Critics Giving Out False Data on Scientology

[Zinjifar]

More like the ASSRD - Alanzo Shit Stirrer Rundown. - Toss incendiary and tendentious 'question' in and hope for fireworks. Giggle gleefully. Rub hands and plot next fistule.

Zinj

 

[Axiom142]

Over the years, I have come across false data about Scientology that have originated from critics. I have even forwarded some of it myself.

For instance, "LRH died on psych drugs".

If the term "psych drug" means a drug given by a psychiatrist to his patients which addresses a diagnosed mental disorder such as schizophrenia, manic depression, etc by manipulating levels of serotonin, dopamine and other hormones in the brain, then the datum "LRH died on psych drugs" is false.

Dr. Eugene Denk signed an affidavit saying that he had injected LRH with the drug Vistaril in the few weeks before his death. Vistaril is a first generation anti-histamine. It lowers the levels of histamine in the body which can come about from allergic reactions.

Anti-histamines, especially first generation anti-histamines such as Vistaril, do make you drowsy. And when you inject them, they make you even more drowsy and they have a calming effect which is very helpful when you have allergies as your breathing can be effected and this can produce anxiety. The Vistaril can address the anxiety reaction which comes from feeling that you can not breath.

And some psych somewhere might have given his patient Vistaril to calm him down.

It wasn't until I started getting diagnosed and treated for allergies that I began to see why this idea that "LRH was on psych drugs when he died" is false.

I take Zyrtec sometimes, which is a second generation anti-histamine which comes directly from Vistaril.

Am I on psych drugs when I take it?

No.

I picked up on this datum when I first got out of Scientology, and I forwarded it quite a bit. It was such a shocking datum, and it aligned so well with my wanting to get out of Scientology, I grabbed on to it and wouldn't let go. It seemed to help validate my new stance on Scientology as an EX-Scientologist.

Can any critics and exes here spot any more false data that you have heard about Scientology from critics?

Alanzo,

According to the coroners report:

“Dr. Denk reported that he had been residing at the ranch and treating the decedent for the past two years. He described the decedent as having displayed signs of Dysphraisia for about eight days and indicated that there was little doubt in his mind that the terminal event was a CVA.”

The report also states that L Ron Hubbard had a:

“Long standing history of chronic pancreatitis. Recent history of Dysphrasia as of, on or about January 16, 1986.”

It also states that Denk had been treating Hubbard since 9/30/78, which was apparently around the time that he suffered his first CVA (stroke) as described by Mayo and others.

It is my opinion that Hubbard suffered a stroke, was mentally confused and agitated and so Denk injected him (10 times) with Vistaril in order to calm him down.

This did not arouse any suspicions in the Coroner’s Office as this is perfectly normal for a man of Hubbard’s age.

But, it was a huge outpoint for the Founder of Scientology, who was supposedly incredibly OT and had complete control over MEST and was imperious to physical ailments. The CoS could not afford to let their public know the truth, so concocted a cock-and-bull story about him finishing his research and ‘causatively dropping his body’ when he no longer had a use for it.

In addition, there is a ‘Supplementary Report’ which states that according to Denk, Hubbard had died at around 20:00 on January 24th 1986, but that the police were not informed until 07:30 the next day. Why the delay?

Amusingly, the Supplementary Report also describes how there was some concern about the actual identity of the body, which lead to his fingerprints being checked. And one of the sources was the FBI, on account of his previous conviction!

Hardly the sort of thing that the CoS would want made public.

Axiom142

 

[anon2487]

I've not read the whole thread: only the first page, but whilst I agree that we should be utterly factual when reporting Co$, Vistaril (when injected) is not being used for it's antihistemic properties. It is ONLY EVER injected to calm or induce drowsiness: the dosages as well as means of delivery are entirely different. That being the case, it's absolutely fair IMO to say that LRH "died whilst under the influence of a "psych drug" ."

 

[Feral]

From reading this discussion it's pretty clear that it would be hard to be 100% factual on such a moot issue as what the vitrisil was for. Hardly anyone can agree. This is most likely due to the broad scale deception that the CofS used to obfuscate the facts surrounding LRHs death.

