Customize

US Army catches Scientology ‘detox’ study FOIA request reveals

Discussion in 'US Army FOIA Scientology' started by KittyKatSpanker, Sep 11, 2015.

  1. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 4
  2. wolfbane Member

    Unlike the other journal article Incred pointed out, this paper has no rebuttal.

    But this is possibly exploitable for comparison sake, a page from a top manufacturer regarding sauna treatments for detox that lists this shill paper on the Utah Meth Cops Project along with other studies.

    https://www.crystalsauna.com/health/detox.php#.VfxQXvSD_IU

    This appears to provide evidence the FDA should be regulating either saunas as a medical device, or detox programs as a combo product.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 3
  4. wolfbane Member

    I found a rebuttal on the following page 1 citation, but I haven't read it yet to determine if helpful or not.

    Carpenter's cite:

    13. Steele L. Invited commentary: unexplained health problems after Gulf War Service--finding answers to complex questions. Am J Epidemiol. Sep 1 2001;154(5):406-409.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11532781

    Rebuttal cite:

    Re: "Invited commentary: unexplained health problems after Gulf War service--finding answers to complex questions". Wartenberg D, Kipen H, Hallman W, Boyd K, Harris G. Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Mar 15;157(6):567-8; author reply 568-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12631548

    Full text: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/6/567.long
    • Like Like x 5
  5. wolfbane Member

    Another rebuttal for page 1 citation, likewise not read yet.

    Carpenter's cite:

    14. Golomb BA. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and Gulf War illnesses. Proc Natl Acad Sci
    U S A. Mar 18 2008;105(11):4295-4300.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18332428

    Rebuttal cite:

    Acetylcholinesterase inhibition and Gulf War illnesses: conclusions are not supported by independent reviews of the same evidence. Blazer D, Gray GC, Hotopf M, Macfarlane G, Sim M, Smith TC, Wessely S. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 29;105(17):E20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802669105. Epub 2008 Apr 23.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18434536
    Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359790/

    Reply by Author to rebuttal cite:

    Reply to Blazer et al.: flawed challenges to "Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and Gulf War illnesses". Golomb BA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 19;105(33):E53.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18724407
    Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575265/

    Also, Correction to Reply by Author cite:

    Correction for Golomb, "Reply to Blazer et al.: Flawed challenges to 'Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and Gulf War illnesses',".Golomb BA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Nov 25;105(47):E94. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809123105. Epub 2008 Nov 10.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19008349
    Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587534/
    • Like Like x 3
  6. wolfbane Member

    Another rebuttal for page 1 citation, this one I did read because it's short. And both the response letter and author's reply clarify facts given in original paper. So Carpenter's inline usage will determine whether or not this is useful.

    Carpenter's cite:

    16. Luckenbach T, Epel D. Nitromusk and polycyclic musk compounds as long-term
    inhibitors of cellular xenobiotic defense systems mediated by multidrug transporters.
    Environmental Health Perspectives. Jan 2005;113(1):17-24.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15626642
    Full text http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253704/

    Rebuttal cite:

    Synthetic musk compounds and effects on human health? Salvito D. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Dec;113(12):A802-3; author reply A803-4.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16330332
    Full text http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314954/
    • Like Like x 3
  7. wolfbane Member

    Page 1 references where Publication/Journal Name is NOT LISTED in PubMed is limited to the publication named on #8 Townsend Letter which is already highlighted as cult shill article.

