Scientology's NarCONon has a success rate of about 6%

Forward: For a systematic, detailed, professional exposure of Scientology's "Narconon" front group, visit the Narconon Exposed web site.

Chris Drost:

>Hey, I'm really happy that you've been so enlightening
>on your NarCONon website. You've really shown me how
>horrible Narconon and Scientology are. But I have one
>problem... how do you explain the miraculous successes
>coming out of Narconon? One person once told me that
>it was "all fabrications, half those people didn't go
>in there with addictions anyways."

Crackpots:

They actually have about a 6% success rate, by all actual studies that have been performed so far. The cult lies about is claimed success rates because the quack medical procedures were contrived by L. Ron Hubbard and they as cult followers have the notion that L. Ron Hubbard was never mistaken or wrong in anything he wrote. So though the Narconon program has a "success rate" lower than recovery rates attained when people who are addicted do nothing but stop, Scientology really has no choice but to claim otherwise.

And you'll note that they can't show actual tests or studies which back up their claims. Narcotics Anonymous has a much better success rate but even that's low -- some 11 to 20 percent. Real drug treatment programs aren't miracles; there's no miracle cure, certainly none offered by criminal cults.

Real people actually sign up for Scientology's quack medical procedures so we do find real addicted people getting suckered in. Scientology is the _last_ thing these poor people need, of course.

Chris Drost:

>But, see, I've got this problem; a really close friend
>of mine was addicted to a little less than a dozen drugs
>--some designer/party drugs, some hardcore drugs, and
>two or three drugs designed to get her OFF of the drugs
>she was addicted to.

Crackpots:

Good grief. How horrible. I've never been addicted to anything so I can't honestly claim to know how hard it is to get off of drugs. The worst was when I was shot in the back in the Air Force -- accidentally -- and was on codine for a long time but even then it was easy to just stop taking it and deal with the pain.

Your friend must be going through Hell. And I never did understand why administering _more_ drugs to addicts is considered a cure by so many medical doctors. I would have thought that simply stopping taking the narcotics and getting together with affinity groups when the cravings become unbearable to be the best solution to addiction.

Chris Drost:

>At one point, my family even locked her in our basement
>to force her cold-turkey. She went cold-turkey for two
>months just forced into that... and she was still addicted.

Crackpots:

I don't doubt it. If it were easy, people wouldn't smoke, either.

Chris Drost:

>We've helped her get to rehab shelters, transported her
>to different places so that she didn't know local drug
>hookups.... It didn't end. Crying, we (well, maybe more
>I than the rest of my family, but still) had to accept
>that she was just going to die, and that there was nothing
>that could be done about it.
>Doctors didn't work. Rehab clinics around the US didn't
>work... One day she just kinda came over here with a
>duffel bag and told us that she was going to Oklahoma...
>and that she was gonna join Narconon. She knew it was a
>scientology clinic, and my parents told me about it a
>little then (not as in-depth as you have informed me now),
>and I said, "fuck it, it's your life, and if it works,
>it works."

Crackpots:

People can trade one addiction for another, yes, and what Scientology does is they offer that affinity group that I mentioned -- along with the quack medical scams that are dangerous. Some people -- those who have the cult mindset -- can find Scientology to be a worthwhile replacement for drugs though the cravings don't end due to anything Scientology does, it's due to the person not being able to acquire and take narcotics over time.

Chris Drost:

>This was two years ago... she's still fuckin alive. In
>fact, she's off of all drugs except for two--nicotine
>and caffeine (which actually weren't in the original
>list, but they should have been). It's crazy... she's
>still alive.

Crackpots:

That's great for her. And congradulations for her. It's a shame that she felt the need to go to Scientology when she could have gotten the same -- without cost and without the cult control -- from volunteer organizations such as Narcotics Anonymous. If she paid Scientology any money -- and I'd bet she did -- that's the sole reason they allowed her into their affinity group in the first place.

I'm not very big on Catholic or other Christian groups that help people overcome their addictions, but they're also a far sight better than signing up with a criminal cult that has such a lengthy criminal history.

Chris Drost:

>I know that Scientology is a mountain of lightly perfumed
>moose shit, and hearing more about the two have convinced
>me about this... but how do you explain those successes?
>I mean, I'm sure you've thought about it... they report
>a higher success rate than any other rehab clinic (I think)
>and I find this hard to reconcile

Crackpots:

What they report is pure bunk and what they prove concerning their claimed success rates is non-existant. Recovery for people who get rooked into Scientology's quack procedure was found to be about 6%. Recovery rates for people who don't use _any_ kind of procedure and simply quit is higher than that -- some 11 percent, on a par with Narcotics Anonymous' minimum success track record.

Some people will find that Scientology -- by virtue of being a group of people who pay attention to them and keep them from purchasing narcotics -- works for them. The same can be said for any cult that either uses quack medical notions or doesn't use any procedures at all. Any people who find Scientology worked for them could have gone to a monistary, a nunnery, or the middle of the Mojave desert and, given time, accomplished the same goal.

Scientology's quack medical notions had nothing to do with it. Time and being kept from acquiring narcotics has everything to do with it.

One of the thing that skeptics like myself encouter daily are questions from people who wonder why "psychics" and Tarot cards, astrology, dowsing, and what not work for some people. We're often asked why praying and quack medical notions, potions, and electronic devices some times cure cancer. The thing is, with any mental, emotional, or physical malady, there's always ging to be a percentage of the populace that'll go into spontaneous remission, and there's always going to be a percentage of the population that will get well without doing anything -- like having a cult every year; some people purchase cold remedies and others do not. It doesn't matter because eventually the cold goes away rehardless of whether one purchases patient remedies or not.

It's great hearing that this friend of yours found Scientology's Narconon to work for her. Narconon _will_ work for a small percentage of the populace -- which turns out to be around 6%. But then anything one can do or don't do also works at some degree. It's a phenomena that comes out often in skeptics publications, in fact. There's the well known placebo effect that accounts for a percentage also.

If Scientology's claims were true, the world would be beating down their doorstep and people -- like me -- would be among the loudest proponants for their procedures. The fact that they can't produce evidence for their claims, and the fact that they have a history of lying and crimes means that anything they claim is rationally dismissed.

Any way, I didn't mean to ramble on so long. I think that drug addiction is such a hard and difficult problem for people and for society that it's equally horrible to see criminal financial enterprises taking advantage of people who are addicted and it gets my goat to see it.