However, in the past many critics have deliberately erred on the side of sensationalism on this and many other aspects of the cult.

It is unproductive and completely unnecessary.

In fact I would have left Scientology around 2002 and saved my self a fortune if the critical data I had read at the time had been credible. About 20% of what I read then was utterly laughable and untrue. But it was enough to discredit every thing else I read that day. I also decided that critics of Scientology were bananas and what Hubbard said about them was correct.

A very sad day for me.

I have vowed as a critic to be balanced and factual, when there is doubt I fall back to data that is first hand or that I know my target will have experienced themselves.

This way we have been able to reach a great many people with the truth. Ultimately the truth about Scientology is far more shocking and complex than any attention grabbing lie.

 

[anon2487]

...However, in the past many critics have deliberately erred on the side of sensationalism on this and many other aspects of the cult.

It is unproductive and completely unnecessary...

I agree completely.

 

[Zinjifar]

I do too. And, have for 15 years now. I'd disagree with Feral on the use of 'many', but, that's pretty subjective. The fact is that opposing Scientology draws in people from all kinds of backgrounds and, it's only recently that so many 'ex' Scientologists have been involved. Which is an improvement

However, every 'push' on new critics has meant a large influx of people with little background in Scientology *or* Scientology criticism, and, the tendency is always towards seeing the 'activism' as being similar to other subjects, which it is not. And, enthusiasm leads to stupidity and stupidity leads to bullshit.

Add to that that it's not unusual for the most 'enthusiastic' new critics to be the loudest and most visible and it can appear that 'much' of the criticism is overboard.

Have patience. It takes quite a while for people to dig though the pile of manure that Ron left to begin making sense of it.

However, what I'd *like* to hear is what criticism was 'sensationalistic' or 'disinformation' or sometimes just plain wrong.

Scientology offers so *much* to criticize that there's really no reason to exaggerate anything.

What was the part that 'put you off'?

Zinj

 

[clamicide]

<snip>
However, what I'd *like* to hear is what criticism was 'sensationalistic' or 'disinformation' or sometimes just plain wrong.

Scientology offers so *much* to criticize that there's really no reason to exaggerate anything.

What was the part that 'put you off'?

Zinj

For me, honestly, it was the little, more innocuous things that made me discount critics at first. Things such as "Scientologists are not allowed to see doctors." I knew that not to true because I've had C/Ses insist I see an M.D. and there were HCOBs to back that practice up. Now, being out, I obviously realize that isn't necessarily how things are run. While 'in', however, it was this sort of blanket statement by the rational-sounding critics that convinced me they knew absolutely nothing about Scientology. I could perhaps look at the 'whack-job' critics with outrageous claims and not think too much of it because there's always 'some idiot' railing against every facet of society; when even the 'sane' critics spouted info that directly countered my experience, it shuts off giving any credence to there being any truth from outsiders. I actually bought the cult's story on Lisa McPherson because of this sort of thing (horrifies me to say).

Before I got fully out, I also ran into pages and pages of some guy going on about the 'new' definition of the second dynamic change, and how Ron had never, ever said anything like this. Well, I'd listened to a tape where Ron pretty much laid out this 'new' (old) definition, and I ended up thinking that all these altering of tech claims was probably just a bunch of bs ranting by squirrels. Now that sort of thing drives me crazy simply because I've seen it take focus away from the real abuse going on. (don't get me wrong--love any and all board chat on the entire scio experience, there's just been times when it seems like the entire message of the real problems with the cult can get lost among a whole bunch of other stuff--not talking really about ESMB-- this is just my own little bugbear).

Trying to escape an experience which has been riddled with nothing but lies, any new place to which you turn that shows any semblance of lying is really suspect. You've already been burned, and you're trying to shake off the indoctrination that it's the outside world that is crazy and built on lies. My opinion is that any lie about the cult, no matter how well-intentioned, is a horrible disservice. Especially when you see that the truth is horrific enough.

 

[Good twin]

I agree with Clammy. I had seen some critical stuff before I got out and as someone who was still in, it was easy to discount. It does look quite different when you are out for a while.

