Originally Posted by
DCAnon
In and out of the entire quote, LRH is saying that by not having sex, you get a venereal disease. How does adding in the rest of the quote show that he wasn't saying that if you stop having sex, you get a venereal disease? It seems very very clear that's what he was saying, literally word for word.
Hubbard tried to explain philosophically what doctors told him (= that there is discharge without infection). No crime in that.
Originally Posted by
DCAnon
Oh, and fyi, how does some story with no names or verifiable proof become a "statement by doctors"?
Come on, you don't really want Hubbard to interrupt his lecture and then list names of doctors he spoke with. Noone does that in a speech.
Originally Posted by
DCAnon
Can you share with us the medical findings, studies, medical records, and pubmed published journal articles talking about "high incidences of sex diseases amongst people who had NO SEX and where the doctors could not find BACTERIA"?
- Hubbard talks about VDs. Since he was no doctor we don't know whether he meant "diseases of the private parts" (e.g. discharge because of a bladder infection) or whether he meant sexually transmitted diseases. He doesn't mention STD or "sexually" in this lecture.
- You have TONS of cases with unexplainable causes. Unexplainable diseases are called "IDIOPATHIC" or "of unknown etiology". Just to give you an example of what Hubbard might have considered a venereal disease: Approx. 50% of prostatitis cases are not caused by microorganisms. Just google "prostatitis etiology".
- I am a fan of the theory that microorganism cause a lot of illnesses. Thus I think that Hubbard has been misinformed. Just because doctors of the 60ies (or now in the 2000ies) could not find germs, doesn't mean there weren't any. I don't know how thoroughly 1960ies docs checked for fungal or trichomonas infections.
- It is a known fact that frequent sex ("cleaning the pipes") protects you against infections. There is even a joke: "I was so pleased by this medical news that I cancelled my heath insurance today".
- STDs are not only transmitted via sex (mainly: yes, only: no). Thus complete abstinence will not always protect you. This is where Hubbard's lecture applies: How come that you pull in some bacteria in your private area? LRH's philosophical speculation: You pull them in by suppressing sex (thoughts).
- You know that abstinence can cause pseudocyesis, don't you? Full fledged with lactating breasts etc... Maybe there was something similar ("pseudo discharge") amongst sea men of the 60ies. Although I have never heard of it thus it's probably too farfetched. But, hey, pseudocyesis is unbelievable, too.
In other words: IF YOU WANT TO complain about this lecture then complain about it in a general sense of "Hubbard was wrong: There is no pulling in of something".
Originally Posted by
DCAnon
If we're talking about context, I'd love to see the medical context that LRH was discussing
He DOES TELL the medical context. A lot of his seamen got VDs. And doctors weren't around. Thus he came up with his philosophical theory.I know I wrote the Navy Department in 1942 and said we could use seven or eight girls on board. They didn't... Actually, it would have been a good thing - having nothing to do with the second dynamic - because we couldn't get any sailors to man the guns, because we had to do all the cooking and yeoman work and so forth with fighting men, you see?
But I got interested in this one day, because we had innumerous - numerous cases of VD - a very unlovely subject. And of course, these cases would sort of wind up on my docket as something I had to do something about. And when you're working in expeditions or corvettes, or something like this, you seldom have a doctor. Or the doctor is dead drunk or something. You sail out of a port and you've got seven out of a crew of a hundred men totally incapacitated. That can be very serious when you're already shorthanded, you see? VD.
Originally Posted by
DCAnon
so we know it's not just some made up story like his being the youngest eagle scout
It's not made up out of thin air. He was indeed one of the youngest scouts. Maybe LRH picked up something a scout admin said like "Gee, you are young. I bet you are the youngest in whole America".
Completely IRRELEVANT since 1) it doesn't matter that there have been scouts a few weeks younger than LRH 2) noone became a scientologist because LRH was the youngest boyscout. And noone left scientology because LRH turned out to be a few weeks older.
IN OTHER WORDS: HUBBARD's statements are far less bizarre when you put them into the right context.
I don't think Hubbard's statements were bizarre at all. I merely think they were wrong (because they were based on wrong info by the doctors). Until this very day a lot of cases of UTIs and prostatitis are unexplainable ("non-infectious"). Now if the medical consensus is "Pee more to have less UTIs" then LRH's statement "Sex more (= less no-sex) to have less non-bacterial venereal problems" may be equally true.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote