Mr. Don Lindsay Offers a Letter To The Editor Describing Narconon Scam

Don Lindsay
29 Sep 1995

I sent the letter, below, to the Boulder Weekly. It was printed in the September 28 - October 4 issue, which appeared on the newsstands today. They titled it "Weird science".

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

Last week, you ran a letter under the title "In Defense of Scientology®". I am not going to argue about its author's personal experiences or viewpoint. However, I am not about to let quack medical claims pass unchallenged.

One of the strange things about Scientology is that it has religious beliefs about scientific fact. For example, Hubbard taught that LSD users had LSD residues in their body fat. Supposedly, the Church's Purification Rundown removes such LSD residues. Because Hubbard's words are now unalterable scripture, the Church still makes these and many, many other claims. They are unwilling to do what I did: check in standard medical texts, and in books on addiction. The books state unanimously that LSD leaves no residues: nor is it fat soluble. In short, Hubbard's claims are pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, this bit of technological hogswill is not an isolated case. Hubbard was a scientific ignoramus, and he paraded it. The average person (and the average drug user) does *not* have toxins in his fat. And, if a person did, the Purification Rundown would be a terrible way to get the toxins out. The "Purif" involves taking dangerous amounts of niacin. But, medical texts tell me that niacin is antilipidemic. Niacin prevents things from leaving the fatty tissues.

I am not the only person with this opinion. Physicists snicker at Hubbard's book, "All About Radiation". Archaeologists snicker at his book "History of Man," which talks about reincarnation memories of having been a Piltdown Man. A year or two after Hubbard wrote that book, it was revealed that Piltdown Man had been a hoax, and had simply never existed.

In the specific case of the "Purif", I am definitely not alone. The Oklahoma Board of Mental Health said in its Findings, "This evidence indicates a lack of safety and effectiveness." The authorities in Italy and Spain have gone further, and arrested staff members on charges ranging from fraud and medical malpractice to criminal conspiracy to extort money and unlawful detention.

Mr. Borichevsky's letter says he's seen two independent studies showing Narconon's® 69% or 78% success rate. I'm glad he's not quoting the 86% rate that they unsuccessfully testified to in Oklahoma. However, I am dubious that he's really seen the studies. We on the Internet made a project of trying to track down the Narconon studies, but we never managed to find more than brief summaries of them. Neither study was independent - or even arm's length: they were both done by the Church. And they reported 70% and 76%. So, where does Mr. Borichevsky's 69% and 78% come from? And where did the Church publication "What is Scientology" get 78.37% and 84.6% for the same studies? And just how does one get 76% or 78.37% in a study of 13 people?

The Church's Narconon subsidiary is for-profit, and sells an expensive drug rehabilitation "treatment". Drug abusers would be well advised to go elsewhere. Although, of course, if you're poor, the question is moot. It is against Hubbard's scriptures to help the poor.

Don Lindsay