet, srsbzns up front AND lulz in the back.
  10. Ninelives Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Now this is an activity of Anonymous I can support -- well done, Davey Catt, on your comments. I just tried to submit a "comment" where I noted Ms. Cecchini's failure to disclose her Founding Patron status, but I got a rejection back from the editor, who gave me the following reason:

    I have been having a back and forth dialogue with him on this and so far he is objecting to me even making mention of it being based on Hubbard, even though the Narconon website explicitly states this.

    About the Narconon Program

    L. Ron Hubbard &amp; the Narconon Program

    I've sent him these links to try to show him that this is about more than just the author's "personal beliefs" hoping that he'll come around to seeing what the situation is here, although I'm sure this would be a big embarrassment to the journal!
  11. DeathHamster Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    News articles covering FASE:
    [IMG] Bravest taking the Cruise cure December 13, 2003, Greg Gittrich, Special Report, NY Daily News
    [IMG] Church Seeks Influence in Schools, Business, Science June 27, 1990, Robert W. Welkos, Los Angeles Times
    [IMG] Clinic's results make 9/11 responders believe October 7, 2007, Art Carey, Philadelphia Inquirer (Scientology puff piece)
    [IMG] Foundation Funds Provide Assist to Celebrated Teacher Escalante June 27, 1990, Robert W. Welkos, Los Angeles Times
    [IMG] Scientologist's Treatments Lure Firefighters October 4, 2003, Michelle O'Donnell, New York Times
    [IMG] Scientology group reaches kids through PBS videos March 5, 1998, Joseph Mallia, Inside the Church of Scientology, Boston Herald (copy) (5star!)
    [IMG] The Rundown on Scientology's Purification Rundown May 30, 2007, John DeSio, New York Press (5star!)
    [IMG] The Scientologists' dubious detox program October 21, 2004, Amanda Schaffer, Sidebar, Slate Magazine
    Another one (note the hand-in-sock between HealthMed and FASE):
    Recovered addict now helps run a detox center - Sacramento Business Journal:
  12. Ninelives Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I just sent this link to the journal's editor:

    Narconon Exposed

    As for Ms. Cecchini's claimed doctoral work, it's possible that this is legit. I've seen PhD's and MDs who are just as gullible as anyone else. Just have a look at the movie What the Bleep for the kind of things some people with lots of education fall for. This of course is not true for all people with advanced degrees, but it is for some.

    To Anon MSW (I'm an MSW too, by the way), I've looked into this and I don't think the journal is directly connected to the CofS. I just checked with someone I know who's knowledgeable about these things and he says that this is part of a larger problem that exists with the new open journal access system that is getting very popular, where some quack therapies are slipping in. His comment to me wasn't specifically about this particular journal, but he noted that there seems to be a bargain between some of these journals and the authors pay the fee and the journal makes the article "publishable". The open access is itself a good idea, but the problem is that some bad studies are slipping in.

    In this particular case, having had some correspondence with the Editor I don't think he has a clue as to what Narconon and its connection to Scientology is all about and neither apparently did the reviewers. Hopefully, he's now learning otherwise.
  13. Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Some comments on this thread, then some analysis of the paper:

    Open access: &quot;I didn't realize that there were journals where the authors could buy credibility (because we all know published=credibility)&quot;.
    Open access means that readers don't pay, so the money must come from somewhere - many open access journals receive payment from the authors, some from grants, some from advertising. Peer review and editorial decisions are kept separate from payment in all open access journals that I know of, i.e. you cannot buy being published in them if you don't make the grade. Peer review is just as good (or sometimes, bad) in open access journals as in traditional journals.

    tl;dr? Open access =/= vanity publishing :tinfoil:

    Anonymous comments: The policy of the journal is to only accept named comments, so there's no point pursuing that avenue if you're not willing to be named.

    Peer review: I would love to know who reviewed it and what they said. To be fair to them, not every editor and reviewer assumes bad faith in authors, so they will not have run it through the wringer as much as Anons would.

