[1/3] Where we are now and what we need to achieve
It's now about a year since Narconon Exposed (http://www.narconon-exposed.org) was launched. In that time, it's been pretty successful and has been a major factor in killing off a number of publicly funded Narconon/Scientology projects, as well as giving people the facts about the bogus science and questionable results of Hubbard's quack therapy.
Much more needs to be done, though; Scientology/Narconon is still making some inroads. We need to step up the pace. We need to be more pro-active. And in particular, we need to focus on the many weak points of Narconon and the Purif and take actions calculated to undermine, roll back and if at all possible destroy the influence of those peddling Hubbard's quackery.
Those who know me will probably be saying at this point, "That's a bit strong for Chris, he's normally so mild-mannered about these things!" That's true enough, but Narconon annoys me almost more than any other aspect of Scientology's activities. With regular Scientology, you know what you're getting - or you should do, at least, particularly considering the CoS's nasty reputation and the huge amount of critical info available online. But Narconon specialises in flying under the radar. It falsely claims that its methods are scientifically respectable. It never mentions its ties to the Church of Scientology. It conceals the fact that what it teaches is pretty much pure Scientology. Above all, it's patently dishonest about its success rates.
Every day, here in London, I pass dozens if not hundreds of drug addicts begging on the streets - cold, filthy, raddled by disease and drugs, homeless and hungry. Every day, hundreds more drug addicts across the city are begging, whoring, robbing, burgling, stealing and occasionally even murdering in their desperate efforts to get a bit of cash to feed their habit. These people are among the most vulnerable in society, unable to control their needs or get their lives turned around. Resolving their problems is slow, difficult, expensive and often painful for all concerned. The public health system never seems to have enough resources to deal with the problem. Drug addiction tears apart lives and families - and very often, it's the families, with only limited resources, who bear the expense of putting their sick relatives through treatment.
This is where Narconon does such damage, and why I personally find its current tactics so repulsive. There is no verifiable evidence to support its claims of a 76% cure rate - indeed, research that it commissioned in Sweden showed a derisory cure rate of under 7%, well below that of more reputable therapies. Yet it manages to convince families to spend scarce money, maybe take out loans and get into debt, to send relatives to Narconon/Scientology - to what end? Even worse, official bodies have also repeatedly been seduced by Narconon/Scientology - even to the point of courts *ordering* people to undertake Hubbardian quackery. It doesn't matter that Scientologists believe sincerely in the Purification Rundown's efficacy. As with the seemingly endless Christian fundamentalist attempts to drive evolution out of schools, they are inflicting harm through blind fanaticism (or as Scientology itself puts it, "harming in the name of help").
I haven't exactly been complimentary about Narconon in this post, but I don't think the organisation is a complete basket case. There are good aspects to what it does - its supporters' determination to tackle drug abuse is commendable and they could make a big difference if their work was more genuinely constructive. So we should aim both to expose Narconon's current flaws and to press the organisation itself to resolve its problems. In particular, Narconon/Scientology should:
* Disclose L. Ron Hubbard's original research. It's positively bizarre that we have next to no information on how Hubbard developed the Purification Rundown.
* Undertake a proper evaluation of the Purification method, conducted by a reputable academic research institution and verified by peer review among independent researchers with no connection to Scientology, Narconon or any related organisation. (Another conspicuous omission by Narconon/Scientology.)
* Disclose verifiable completion and long-term cure rates for each Narconon/Scientology centre, instead of falsely claiming a success rate of 76% for every branch.
* Disclose all research concerning success rates that has been conducted by Narconon/Scientology and explain how success rate figures are derived. (The 76% figure apparently derives from one study conducted with one small group at one Narconon centre and relates only to those who *completed* the Narconon course; most of the group dropped out before they even finished it. Narconon is strangely reluctant to publish *any* research on its success rates - requests for details have gone unanswered for years.)
* Publish open and independently audited accounts, detailing all major sources of income and expenditure. (The terse accounts that Narconon condescends to publish never seem to explain where the organisation gets its money from, or where its proceeds go to.)
* Clarify Narconon's financial and organisational relationship with the Church of Scientology, in particular explaining why the Church of Scientology has assumed responsibility for Narconon's taxation affairs (under the 1993 Final Closing Agreement with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service) despite the two organisations supposedly being totally separate.