However, there is one very famous critic who has stuff published and posted and quoted all over the place. His story is full of drama and evil and all kinds of stuff that could be true and really may have happened.....but not to him and not the way he presented it.

I witnessed enough of his "story" firsthand and while it was happening to know that the key elements of his story and the parts that give him "credibility" are flat out lies.

Interesting OP Lanzo. Does stir the pot, but interesting.....

 

[Alanzo]

"...And, enthusiasm leads to stupidity and stupidity leads to bullshit...."

Zinjifar, 2009
​

 

[Feral]

I do too. And, have for 15 years now. I'd disagree with Feral on the use of 'many', but, that's pretty subjective. The fact is that opposing Scientology draws in people from all kinds of backgrounds and, it's only recently that so many 'ex' Scientologists have been involved. Which is an improvement

SNIP

However, what I'd *like* to hear is what criticism was 'sensationalistic' or 'disinformation' or sometimes just plain wrong.

Scientology offers so *much* to criticize that there's really no reason to exaggerate anything.

What was the part that 'put you off'?

Zinj

Zinj,

So, I got onto the web in I think 2002, I'd been on SOLO NOTS for 9 years, I was pretty miserable and probably on the web because it was not going where it should with the church or OTVII.

I found Arnie's site. An article written about Quentin Hubbard by someone who was supposedly his cramming officer inferred, in contradiction with itself, both that he could get away with gross tech violations because his father was "Ron" and later that he was killed by his father for the same thing.

I also read an article that stated the top org on the planet, Flag, was a mess, the proof? A letter Ron sent in 1976 or something telling a terminal that they had a mess to clean up.

Scientologists are pre-disposed to see that critics are lying SPs with only destruction in mind. When critics write sensationalized accounts of Scientology ignoring the facts or even if they say all of scientology is bunk they run the risk of being rejected by the current believers.

When I approach a scientologist I walk a fine line, I have a specific objective in mind, to get them looking, Carmel does the same. We only give them enough rock solid data to get them open to looking, we stick with subjects we know that we have true data on.

I understand that this is a message board and anyone can say anything they want. I also know why Alanzo wrote the OP on this thread.

Hard working SP that Alanzo.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Zinj: you've been around for a while.

Can you spot any false data that has been given out by critics over the years?

The "LRH died on psych drugs" is an example of something the CofS does on a regular basis - make an attack statement that cannot be proven to be false while it may not be exactly true.

Was Hubbard on psych drugs when he died? You have not shown the statement to be false at all - you just claim that it is. You have advanced no evidence that it was not being used to keep an insane old man quiet. Denk would certainly have known what Vistaril was used for.

Thats what organizations get when they make suspicious moves - for example the CofS claimed that "for religious reasons" there should be no autopsy - what religious reasons would those have been? Nothing in Scientology about it.

So why didn't they just release his medical records?

So - when you get a chance Alanzo - why not give the evidence that shows the attack line is false?

 

[Alanzo]

The "LRH died on psych drugs" is an example of something the CofS does on a regular basis - make an attack statement that cannot be proven to be false while it may not be exactly true.

Was Hubbard on psych drugs when he died? You have not shown the statement to be false at all - you just claim that it is. You ahve advanced no evidence that it was not being used to keep an insane old man quiet. Denk would certainly have known what Vistaril was used for.

Thats what organizations get when they make suspicious moves - for example the CofS claimed that "for religious reasons" there should be no autopsy - what religious reasons would those have been? Nothing in Scientology about it.

So why didn't they just release his medical records?

So - when you get a chance Alanzo - why not give the evidence that shows the attack line is false?

That's what I'm saying: An "attack line" can almost never represent the truth.

Vistaril is an anti-histamine. It lowers histamine levels in the body and reduces swelling. Since it is injected or swallowed, it permeates the body and thus penetrates the blood/brain barrier and this is what makes you drowsy with first generation anti-histamines like Vistaril.

But Vistaril does not squirt or impede seratonin or dopamine levels in the brain like psych drugs do.

Therefore, Vistaril is not a psych drug.

Aspirin reduces inflammation, too. Alcohol can elevate your mood. Those aren't psych drugs, either.