    Ben Goldacre: There might be some mileage in this, even though he is reluctant. An alternative is Stephen Barrett M.D. of QuackWatch. :flowers:

    Religion: Remember that most people still won't know about Scientology and the Anonymous protests. The danger with screaming that Scientology=BAD is we'll look like bigots to the uninitiated.


    The paper::text:

    Here's the results of Tables 3 and 4 in graph form (taken at face value). Easier to understand than in tables.

    2552464432_9fa77bcc71_o.jpg

    Coding frequency of use: They code substance use as:
    &quot;1&quot; = 0 occasions, &quot;2&quot; = 1–2 occasions, &quot;3&quot; = 3–5 occasions, &quot;4&quot; = 6–9 occasions, &quot;5&quot; = 10–19 occasions, &quot;6&quot; = 20–39 occasions, and &quot;7&quot; = 40 or more occasions.
    Lumping together frequency of use can make analysis easier, but it really reduces the power of the analysis. I do not understand why they didn't just ask the kids to state the number of times they took x substance in the past month. :frustration:

    Reporting averages: They only report the mean of the above coding across the groups, and don't break down the results by school, gender, ethnicity, income etc. There is no way to tell whether these confounding factors had any influence on the outcome.

    It also means we have no idea how many kids were light/medium/heavy users. :huh: For all we know, many of the kids in the test group could have switched from smoking 3 cigarettes per month to smoking 2, and that would show up as a &quot;significant&quot; result, but this wouldn't be clinically or socially significant. We need to see the numbers in each coding group, not just the mean.

    Scales used: For more info see:
    http://addictionstudies.dec.uwi.edu/Documents/epidemiology/Core Measures Notebook.pdf
    and Welcome to the MTF Website

    Drop out: :hmm: Drop out in the study group was 44/535 (8.2%), and 103/523 (19.7%) in the control group. The large drop out in the control group is notable, and I would expect a discussion of this. There needs to be a comparison of the demographics of those who continued in the trial to those who dropped out, and a comparison of baseline reporting of substance use.

    Another issue is that they include those who dropped out in the pre-test mean (there are more pupils in the pre-test than post-test groups); this is invalid. They should have compared each individual pre-test and post-test, controlling for intervention, school, demographics, sex etc.

    Lack of an active control: Funnily enough, Narconon are taking a leaf out of the book of their hated enemies, the pharmaceutical companies. One of the oldest tricks in the book is to compare your drug to placebo, and then say &quot;Look, look, it works!&quot;. :whistle: Yes, but...

    Educational institutions want to know the most effective and cost-effective drug education programme. Doing nothing is probably not on their agenda, so a fair comparison would be to another drug education curriculum, not to no intervention.

    Amphetamines: This was the only hard drug to show an effect. This sentence is telling: &quot;Among the &quot;hard drugs,&quot; use of amphetamines was somewhat prevalent among these youths and was significantly reduced by the curriculum (F = 2.35, df = 11, p = 0.008). Reduction in use of amphetamines without a prescription approached significance (F = 1.59, df = 11, p = 0.098)&quot;.
    What this means is that, if this is true, Narconon succeeded in persuading children who had been prescribed Ritalin to not take their prescribed drug. While this will make Scientologists happy, doctors and schools may not be so keen about that finding. :doh:

    Alcohol: There was a marginal or non-significant effect on amount of alcohol consumed, or frequency of being drunk. Not a stunning result for Narconon, considering that the greatest negative effects among this age group will be due to alcohol consumption.

    Knowledge: Table 9 only shows that children are capable of repeating what you tell them. :roll:

    Inconsistencies: :confused: &quot;Significant reductions were observed for alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana – important categories of drug abuse for this population – as well as certain categories of &quot;hard drugs&quot; including controlled prescription drugs, cocaine, and ecstasy&quot;.
    But this is not apparent from Table 4, where no effect on ecstasy or cocaine is shown.

    Multiple comparisons: :teacher: There are 22 tests. There needs to be an adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there is a greater chance of false positives as the number of comparisons increases.