    Townsend Letter, the Examiner of Alternative Medicine, Online Alternative Medicine Magazine:
    http://www.townsendletter.com/

    Here are some newer sauna/detox study articles on the same site, not all have something to do with Hubbard Detox:

    http://www.townsendletter.com/FebMarch2013/enviromed0213.html
    http://www.townsendletter.com/Nov2013/ltrpub1113.html
    http://www.townsendletter.com/Nov2013/sauna1113_2.html
    • Like Like x 2
  8. AnonLover Member

    Combing through the other works that cite this, I landed on this one that should prove to be extremely useful:

    Detoxification in naturopathic medicine: a survey. Allen J1, Montalto M, Lovejoy J, Weber W.
    J Altern Complement Med. 2011 Dec;17(12):1175-80. doi: 10.1089/acm.2010.0572. Epub 2011 Nov 21.
    Author information
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103982
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3239317/

    This pretty much calls into question the efficacy of ALL detox program testing as of 2011, and specifically calls out the cult shill chicanery with the Hubbard detox in these paragraphs...
    EDIT: And it cites the Townsend Letter article in Capenter's #8, so seems to be a worthy rebuttal.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. How many times can that shill change her name?
  10. BigBeard Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. wolfbane Member

    I now read this one and it does seem useful if Carpenter's protocol followed the same methodology in the cited literature. (“epidemiologic” method over EFA).
    • Like Like x 2
  12. wolfbane Member

    SciCrit did an excellent takedown of that 2007 shill piece which should be in AL's list possible sauce. However, it's an anonymous work so it can't be cited, just borrowed:
    https://scicrit.wordpress.com/2015/...ritten-by-scientologists-what-could-go-wrong/

    Also not the same Medical Hypothesis article Carpenter cited, despite it being 2007 and the most recent piece of pro hubbard detox literature he could have cited. Which seems... odd... hmmm.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. I read this material and found it to be a concise counteragument worthy of consideration.

    The author's response to the international panel of experts who published the critique on her findings is unconvincing. It is also very telling that the journal's editorial board edited her LETTER in the initial printing to remove her unsupported claim the expert opinions were not based on fact. While corrections to journal articles for misplaced editing is not unusual, corrections to editorial letters in a medical journal is atypical and quite peculiar. Similarly, it is also somewhat unusual to see such a broad range of experts united in a published comment on a relatively small university study.

    Coincidentally, Mike Rinder has raised the issue of Niacin usage today with mentions of two recent drug studies that seems relevant to our research.

    http://www.mikerindersblog.org/the-danger-of-niacin/

    The AIM-HIGH Investigators. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2255-2267[Erratum, N Engl J Med 2012;367:189.]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22085343

    HPS-2 THRIVE Collaborative Group. HPS2-THRIVE randomized placebo-controlled trial in 25,673 high-risk patients of ER niacin/laropiprant: trial design, pre-specified muscle and liver outcomes, and reasons for stopping study treatment. Eur Heart J 2013;34:1279-1291
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23444397

    Armitage J, HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group. HPS2-THRIVE: randomized placebo-controlled trial of ER niacin and laropiprant in 25,673 patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (http://www.hps2-thrive.org/hps2-thrive_ACC_slides.ppt).

    The HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2014;371:203-212
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25014686
  14. AnonLover Member

    Good work up in here! Mucho thanks to everyone pitching in to help. I will get an updated citations pdf posted at some point today, to reflect all the confirmed rebuttals we've identified so far in our Whack-A-Shill round 2 literature review of Carpenter's original proposal.

    And here's my latest FOIA request filed in pursuit of the loose ends we still be missing.

    FDA Investigational New Drug Exemption for Hubbard Detoxification Program (Scientology GWIRP Study)
    https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united...cation-program-scientology-gwirp-study-21354/

    59845842.jpg
    • Like Like x 8
  15. Anonymous Member

    Thank you for the tip-off on Medical Hypothesis.

    Here's #131 on the bottom of the last page of the Carpenter document:

    #131: Co-administration of equimolar doses of betaine may alleviate the hepatotoxic risk associated with niacin therapy.

    Journal: Medical Hypotheses. 2000 2000;55(3):189-194.

    Author: McCarty MF

    Journal is not *legit: Medical Hypothesis

    No Citations.
  16. Anonymous Member

    # 130: Basu TK, Fisher A. Niacin-induced hyperhomocysteinemia, an independent risk factor for arterial occlusive disease; Apr 25-27, 2002; Kosice, Slovakia.