"LRH died on psych drugs" is a propaganda attack line created for the consumption of Scientologists. No one else gives a shit.

So a dying, stricken old man was given an anti-histamine by his medical doctor because it had soporific effects and it relieved some dysphasia, and it helped him to breath better from his chronic allergies.

He could have given him an actual psych drug like Atavin or Paxil to calm him down. But he didn't.

He gave him Vistaril.

So it was just a medical treatment, actually a pretty workable one for the situation of the patient.

And that medical treatment was used as a political weapon.

That's the truth of it as I see it. And I'm kind of ashamed that I used it. When I think of a dying old man, no matter who he is or what he's done, I have a tendency to call a truce for that guy. I have a tendency to say, "You know what? Game over. Let the guy die in peace."

I don't care what the Church of Scientology does. They are stuck with a limited and fixed, but highly contradictory, mess for a life philosophy to sell to people at very high prices. They have to lie to cover up their gaping holes and their colossal failures.

But critics aren't stuck with those limitations.

They have the luxury of being able to examine their behavior and their beliefs, and to change for the better.

 

[Alanzo]

More like the ASSRD - Alanzo Shit Stirrer Rundown. - Toss incendiary and tendentious 'question' in and hope for fireworks. Giggle gleefully. Rub hands and plot next fistule.

Zinj

That's the Old Alanzo.

Alanzo 2.0 is so much less transparent than that.

 

[Tom of Helatrobus]

Why was LRH on antihistamines in the first place? Wasn't he CLEAR? Clears shouldn't have problems that require medicine to fix, allergies are caused by engrams which should be cleared in auditing. OTs supposed to be cause over MEST. If there is a criticism regarding the Vistaril, it should be that LRH wasn't even a clear. This is so much the better considering that Scientologists have admitted that LRH had the Vistaril in his system.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Thats what organizations get when they make suspicious moves - for example the CofS claimed that "for religious reasons" there should be no autopsy - what religious reasons would those have been? Nothing in Scientology about it.

It just occurred to me that in the essay on Death in a later edition of Have You Lived Before This Life (I think) Hubbard said that a thetan doesn't usually have too much attention on his recently deceased body as long as it isn't subjected to any more indignity than it suffered in life, or something like that. I believe that could qualify as a religious reason if you are searching for one.

Was that the reason in this case? Who knows? Maybe it was a genuine wish of Hubbard's, although more likely it was a forgery by the cult considering the recent date on the relevant doc. Why? Helps with ending cycle for everyone and doesn't allow any squabbles or lawsuits over the remains. Plus who knows what an autopsy might have found? Not necessarily evidence of foul play, but maybe no-one really knew exactly what Hubbard had been putting into this body over the previous few years and what traces might be found over and above the results of the toxicology screen that was done from the blood sample.

Paul

 

[lionheart]

LRH's memory wouldn't have to suffer the slur of a "psych drug" being in his body if he hadn't have railed for so may years against psychiatry per his PR seris 12.

That's the point. That's why anons and critics have picked up on the story.

The story is not whether the drug is accurately described/classified, it is that Hubbard deliberately equated psychiatry with negative ideas per his re-definition of words tech. So he reaped the result of that after his death.

If Hubbard hadn't had his church attempt to redefine psychiatry, the psychiatric aspect of the drug wouldn't have got a mention. The negative view of psychiatry and the subject of Scientology wouldn't have been linked if Ron had not run this campaign. It is the irony of the drug's presence in view of Hubbard's Orwellian re-definition campaign that fuels this story.

Scientologists wouldn't flinch at the "psych drug" slur if they hadn't been brainwashed by Hubbard's campaign and the critics would never have linked the drug and psychiatry together in this death story.

Alanzo would not even have proposed it as "false data" if Scns and ex-scns didn't have a Hubbardised concept of psychiatry.

Otherwise there may have been a "huh?" sort of question about the founder and supposedly Clear and OT having allergy treatment, but this story wouldn't have had the legs that it does without Hubbard's evil thought manipulation tech of PR series 12.