    The Bonferroni correction would mean that any individual difference would need to be less than or equal to 0.0023; this is often seen as too harsh, so the less stringent false discovery rate criteria would give a value of p&lt;=0.026. With the strict Bonferroni correction, only tobacco use is affected by Narconon; controlling for FDR, the effect of Narconon on alcohol consumption is not significant. :flop:
  14. DeathHamster Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I don't know if this draft paper by Chris Owen in 2004 was ever published or webbed anywhere other than across a series of posts to alt.religion.scientology. Here's all the bits with thread commentary:
    Narconon's Bogus Science: a detailed review
    Narconon's Bogus Science 1-2: Narconon's sources / "All Drugs Are Poisons"
    Narconon's Bogus Science 3-4: The effects of drugs
    Narconon's Bogus Science 5-6: Drugs and addiction
    Narconon's Bogus Science 7-8: Alcohol
    Narconon's Bogus Science 9-10: Marijuana and Ecstasy
    Narconon's Bogus Science 11-12: The Tone Scale & Drugs
    Narconon's Bogus Science 13-14: Drugs stored in the body
    Narconon's Bogus Science 15-16: Radiation and Niacin
    Narconon's Bogus Science 17-18: Nicotine and Detoxification
    Narconon's Bogus Science 19-20: Scientific validation and success rates
    Narconon's Bogus Science 21-22: Hubbard's qualifications & why Narconon should not be used in schools
    (Unless I've missed them, the references aren't included.)
  15. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Realistically, if this is a vanity press equivalent of a "peer reviewed" journal, may I suggest that those who put together the stat analysis / evidence of bogus provenance and put it together as a paper for the Journal of Addiction Medicine of ASAM origin. Perhaps a title and subject matter relative to professional ethics in the field of substance abuse research is called for?
  16. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

  17. Plups Member

  18. enronanonron Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    A couple Government documents that rip Narconon to shreds:

    Narconon Evaluation Appendix

    Last modified: Friday, January 25, 2008

    Narconon Evaluation Appendix - Alcohol, Tobacco & Other Drug Prevention (CA Dept of Education)


    Original Evaluation of the Narconon Drug Abuse Prevention Program, prepared for the California Department of Education by the California Healthy Kids Resource Center, January 2005.

    Narconon Drug Abuse Prevention Program Evaluation - Alcohol, Tobacco & Other Drug Prevention (CA Dept of Education)
  19. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    If it's not a vanity press, then who sits the Editorial Board and how were they selected?

    Bad science is bad science. Authors who pay for access to journals are walking very thin lines. If that article is the bar by which submissions are measured, then I question their relevance as a source of anything of epistemological significance.
  20. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Its good that Narconon "PR" is being inspected. I've in my travels met quite a few people connected with Narconon.

    I'm actually pro their program. I think the biggest problem is how badly its run.

    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.

    I was told that in some places of the US that offenders are given the choice of jail or Narconon, and some, many?, take this easier option. Was told these are often hardened criminals who don't want to get off drugs.


    Was told the success rate was no better than any drug rehab project, ie 5-10%.

    Their is a potential problem of Niacin Toxicity doing the Purif. This should be
    tested for more rigorously on individuals. There have been a few reports of
    liver problems resulting from the purif. Many years ago a critic Cornelius Krasel had a large critical database. He posted on ARS and he concluded
    that on the usual run of 2-3 weeks on a purif running from 100 mg of niacin up to perhaps 5000 mg, this should not be a problem. I've included one of his posts here on the difference between sustained release niacin and normal release.

    Was pointed out to me by a " concerned citizen" that putting people with an extensive drug history on the purif could be a problem in that they already might have damaged livers. That might be worth investigating.

    Was also told that the narconon programme was doing well before RTC
    co opted it. It was initially set up by a prisoner William Benitez.



