Sunday, January 11, 2009

Second Counter-Jett Missile Destroyed

I reported yesterday about the Counter-Jett missiles second wave.

The second such missile now is:

Leaked Recording of Scientology Founder Proves That Church Lied

Unfortunately for critics, it did not hit its target, because it was destroyed by a counter-counter missile as a correction published by the same news outlet. Again, it is worth to be quoted in full:

Response to False Allegations About Scientology

Published: January 10,2009
Letter to the Editor
Response to False Allegations About Scientology


You published a letter to the editor on entitled "Leaked Recording of Scientology Founder Proves That Church Lied".

In fact, the article never went down to quote where exactly it proves such. The author of this article makes all kinds of claims based on a lecture given by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, but fails to provide the exact quotes that supposedly disproves the Church of Scientology assertions. It only provides a general reference that in fact does not really say anything one way or the other. It didn't say "you must tell him to come off drugs", it said, "And then you come along as an auditor and you try to audit the pc and you tell the pc that he'll have to go off that drug". That's a comment about what another person might do, not a directive of what action to take.

The best proof that Scientology does not forbid the use of drugs for the treatment of seizure is the affidavit of Tory Christman that can easily be found by googling - "Tory Christman" affidavit 2003. Though this affidavit was initially made for accusing Scientology of putting people off from their medication, it ends up proving the exact contrary. Christman spent 30 years online and on staff, doing almost the complete Scientology "Bridge", while taking her anti-seizure medicine in full view and knowledge of all. Requests by unqualified staff that she stops taking them have been systematically over-ruled by proper Church of Scientology authorities, and by L. Ron Hubbard himself!

Scientology does not oppose the use of drugs like Depakote for medical reasons. It only opposes it when used to treat mental conditions. The author of this article simply fails to make appropriate distinctions between medical and mental conditions, as well as when the same drug is used for the treatment of physical symptoms and when it is used to treat mental conditions.

As for the claim that "Hubbard referred to epilepsy related terms as "gobbledygook", all L. Ron Hubbard says is that much of the medical jargon in general is incomprehensible for the lay man: "Now I've been using a lot of medical words here or chemical words really. Just don't pay any attention to them because they're mostly gobbledygook, and there's an awful lot of gobbledygook words." It does not in the least, as is hinted, means any disrespect towards people suffering of epilepsy.

The article assertions about autism are just as absurd.

Joey Travolta is not qualified to make a snap diagnosis of autism, nor can such a diagnosis be made through viewing a few minutes of a video footage. The process for diagnosing autism is complex and generally requires not just one professional, but often multiple professionals. No competent medical professional would just look at someone and make a snap diagnosis!

It is also false to claim that autism is not accepted by the Church of Scientology. The article does not provide evidence for such a claim whatsoever. Scientology may not agree with psychiatric treatment of mental illnesses but has not made any comment about autism, which, by the way, is not considered as mental illness by the medical profession themselves.

Nor does the article offer anything in evidence to its innuendos that a two years old was subjected to a dangerous level of niacin. It only indulge in unwarranted speculations to that effect, speculations that almost certainly are false knowing the obvious love the Travolta's displayed for their children..

Given what critics demonstrated by jumping in the middle of mourning comments with rumors (later on proven false) and heartless accusations towards the Travolta family, they are not very credible when they claim, as they do in this article, that the circumstance of Jett Travolta's tragic death should only be discussed with the utmost respect of the family.

This article only attempts to cover with a layer of apparent researches, pseudo-science, and a lot of obfuscations, the same kind of hatred and prejudice they engaged at the time, but even a superficial examination is enough to blow such a layer away.

2 comments:

Kenny said...

"Scientology does not oppose the use of drugs like Depakote for medical reasons. It only opposes it when used to treat mental conditions. "

This argumentation is not sound. The effect of the drug on the mind is the same, no matter for what purpose it is used. As i understand it Scientology is opposed to the use of psych drugs, because of their effect on the mind, which interferes with their spiritual gains. It is therefore irrelevant, whether the psych drug is used to treat a physical or mental condition, because the effect on the mind is the same.
Dekapote, the drug, which was prescribed to Jett Travlota, is listed as a psych drug in an issue of the freedom magazine:
http://psychdrugs.freedommag.org/page14.htm

Interestingly enough there now seem to be 2 Scientologists on YouTube, who agree with the critics. They say that Tommy Davis betrayed their religion on TV and claim that it would be standard procedure for an auditor to order epileptic people off their anti-seizure medication, even when a doctor insists, they should stay on medication.
See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGzOb1Va940&feature=channel_page

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj-xfUfkKKY
(same video, different account)

Bernie said...

I have checked the Scientology reference on Youtube. Not only is it the same video on both, but it also is the very same video made by Anonymous to claim that Tommy Davis lied. The guy even say that he borrowed the video.

By all means, my first impression of that guy is that he is a troll. I don't say he is, that's just a first impression. If he isn't, he sounds like a fanatical Scientologist to me. Just as there are fanatical critics, there are of course fanatical Scientologists too. Interestingly enough, they usually stay the way they are, whether in or out. From fanatical Scientologist, they become fanatical critic, from moderate Scientologist, they become moderate critic. Well, that may not be an absolute rule, but I believe it is a trend.

Anyway, that's just speculation and theorizing. Back to the main point.

I think that the point you make is cogent. If a psych drug is harmful, why would it be less harmful if taken for medical reason? That would be a good argument to confront CCHR with.

As to whether a Scientologist, at the end of day, would refuse to take them because they are considered psych drug, I don't think so.

Now there is no doubt he would be extremely wary about it. Even for medical drugs he would normally be wary, just like many people who are not Scientologists and who would avoid taking medical drugs unless really necessary. So how about the evil psych drug he is constantly bombarded about in Scientology?

But what other alternative do they have? Seizure can be deadly. Even if it isn't, it must be a terrible experience, and if a drug can avoid it, then most people would certainly take them, even though they may have reservation about it.

The CoS goes around this saying that if the drug is prescribed by a medical doctor for medical, not psychological, reason, then it would be OK.

I believe that this is exactly what they do, but it still leaves the question above open.

I think that what they actually do is very close to what Tory reported in her affidavit, about the C/S they apparently wrote:

"and they wrote a Senior C/S International bulletin, and I'm the first example. It basically says if someone has tried to get off of medication and they cannot, and they have an OK from their Doctor, they should not be stopped from getting auditing."

They would probably, in certain circumstance, try to get people off of their drug, but if they can't, because the person would feel terrible, then he would not be penalized for it and would be allowed online and on staff, just as Tory described in her affidavit.

Frankly, I think critics are trying to beat a dead horse trying to still argue this point otherwise. It would be much better for them to point out that auditing does not cure epilepsy, unlike what is claimed or suggested in LRH writings.

Trying to beat the dead horse is actually lessening that later argument, because people are not going to listen anymore to what they say, thinking they are again just beating the poor animal.