thomasjbest@hotmail.com (Thomas J Best)
Yet another weaselly reply from a mid-level bureaucrat, which I've
been sitting on for a while, and now I've been sent a copy of the
CEO's response to my MP's lobbying. There are a couple of interesting
little glitches between the two, which I'll keep to myself for the
present. Anyway, here's my draft response (it's Sunday evening here
in Oz) if anybody wants to comment, critic the prose, feel free,
please.
Ref: S2002/1/273638
Dear Ms Watson,
I have your letter of 11 June. I will not thank you for it, since it
represents in my opinion a shocking dereliction of duty by the
Commission and it's officers.
I have taken some time to respond for two reasons. The first was that
I took some time to review the provisions and application of the Act.
The second, that I was awainting a response from the Hon. Peter King
MP who, I knew, was pursuing this matter on my behalf with the
Commissioner.
It is quite apparent from your letter that the Commission has
conducted no research into the matters I raised, and your Chief
Executive Officer's claim, in his letter of 7 June to Peter King,
of "careful consideration" is quite disingenuous.
If the matter had been given 'careful consideration' you would
have learned that not only does Hubbard, the author of the quack
'remedy' under discussion, make ridiculous claims about it's
'efficacy' in 'treating' the 'effects of drugs', he also claims
that it is efficacious in 'treating' cancer.
"....I have seen a full-blown case of skin cancer turn on and run
out on niacin dosages. So it appears that a person can turn on skin
cancer with this, and if that should happen, the handling, by
observable fact, has been to continue the niacin untl the skin
cancer has run out completely." Hubbard 'Clear Body Clear Mind'
Bridge Publications Inc 1990 p.103
Given your pointing to the Commission's action against another
quack cancer remedy, I would have thought that your 'careful
consideration' might have alerted you to the nature of this
particular fraud. I was obviously wrong.
You repeat the claim that the 'Purification Rundown' is a
'service' and not a 'good' under the Act, and so may not be
subject to withdrawal directions by the Minister. You, again,
did not address my contention that the provision of the vitamin
preparations is the provision of a 'good' as a component part of
the 'service' and that in the context, is 'dangerous' within the
meaning of the Act.
You assert that the falsity of the cult's claim that "...research
has demonstrated that the single most destructive element present
in our culture is drugs...." results in "...no significant public
detriment." I assert quite the contrary.
The cult has been peddling this dangerous quackery for decades.
It is difficult to ascertain precisely how many persons have been
subjected to this 'treatment', but my research indicates about
100-150 per annum, at a minimum, have been defrauded. How many
of those suffered damage to their health in the process is, as
yet, unknown. Who knows how many became a burden on public health
programs as a result? I hope to be able to bring figures to your
attention in the near future that will demonstrate 'significant
public detriment.'
You assert that the cult's claims about the unique value of the
'Purification Rundown' "...even if regarded as something more than
mere puffery are not likely to be representations that will be
relied on without further inquiry...".
Quite to the contrary, such representations are just what will be
relied upon by the kind of gullible individuals, impressed by the
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook, whom the cult habitually targets.
Again, the absolute numbers involved are not the issue. The issue
is the ruthless and calculated exploitation of people's fears and
ignorance. The fact that the Commission undertook no research, gave
no 'careful consideration' to these matters is glaring in this
regard on a number of counts.
Firstly, the actual intent of the 'Purification Rundown' is not
to do anything about any individual's 'drug problems' or 'spiritual
condition'. It is simply to lure 'raw meat' (Scientology's own term)
into Scientology, or, as their own 'scripture' has it, to "...get
bodies into the shop."
That should have been obvious from the evidence I provided from the
secret cult doctrine known as 'HCOB 29 Jan 1980 The OT Drug Rundown'.
That's as glaring a breach of Section 53(g) of the Act as could be
imagined. I note that neither you, nor your Chief Executive Officer,
chose to address that evidence.
Secondly, whether or not the claims are regarded as mere 'puffery'
is germane to the issue - I direct your attention to the commentary
by J B Heydon in 'Trade Practices Law: Restrictive Trade Practices,
Deceptive Conduct and Consumer Protection.' Law Book Co 2001
"Puffs are less likely to escape liability where, though vague,
they exploit human anxiety and fear.... it is obviously deceptive
to suggest a product cures diseases it cannot cure... Non-disclosure
is particularly likely to be held deceptive where serious harm may
flow... Conduct may mislead because it suggests that a product provides
solution to non-existent problems while in fact it provides no solution
to real problems."
You claim in your letter that the breaches I brought to your attention,
even if actionable, "...do not meet the priority criteria for enforcement
action." The Commission has not, in any of it's correspondence, detailed
what these 'criteria' may be. I repeat my previous questions:
Are you seriously telling me that it's in order for the cult to defraud
and endanger people in Australia so long as they do it to only up to
25 people per annum? Or would the limit be set at some higher figure?
How, and by whom, would such a limit be set?
Finally, you mention that the Commission's supine stance does not impinge
upon my "...right to pursue the matter privately."
Again, you demonstrate that no research has been undertaken by the
Commission, else you would have been aware that no individual can
possibly undertake an action against this wealthy and unscrupulous
organisation, renowned internationally for it's ruthless and relentless
abuse of the law and legal processes in pursuit of the goal of silencing
it's perceived enemies.
Since the Commission is unwilling, or unable, to fulfill the provisions
of the Act which it exists to administer, you leave me no choice in the
matter.
My research, and copies of this correspondence, will be placed in the hands
of the national media. That the Commission and it's officers might thereby
be exposed as ineffectual, at best, derelict, at least, or intimidated, at
worst, is no concern of mine.
Yours faithfully
Thomas J Best
The name "Narconon"® is trademarked to the Scientology
organization through one of their many front groups. The name
"Scientology"® is also trademarked to the "Church"
of Scientology. Neither this web page, nor this web site, nor any of the
individuals mentioned herein assisting to educate the public about the
dangers of the Narconon scam are members of or representitives of the
Scientology organization.
If you or a loved one needs help -- real help -- there are
a number of rehabilitation programs you can contact. The real
Narcotics Anonymous organization
can get you in touch with real people who can help you.
Click [HERE] to visit Narcotivs
Anonymous's web site. Narcotics Anonymous's telephone number is
1 (818) 773-9999.
Return to The NarCONon exposure's main Index page.
Forward: For a systematic, detailed, professional exposure of
Scientology's "Narconon" front group, visit the
Narconon Exposed web site.
QUACKERY PROSECUTED - Not - the Feds chicken out
21 Jul 2002
Ms Michaela Watson n/n xxxxxxxxx Street
Assistant Director RANDWICK 2031
ACCC 20 July 2002
GPO Box 3648
SYDNEY 1044
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author
or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of
the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may
not be those of the Chairman of Skeptic Tank.