    ================
    Cornelius Krasel View profile==== REPOSTED, SEE END OF ARTICLE ==== Rev Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skepicnoeatspamtank.org> wrote: > Rechallenge with crystalline niacin after drug-induced > hepatitis from sustained-release niacin > Yaakov Henkin, Karen C. Johnson, Jere P. Segrest > JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association > July 11, 1990 [snip abstract] Sustained-release niacin is not used on the purification rundown, as far as I know. All the patients tolerated crystalline niacin in high doses well (4g/day), even after having recovered from hepatotoxic effects caused by sustained-release niacin: > Three patients who developed hepatitis during treatment with > sustained-release niacin were rechallenged with equivalent or > higher doses of crystalline niacin, with no evidence of recurring > hepatocellular damage. Although the mechanism for niacin-induced > hepatitis is unknown, these cases support previous observations > that crystalline niacin may be less hepatotoxic than > sustained-release preparations in certain patients. Therefore, papers cautioning against the use of sustained-release niacin are not suitable for argumentation against the purification rundown. The paper also shows no indication that niacin (in either form) causes permanent liver damage, although this has been repeatedly claimed by (uninformed) critics. --Cornelius. -- /* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */ /* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de */ /* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */ ==== WAS CANCELLED BY ==== Path: ...!139.130.240.98!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mScientologyail Message-ID: <68n532.pmi.zg@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de> Control: cancel <84u449.vvp...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de> Subject: cmsg cancel <84u449.vvp...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de> From: Cornelius Krasel <kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Lines: 1 Date: 18 Jan 2001 01:54:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.247.2 X-Complaints-To: ab...@telstra.net X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 979782737 144.132.247.2 (Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:52:17 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:52:17 EST Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct Xref: thingy.apana.org.au control.cancel:51359 <84u449.vvp...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
    More options Jan 18 2001, 7:40 am

    Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
    From: Cornelius Krasel <kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
    Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:08:40 +0100
    Local: Wed, Jan 17 2001 3:08 pm
    Subject: [REPOST] Re: Successful Drug Rehabilitation Program
    Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
    ==== REPOSTED, SEE END OF ARTICLE ====
    Rev Fredric L. Rice <fr...@skepicnoeatspamtank.org> wrote:


    > Rechallenge with crystalline niacin after drug-induced
    > hepatitis from sustained-release niacin

    > Yaakov Henkin, Karen C. Johnson, Jere P. Segrest
    > JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association
    > July 11, 1990



    [snip abstract]

    Sustained-release niacin is not used on the purification rundown,
    as far as I know. All the patients tolerated crystalline niacin
    in high doses well (4g/day), even after having recovered from
    hepatotoxic effects caused by sustained-release niacin:



    > Three patients who developed hepatitis during treatment with
    > sustained-release niacin were rechallenged with equivalent or
    > higher doses of crystalline niacin, with no evidence of recurring
    > hepatocellular damage. Although the mechanism for niacin-induced
    > hepatitis is unknown, these cases support previous observations
    > that crystalline niacin may be less hepatotoxic than
    > sustained-release preparations in certain patients.


    Therefore, papers cautioning against the use of sustained-release
    niacin are not suitable for argumentation against the purification
    rundown.

    The paper also shows no indication that niacin (in either form) causes
    permanent liver damage, although this has been repeatedly claimed by
    (uninformed) critics.


    --Cornelius.


    --
    /* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
    /* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de */
    /* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */


    ==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====


    Path: ...!139.130.240.98!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mScientologyail
    Message-ID: <68n532.pmi.zg@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
    Control: cancel <84u449.vvp...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
    Subject: cmsg cancel <84u449.vvp...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
    From: Cornelius Krasel <kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
    Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
    Lines: 1
    Date: 18 Jan 2001 01:54:34 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.247.2
    X-Complaints-To: ab...@telstra.net
    X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 979782737 144.132.247.2 (Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:52:17 EST)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:52:17 EST
    Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct
    Xref: thingy.apana.org.au control.cancel:51359


    <84u449.vvp...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>
  21. Plups Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Note that the report only addresses the value of the Narconon Drug Prevention Program, which is an 8-session course run in schools (but not in California).
  22. AnonyFag Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Oh, hai, Terril!
  23. its.an0nym0us Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I love this thread so much!!

