New at Stop-Narconon.org: scanned copies of the 1974 evaluation of the Narconon New Life program by Forest S. Tennant et al. A related document, the "Outline for Recovery House Evaluation", had previously been webbed in text form at Narconon-Exposed.org. Now we have both documents available in scanned form at:
Here is a juicy quote from the evaluation document:
Narconon claims to have an 86% cure rate for narcotics addicts which is simply not true. Mr. Greg Zerovnik, National Directory of Narconon U.S., explained that the 86% figure came from a study of parolees from the Arizona State Prison who may or may not have been narcotics addicts. This sort of claim is, of course, misleading to both the prospective client and to public officials who are sincerely attempting to find ways to cope with the problem of drug abuse. Narconon also advertises detoxification with megavitamins and other non-medical procedures that may be hazardous and, in some cases, lethal. Narconon implies that it can raise I.Q.'s and generally increase communication skills for their clients. There is no scientific evidence that these alleged changes cause a cure in approximately 50% of cases seen as stated by Mark Jones [the Executive Director of Narconon] in a Los Angeles Times article.
And here's another juicy quote, from the Outline for Recovery House Evaluation document, available in text form at:
Aside from the initial detoxification, "bullbaiting," and the later "auditing" process described below, an orthodox definition of the word treatment is not applicable to Narconon as we saw it and as it was described to us. The traditional labels of "patient" or "client" are, by Narconon, identified as "students" or occasionally "PC's." (Presumably meaning Pre-Clears in the scientological lexicon.) In reference to the latter, we must point out that any connection between Narconon and Scientology other than coincidental was usually vehemently denied. The interview data and our observations support a rehabilitation conception perhaps best termed a "corrective educational experience." Occurring in a stepwise fashion from rigidly simple rote exercises through the more comoplex "auditing" process and (for those who can afford it) a multiplicity of "clear" and "Post-Clear" states promising total personal and environmental control. Theoretically it is a patchwork of Freudian, Gestalt, Pavlovian, science fiction and Eastern (reincarnation) ideas unequivocably sutured together with L. Ron Hubbard's teminology. Indeed, the initial exercises require in addition to a standard English dictionary, a special Narconon dictionary enabling the "student" to understand the Narconon/Scientology terminology.
No wonder Scientology hates the Internet.
-- Dave Touretzky: "California will soon be rid of Narconon." http://Stop-Narconon.org http://Narconon-Exposed.org
Subject: Re: 1974 Narconon evaluation now webbed
From: "Android Cat" <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 06:56:55 -0400
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Hartley Patterson
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> And if were a scientologist, I'd be wondering why my leaders are so
>> ashamed of my religion that they have to lie about it all the time.
> Here's how the "thinking" worked when I was there.
> Background: The "C" of S spent a lot of time and money (on lawyers)
> to insure the wording of the incorporation papers of Narconon and all
> the other ABLE front groups, were legally separate.
> That is why, when a Scientologist says that the "Church" and
> Narconon, Applied Scholastics, CCHR, whatever, are "separate"
> they really and truly believe it. The Scn mindset tells them that
> they are LEGALLY and corporately separate and this is the "truth".
> The fact that the "C" of S runs ABLE and ABLE runs Narconon is a fact
> that makes this acceptable truth seems really dumb to everyone
> but a Scio. Scios thinks that wogs are "reactive" and don't
> understand "similarities, identities, and differences", which is an
> LRH definiton for sanity.
> Wogs are not sane so they can't see the differences (corporate
> This is how the Narconon/Scn connection is viewed.
> Scios walk around lying to themselves and others about it all the
They remind me of a little kid playing "super hero", continually changing into _Theta Man_ by donning of towel cape and adamantly insisting that no one should recognize him while he's in disguise.
Odds are, when they finally get busted, their reaction will by just like that kid when something gets knocked over: "But it wasn't meeeee, it was Theta Man!"
> Why do they do it? Why not just come out and say that Narconon
> and Applied Scholastics, Criminon, etcs are really and truly Scn?
> There is only ONE reason for this. The money.
> If Narconon was a Scn program, then the doors to ALL THAT
> FREE GOVERNMENT MONEY would get closed.
> There's gobs of both private and government funding as well
> as money from Insurance for drug rehab/education.
> If you ever want to know the real reason behind most of the
> obvious insanity of Scn, just look at the money.
Money, plus a safe point from which to leverage the next push elsewhere. 20 years of sneaking in the back-door at some schools in LA dressed as Narconon pushing Hubbard-fact turns into "20 years of providing valuable drug education to children in California schools". The proper review and evaluation process is just one of those wog things.
-- Ron of that ilk.
Subject: Re: 1974 Narconon evaluation now webbed
From: "roger gonnet" <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:52:21 +0200
"Dave Touretzky" <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit dans le message de news:email@example.com... > In article <MPG.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Hartley Patterson <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Dave Touretzky quoted:
> >The CoS cannot have it both ways. Either auditing and training *are*
> >religious, in which case it can have its IRS tax breaks but it cannot
> >claim that Narconon is secular, or vice versa.
> It's a religion *and* a floor wax!
"Some of the scholars claiming that Scientology is some kind of a religion have put their statements to an empirical test. Both Bainbridge & Stark (1981) and Passas & Castillo (1992) did suggest that Scientology would become more religious in the future, just because its claims of efficacy were absurd and unprovable. More than two decades later (for Bainbridge & Stark, 1981) and more than a decade later (for Passas & Castillo, 1992) these predictions have turned out to be totally wrong. Scientology has not become more religious in any discernible way since 1981 or 1992. It is as much a religion today as it has ever been, and as it will ever be."
Professor Benjamin Beith-Hallahmi, Haïfa in "Scientology, religion or racket", 2003