    No recognized Journal.

    Two Citations:

    1. Niacin (nicotinic acid) in non-physiological doses causes hyperhomocysteineaemia in Sprague-Dawley rats. Basu TK et al. Br J Nutr. (2002)

    2. Niacin treatment increases plasma homocyst(e)ine levels. Garg R et al. Am Heart J. (1999)

    The first citation in The British Journal Of Nutrition seems to critique the assertion or notion that niacin lowers lipids. It agrees that it does lower lipids but also poses health risks that have not been considered - verbatim: "its potential risk as a therapeutic agent, however, has not been critically considered."

    My summation - article isn't in a recognized/supported journal, and the article's assertions are challenged by the first and the second citation - American Heart Journal - asserts that further research is required suggesting disagreement with the initial article.
    • Like Like x 3
  17. AnonLover Member

    That appears to be a professional conference paper improperly cited:
    https://getinfo.de/en/search/id/BLCP:CN045907181/Niacin-induced-Hyperhomocysteinemia-an-Independent/

    I normally wouldn't look to deeply into conference papers/presentations, aside from seeing if it was cited in other medical journal articles. And this was, so good catch!

    PubMed and fulltext links of those tasty cites:

    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11895163
    http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN87_02/S0007114502000363a.pdf&code=e719a7554c303019e051a6bcc1b17fc3

    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10577438
    (N/A)

    Imma gonna count these as "possibly useful" rebuttals and added it to my list of "needs more scrutiny" stuff to look at later on re: how Carpenter used the cited materials inline, in his proposal.
    • Like Like x 4
  18. AnonLover Member

    According to Wikipedia, at the time of publication of the work cited (2002) it appears this was indeed a publication lacking peer review but sill accepted by PubMed for indexing due to the publisher's established credentials:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Hypotheses

    The same would apply to the 2007 Medical Hypothesis article by the cult shill Marie of many names that SciCrit debunked (and Carpenter did not cite).

    However, note for future reference - as of 2010 the Medical Hypothesis journal did switch to a peer review model of publication, after some big blow up over AIDS articles. So it might fun to check if any cult shills have published anything after the 2010 standards change.
    • Like Like x 3
  19. AnonLover Member

    Latest greatest list of Carpenter's citations attached. Highlighting legend:

    Yellow - cult shill papers that represent a significant conflict of interest.
    Pink - Carpenter's own works.
    Aqua - NEW literature review debunking, relevant pubmed URLs for citing possible counter-arguments to the proposal recorded in the popup notes.

    As wolfy and owl work from either end towards the middle, I've begun skipping around and checking all the yellow highlights on the shill papers for published comments contradicting the originally cited work. So there are a few extra rebuttals noted in aqua that weren't called out ITT.

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 4
  20. http://www.mikerindersblog.org/the-danger-of-niacin/



  21. Incredulicide Member

    I don't see any popup notes in either Firefox's built-in PDF reader or two other external PDF readers I've tried. Is it worth pasting those notes into this thread?
  22. AnonLover Member

    Crap. Sorry about that. And yes, will dump those ITT going forward.

    So far, it's just this article I posted upstream as finding it by chance and applying it to the Townsend Letter article Carpenter cited in his #8:

    Detoxification in Naturopathic Medicine: A Survey
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103982
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3239317/

    The references also cite several other shill articles in Carpenters list, including #'s 38, 91 and 93.
    • Like Like x 5
  23. wolfbane Member

    Delicious sauce for AL's list of reference materials, compliments of Narconon Reviews! They have a "Formal Reports" category over there that is almost exclusively Detox/Purification related and not necessarily drug rehab only expert opinion. Lots of these items look useful for possible counter argument cites.

    http://narcononreviews.net/info/formal-reports/
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Anonymous Member

    Yes!