PR Series 12
"A long term propaganda technique used by socialists (Communists and Nazis alike} is of interest to PR practitioners. I know of no place it is mentioned in PR literature. But the data had verbal circulation in intelligence circles and is in constant current use. The trick is -- WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST. Many instances of planned and campaigned in order to obtain a public opinion advantage for the group doing the propaganda. Given enough repetition of the redefinition public opinion can be altered by altering the meaning of a word. The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the propagandist.

"'Psychiatry' and 'psychiatrist' are easily redefined to mean 'an anti-social enemy of the people'. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of Professions... The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining 'doctor', 'Psychiatry' and 'psychology' to mean 'undesirable antisocial elements'...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"

So one can say that Ron brought this slur about the drug on himself.

 

[Pepin]

And why didn't he just mock up a better body after he died?

We all heard the stories of him as is-ing his body mocking it up elsewhere.

Could it be??? Naaa. Could it be that the stories were not true?

Why was LRH on antihistamines in the first place? Wasn't he CLEAR? Clears shouldn't have problems that require medicine to fix, allergies are caused by engrams which should be cleared in auditing. OTs supposed to be cause over MEST. If there is a criticism regarding the Vistaril, it should be that LRH wasn't even a clear. This is so much the better considering that Scientologists have admitted that LRH had the Vistaril in his system.

 

[Alanzo]

Why was LRH on antihistamines in the first place? Wasn't he CLEAR? Clears shouldn't have problems that require medicine to fix, allergies are caused by engrams which should be cleared in auditing. OTs supposed to be cause over MEST. If there is a criticism regarding the Vistaril, it should be that LRH wasn't even a clear. This is so much the better considering that Scientologists have admitted that LRH had the Vistaril in his system.

Actually, LRH was the SOURCE of the Allergy Rundown. He wrote it.

And then he sold it to people, telling them that it would put them AT CAUSE over their allergies.

Just sayin'...

 

[Alanzo]

LRH's memory wouldn't have to suffer the slur of a "psych drug" being in his body if he hadn't have railed for so may years against psychiatry per his PR seris 12.

That's the point. That's why anons and critics have picked up on the story.

The story is not whether the drug is accurately described/classified, it is that Hubbard deliberately equated psychiatry with negative ideas per his re-definition of words tech. So he reaped the result of that after his death.

If Hubbard hadn't had his church attempt to redefine psychiatry, the psychiatric aspect of the drug wouldn't have got a mention. The negative view of psychiatry and the subject of Scientology wouldn't have been linked if Ron had not run this campaign. It is the irony of the drug's presence in view of Hubbard's Orwellian re-definition campaign that fuels this story.

Scientologists wouldn't flinch at the "psych drug" slur if they hadn't been brainwashed by Hubbard's campaign and the critics would never have linked the drug and psychiatry together in this death story.

Alanzo would not even have proposed it as "false data" if Scns and ex-scns didn't have a Hubbardised concept of psychiatry.

Otherwise there may have been a "huh?" sort of question about the founder and supposedly Clear and OT having allergy treatment, but this story wouldn't have had the legs that it does without Hubbard's evil thought manipulation tech of PR series 12.

PR Series 12
"A long term propaganda technique used by socialists (Communists and Nazis alike} is of interest to PR practitioners. I know of no place it is mentioned in PR literature. But the data had verbal circulation in intelligence circles and is in constant current use. The trick is -- WORDS ARE REDEFINED TO MEAN SOMETHING ELSE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROPAGANDIST. Many instances of planned and campaigned in order to obtain a public opinion advantage for the group doing the propaganda. Given enough repetition of the redefinition public opinion can be altered by altering the meaning of a word. The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the propagandist.

"'Psychiatry' and 'psychiatrist' are easily redefined to mean 'an anti-social enemy of the people'. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of Professions... The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining 'doctor', 'Psychiatry' and 'psychology' to mean 'undesirable antisocial elements'...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"

So one can say that Ron brought this slur about the drug on himself.

Good point, Lionheart.

It was a little shrill, and your armor clashed a little loudly as you flailed your arms about, but good point.

 

[degraded being]

Alanzo, now that you've got yer overt off you can route onto the OT levels.
Suggest you find someone who can prescribe something to deal with the EPs and the BTs.


Catholic heaven awaits if you prefer.