    I started to track Narconon but IRL pressing matters keep me from the hours of enturbulation I used to keep. I did get some old school stuff thrown together in a thread listed in my sig.

    Keep up the good work!
  24. Optimisticate Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Why doesn't someone step up and say "we're investigating the claims that narCONon makes" and then say "here are the results of our investigation"? And why doesn't someone look at all of these rehabs and determine whether or not they are doing anything to actually help people? This includes all of the celeb rehabs, and others being run out of the public eye. With all the rehabs being mentioned on gossip sites, you would think that ONE of them would have a successful run, but what is presented to the public (by the media) is nothing but failures.
  25. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Where do I know you from, or would you have to shoot me if you told me? :)
  26. anonymal Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Why exactly are you "pro their program"?
  27. AnonyFag Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    You know me from hither and yon... I know you by your past and your trials...

    Let us leave it at that.
  28. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    ^ This. And where'd you get your success rate of 5-10% from and what is "success" according to you when it comes to drug addiction?? No relapse at 6 months? 12 months? 24 months (clinical efficacy and usual max practical length for longitudinal studies of post-treatment results).

    I didn't want to say it before, but man it sounds like you're spouting off shite about "success" the same way the people at our friendly Narconon offices want you to.

    Stats or stfu.
  29. basic2basic Member

  30. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I am? Look below from the official narconon site.

    Narconon Drug Rehab for Abuse & Addiction

    "Since its founding nearly four decades ago, Narconon has maintained a success rate of at least 75%. This compares to the average success rate of other programs, which hovers, typically, between 2% and 10%."

    I'm not knowledgable in the field of addiction treatment. I have done the purif twice to good effect and seen very many great results in COS not Narconon.

    I have two sources for the 5-10% success rate, and it may have both been 5%. One source are some people who did a lot of work in Narconon.
    The other is a fierce antagonist of the program I met at the San Francisco
    protest. She is apparently oft quoted on ARS. Dunno if they mind their names given out so I won't. I was told by the critic that 5 or 5-10% was
    the " industry standard" success rate.

    Pooks can probably give more accurate info, and has I believe on ARS some years ago. I believe matching the figures I give. She was director of Narconon East US.
  31. musketeerwang Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    The problem is that many people are able to change their addiction habits given attention, a new semi-enforced lifestyle, distraction and the placebo effect. They could do this in a support group, or even in theory on their own, but this is usually beyond their means and willpower to accomplish.

    So someone joining a programme like Narconon may well be able to get off drugs via those mechanisms. That's great. But;

    1) It doesn't mean the methods are medically efficacious - IOW you can't necessarily replicate the effect. It's just not a good idea to use treatments that aren't backed by controlled trials. Narconon's individual treatments (saunas, vitamins, other supplements) have been shown to do nothing beyond placebo, and could in fact be harmful.

    2) The biggest problem IMO - what is filling the void left by drugs? Clearly, it's Scientology. As a Freezoner you may have less problem with that than I do as a sceptic, but in the current environment (Co$ control of Narconon), that's irrelevant - people who make it off drugs then make it onto Co$-flavour Scientology.

    That's bad, mmmkay.
  32. musketeerwang Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Bloody double-post.
  33. Orderous Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    I don't have the time to go through another load of bullshit. Simply answer me this; What is the definiton of word "success" in this context?
  34. AnonyFag Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Terril.. WTF?

    So, we're supposed to belive a website that's run by an agency that has a vested interest in the outcome of the "stats" being positive??

    This isn't OCMB, Terril... People will not play nice with you here and will call such things on the carpet at the drop of a hat.... and rip your "sources" to shreds in the interim. Just for the lulz.

    Are you ready?
  35. Burnt2 Member

  36. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    We already tore it a new one Burnt2^ - yer way late to the party :) Had that one done in 5 minutes of wondering "haven't these people ever heard of Google?"