    For example:

    Bruce A. Roe, University of Oklahoma, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry

    Professor Roe reviewed documents concerning the Purification Rundown, which is identical to the Narconon Sauna Detoxification program from a biological point of view, to be submitted to the Oklahoma Board of Mental Health and Substance Abuse for their 1991 report on Narconon Chilocco. He concludes the report with this statement: "Overall the program proposed by Mr. Hubbard is pure unadulterated 'cow pies'. It is filled with some scientific truth but mainly is illogical and the conclusions drawn by Mr. Hubbard are without any basis in scientific fact."

    (My bolding...)
    • Like Like x 3
  25. Do tell. What is your aqua groovy highlighted counter argument for his uber vague reference to Hubbard's crap?

    https://whyweprotest.net/attachments/carpenterproposalcitations-pdf.252048/

    See #3.Hubbard LR. The Technical Bulletins.Vol XII: Bridge Publications; 1978.

    And a fulltext link to whatever that is would be nice for the sake of thorough review.
  26. AnonLover Member

    Ooo. Thanks, I forgot about that stuff.

    On the counter, I expect to use several. For starters, I'm going with the old school academia standard (independent research is best vetted with independent journalism) so the classic John DeSio purification rundown takedown that mentions the HCOBs (aka Tech Bulletins) is first in line:

    http://www.nypress.com/the-rundown-on-scientologys-purification-rundown

    Plus other stuff TBD. A fulltext link to volume 12 of the Tech Bulletins he cited is here, but comes with a big disclaimer:

    http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology Materials/index.php?dir=RED and BLUE VOLUMES/Red Volumes/VOLUMES PDF engl/

    Only a few pages of that exact reference for 1 out of 12 policies apply to the Purification Rundown, because Carpenter didn't cite Hubbard's so-called research papers correctly. The actual HCOB/HCOPL policy bulletins/letters in the Purif (and behind the real reference - Clear Mind Clear Body book) is the list below which spans multiple volumes of the Tech Bulletins that you need to cross check by year:
    When I get a chance, I will pull these policies out/together into a single file and mirror somewhere safe for ease of online referencing.

    It might be revealing to see why Carpenter half-assed that cite in such a moronic way that he basically left out 90-95% of the actual material that is the defacto basis and quintessential definition of his entire study.

    Good thing both his doctors and his testing center are 110% on-source lifelong scientologists delivering a scientology faith-healing treatment exactly like a church of scientology would, right down to the scientology-style success stories and wins being used and stored in the study participants files like the cult requires rather than an actual scientific assessment form.
    • Like Like x 3
  27. AnonLover Member

    Also - Udarnik from ESMB sends his/her regards, as does SciCrit from scilon books and media blog who can also be counted as a scientist. They both hope to join us eventually on this effort, but they need to deal with other real life priorities first and will get on up in here ITT when we're farther along.
    • Like Like x 4
  28. BigBeard Member

    I had to take a break from number crunching yesterday, so drove down and did 18 holes on 'Three Eagles' at Seymour Johnson AFB. One of our foursome is a legal-beagle with the Contracting Office, who also spent time in Iraq, and his ears perked up when I mentioned some of what's going with this study. I explained a little about the "incestuous" relationship between those running the study, FASE, IAoDS, etc., and the apparent conflicts of interest.

    Long story short. Once everything is pulled together, he strongly suggests sending a copy to the DOD Office of Inspector General as a possible case of fraud warranting further investigation. That's in addition to those already on the list to try and stop any more funding. He said the whole thing sounds "hinky" (his word) as hell, and should be looked at.

    Back down the rabbit hole of numbers.

    BigBeard
    • Like Like x 4
  29. AnonLover Member

    YES! Thanks for the tip, adding DoD IG sounds like the perfect way to tap into shit rolling downhill from CFI's bold move with calling out the Secretary of Defense.
    • Like Like x 4
  30. BigBeard Member

    On further reflection, considering the Army is hip deep in this mess, you might also want to include the Army IG folks. They may feel a deeper interest in pulling back the curtain on any deception being pulled directly on Army commands, while DOD IG looks at what's happening on the way to the Army. Just a thought.