    I'm figuring about 90% or more of the "hai guys, look what I founds" are bull to be honest, no offense to any well-meaning of lurking noobs, but the reality is that asking for refutation in the face of search engines and obvious access to the internet (for how to get to post the question without it in the first place) is either a sign of a lazy fellow or someone with an alternate agenda.

    In all of my debunking, I have yet to come upon a single Scientology related "fact" which cites anything but Scientology as it's own basis for "proof" of it's own efficacy. Scientology is the least "most well researched standard by which others are measured" I've ever encountered in my entire life. It is enough to drive any sane woman completely barking mad, and I do not wonder that it is the celebrity cult of choice in the 21st century.

    "Scientology, we've got it all! B.E.M.S., babes, blasters, and loyal servants to worship you! Book now for non-existent Carribean cruise to nowhere on a ship likely to never sail again. Don't be the last on your neighborhood to buy AIR as well, or you too could be left holding your breath! This message brought to you as a public service by the "Church" of Scientology, Incorporated, a no liability company incorporated in a galaxy near you."

    Teril, I find your cited "evidence" somehow, hmmm... what is the word I'm looking for??

    LACKING!

    Each and every time I teach, I treasure the moments I spend with students who do not comprehend what passes for evidence and what does not. Might I suggest you go retake your basic statistics class, concentrating particularly on issues of validity of data and the methods for citing thereunto, then come back and offer something that'll stand up to scrutiny.

    Frustrated professional researchers have to put up with stupidity from students who must be coddled and cajoled to understanding, not from people who post as "experts" on the web without a good argument and solid evidence to back up their "whacky" statements.

    "D-, see me when you get this. I have serious concerns."
  37. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    ????

    I quoted the Narconon stats in order to refute them!

    I quoted narconon workers and their fiercest critic BOTH dissing the official website stats.

    I'm always ready. :)
  38. AnonMSW Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    You quoted Narconon stats then connected their lies to your "truths" which were based on the "testimony" of two anonymous people who we're supposed to accept as experts because you turn up and say you like Narconon and it's got a 5 to 10 percent rate of success, "same as most other programs."

    AA does about 40% success in a lapse/relapse sense of theories of addicition, which is to say about 40% make a 2 year chip if they work hard and stick to it. That's all based on "best available data" because they are woefully reluctant to involve themselves in outsider issues like the politics of psychology and addiction theories.

    Other programs based in things like the Matrix Inventory still have a long way to go before demonstrating any sort of empirical efficacy worth mentioning as "evidence." Whose arse was it you said you pulled your 5-10% is the industry standard figure out of?

    :frustration:
  39. basic2basic Member

    Re: Growl: Flawed Narconon Study Gets Published

    Hey Li'll Devil,
    I'm not a scientist a researcher or a statiticion, or involved in the medical profession. As such my evidence of course is " lacking".

    I have been involved with scientology for more years than I wish to say, and in the FZ for nigh a decade. I give what data I have, and my opinions.

    I've quoted from people intensely involved in the subject that I met on my recent travels. And from some minimal internet research. I'm interested in the subject because of the people I've met who've been very seriously involved.
    Both pro tech and critical.

    I've referred to a professor of Pharmachology, and a critic, and his conclusions.

    Feel free to ignore the directions I've suggested. I do not post as " expert".

    There is a big problem you allude to.

    Statistics.

    Its a sad fact that COS can not be trusted with these.

    How does this go?

    Their are lies, damn lies and statistics. I wish to add that below these are COS statistics. :)

    There are no valid statistics on the success of the purif. Or any possible dangers. Best I know. I can offer my observations having been periphally invoved with the purif. It does appear to produce strange and interesting phenomena. One person I did this programme with had 8 spots on her body swell and become red. She then recalled that they were the places she had injections after being bitten by a rabid dog. Other reports of " niacin flushes"
    not appearing where bikini clasps were, leaving a butterfly shape where
    the clasp was.

    I'd guess you have less evidence than I about the purif. You need lots of that before statistical analysis. Sadly full data is not available.

    I offer what I know. Take it or leave it. Or challenge it. :)

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