    BigBeard
    • Like Like x 3

  31. wrong thread. but he does
  32. wolfbane Member

    Page 2 cite checking has (so far) turned up these two minor nits that seem worth mentioning.

    21. Friedman A, Kaufer D, Shemer J, Hendler I, Soreq H, TurKaspa I. Pyridostigmine brain
    penetration under stress enhances neuronal excitability and induces early immediate
    transcriptional response. Nature Medicine. Dec 1996;2(12):1382-1385.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8946841
    No fulltext links are available for the article cited nor any of those published comments on the article cited in pubmed, google scholar and google web. So no telling if there is a counter point to made here or not since the literature isn't widely available.

    24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Third National Report on Human Exposure
    to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta (GA): CDC, 2005.
    http://www.jhsph.edu/research/cente...nvironmental-health-tracking/Third_Report.pdf

    The Fourth Report is the current, widely used standard (chem tables last updated Feb2015, Aug2014, etc.) and was published in December 2009, a few months after Carpenter's proposal was submitted. Depending on how he referenced this material, there may be more current norms that can be leveraged to poke holes with.

    See http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/

    This also looks relevant http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/CDC-Fourth-National-Report-Human/232175317.html
    • Like Like x 4
  33. AnonLover Member

    I got a quick turnaround on my most recent FOIA requests. No dox, but the second item is still useful.

    RE: Carpenter's past grant applications with the NIH, no responsive documents found:
    https://muckrock.s3.amazonaws.com/foia_files/2015/09/23/Final_Letter_rFf48bd.pdf

    ^^So either that claim was bogus OR they don't keep copies of rejected applications this long. If I had to guess, I'd go with the latter since it's likely been 10yrs or more since he pursued that type of funding.

    RE: confirmation on whether or not Carpenter was invited to file an application for further funding in FY2015, rejected due to confidentiality/privacy standards. But the CMDRP still delivered the info we need to know!! See last paragraph at the bottom of page 1:
    https://muckrock.s3.amazonaws.com/foia_files/2015/09/24/1173989381_092415_141504.pdf
    I need to re-read the CMDR program info again, and stew on this for while, but my initial knee-jerk impression is I believe this possibly changes things as far as harpooning targets.

    If Carpenter is NOT eligible for further funding, and his project is now dead in the water with no funding for the stupid blood tests to confirm the same old data that has been known for ages and is irrelevant as far as treatment interventions - that niacin reduces lipid levels - then the DoD/USAMRMC only needs educated on what they missed and what standards they need to change to ensure something like this doesn't happen again.

    IOW, the gubmint might be the lesser target now (sweeping open letter and change.org petition scrapped for personal letter writing tactics) and Carpenter's work under his spent grant is sitting pretty for a full frontal assault (debunk whitepaper is still a "go") that focuses just on him and the faults found in his dox.
    • Like Like x 5
  34. AnonLover Member

    I read this shit a few more times now. Something is STILL not adding up with this program.

    The whole thing is a very well played bait-n-switch con: niacin treatment (in normal doses) is well known and long proven to reduce lipid counts in the blood stream. The minimal benefits of this is trivial and does not justify the adverse side-effects niacian causes, a few of which are also symptoms of GWI and would therefore be much worse for vets already suffering those problems to endure (as opposed to mostly fit, healthy 9/11 firemen and Utah meth cops).

    So the dox gotten so far make the "bait" part plainly obvious and easy to pin down - craft a study that uses a very specialized blood test to prove a simple well-known fact (there a less lipids after niacin) that hasn't been proven to have any relation nor relevance to GWI whatsoever. (Rather than doing full blood, urine and sweat analysis to actually prove the purpose of the treatment works as described - toxins are being released from fat cells and flushed out of the system).

    Then the "switch" would be to use that proof to claim sweeping validation the whole complicated detox process has been shown to be a cure for yet another bogus claim that has no real evidence to support it.

    But what we got proof of so far, doesn't reveal a paper trail showing the "switch" either played out as planned, or got shit canned somewhere along the way by the CMDRP's own due diligence. (Personally, I suspect the latter but I want the fking proof for torpedoing future attempts of repeating this fake study when it happens again elsewhere.)

    So the main problem is: There are no signs in the FOIA dox of any means for getting the additional funding Carpenter stated to the press and mentioned in his progress reports (plus stated by the anonymous program participated who showed up here before the Daily Beast broke the bigger story) that is needed to do the extremely expensive blood tests that is the key bluff in this con - yes, niacin therapy reduces lipids.

    And we now know he's definitely NOT eligible for a new round of funding in a SECOND grant that would be setup to specifically cater to the very much needed "phase 2" of the program.

    So WTF? How in the hell did Carpenter ever intend to actually pull off the switch phase of the con and what did he do to see that through to the end? This puzzle is not complete, and the facts do not add up.

    There are obviously more dox to be had that would explain this, question is - can I get them. Here's my latest attempt to find out:

    Additional Documentation on Gulf War Illness Research Program for Scientology Detox Program
    https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united...-program-for-scientology-detox-program-21316/

    I'm trying to FOIA out two things,
    The first item is what I primarily want to answer the above puzzle.

    The second item is a gamble that I fully expect to be denied under more than one NoU exemption. But you never know until you try, and most of the dox in my first FOIA request I expected to be denied as well, but they weren't.
    • Like Like x 3
  35. DeathHamster Member

    It could be that he's going for minor victory conditions by doing another fluff "I felt better afterwards" result, and then Scientology will twist it as "Hubbard Program proven to work by the Department of Defense!"

    That wouldn't be as good as the bait'n'switch blood tests, but good enough for crooked pals like Mark Shurtleff.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. AnonLover Member

    Yes, I've stewed on this as well. But I think we're good on this front in the long run. The FOIA dox gotten so far show Carpenter crowing on more than one occasion about a "local church" providing free housing for the out of state vets doing the program.

    Now we got no evidence ATM that church is Scientology. But c'mon... who dafuq else would it be? It seems unrealistic to even give the thought credence it is a non-scientology church doing that. And we also know that Scientology screws everybody over eventually, and is in midst of driving off the majority of their naive membership as the cult of greed slowly devours itself.

    So I'm feeling comfy with the assumption that sooner or later some pissed off ex-member will spill the beans that the vets were housed and courted and catered to by the Church of Scientology. And that future whistleblower will have backup and validation for that claim in the FOIA dox already gotten. So the subjective feel-better survey results that are already tainted because the site assessment team found fault with using Scientology's standard wins/success-story form will be completely discredited. Which will make the whole detox scam, and Carpenter as front man sockpuppet, look even more dirty than it currently does.
    • Like Like x 2
  37. DeathHamster Member

    Side question: I was getting ready to fill in more infobox stuff on my Marie Cecchini page, and I notice that it's unclear that she ever completed her doctorate.

    Her LinkedIn page says:
    The omission is that it doesn't say that she completed her degree, so I'd guess not.

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariesternquist
    • Like Like x 1
  38. BigBeard Member

    The latest info I could find still showed her as a "PhD Candicate" as of January 2015. Of course that doesn't stop $cientology from leaving off the "Candiate" part in some of their internal blurbs.

    BigBeard
  39. DeathHamster Member

    She was a PhD candidate in 1995. After 20 years, I think she's past the time limit for completing her doctorate before it goes *poof*.
  40. BigBeard Member

    I wonder if Univ. of Colorada would give a definative yes or no if they were asked?

    BigBeard
    • Like Like x 1

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