None of this should be difficult for a reputable and honest organisation. L. Ron Hubbard's scientific research should be available for review, just like any other scientific research. Consumers of Narconon's services should be able to know each individual Narconon centre's success rates, just as they can for individual doctors and hospitals. They should also be able to know how Narconon/Scientology calculates its success rates, as they would have no way of knowing whether to believe Narconon's claims otherwise. Many Narconon organisations are registered charities and/or tax-exempt organisations seeking public contributions, so potential donors should be able to assure themselves that money is being spent wisely and legally. And as Scientology has told the IRS that it is responsible for Narconon's financial affairs while Narconon itself tells the public that it is legally entirely separate from Scientology, we are at least entitled to some clarification of this apparent contradiction. All very reasonable and straightforward for a reputable and honest organisation, surely?
Unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope for this happening any time soon. That is why we need to ratchet up the pressure on Narconon/Scientology until either it meets the modest and reasonable criteria set out above, or it is driven out of business. See my next post for some thoughts on what needs to be done.
| Chris Owen - ronthewarhero@OISPAMNOyahoo.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| NARCONON EXPOSED: The full facts about the Narconon program |
| http://www.narconon-exposed.org |
<p><hr><p>
From: ronthewarhero@yahoo.co.uk (Chris Owen)[2/3] Exposing Narconon/Purification: what we need to do next
The recent New York Times article on L. Ron Hubbard's purification "therapy" being used to "detoxify" New York firefighters exposed to 9/11 toxins had one very striking quote in it, which I'll highlight here:
"People are desperate to feel better," said one fire lieutenant. "As far as I can tell, they'll try anything, even off the beaten track." Another officer, who said he planned to sign up for the regimen in hope of clearing up lung congestion, said: "Right now, I'm at the point I would try a voodoo doctor."
Desperation and ignorance: that's the soil in which Narconon/Scientology grows. We can't do much about the desperation, but the ignorance *can* be tackled.
Narconon Exposed (http://www.narconon-exposed.org) was created with the aim of collating and analysing as much information as possible on Narconon and the Purification Rundown. Until now, the main focus of activity has been data-mining from online sources and databases. That now needs to be expanded to cover the vast amounts of offline information that is sitting in archives, waiting to be unearthed and publicised. But information by itself is not necessarily going to make much difference. Narconon Exposed is a useful resource, but it is a passive one. We need to mobilise what information we have and send it into battle; the goal, to press Narconon/Scientology to fix its problems or else to undermine it, roll it back and if necessary to drive it out of business.
Over the years, many local, regional and national governmental bodies have had dealings with Narconon - typically in licensing its operations or providing funding for local programmes. In quite a few cases, there has been considerable controversy, particularly concerning funding for Narconon or other organisations peddling Scientology Purification. As far as can be determined, it seems that most state-funded Narconon/Purification programmes have been dropped or cut off because of concerns about propriety or poor results. This is not as widely known as it should be. It needs to be.
Because Narconon/Scientology has been most active in the United States and Canada, I propose to focus primarily on those countries. There are a few items of interest in Britain as well, which should not be too difficult to deal with. France, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico, Spain and Sweden are also of interest, but as language presents a barrier it will take longer both to obtain information and to exploit it. The U.S. is clearly the most fruitful place to start, with its high level of Narconon/Scientology activity and its national and state freedom of information laws.
I've worked out what, where and who we need to ask questions. If anyone can suggest any more, please let me know! They break down into three basic categories: generic issues (principally for the U.S. states), localised issues of major importance (for a number of individual states and Federal agencies) and localised issues of lesser importance (for other individual states and agencies). The questions are as follows:
----------
1. Generic issues (Note: Narconon has been active at one time or another in about 20 states. These questions need to be asked of the governments of each of those states.)
A. Is Narconon currently accredited and/or licensed to operate in your state?
B. If the answer to question A is yes, who approved it, what was the justification, what evidence was presented for and against Narconon's application and when was approval given?
C. Has your state ever provided direct or indirect funding to Narconon?
D. If the answer to question D is yes, why was funding provided, how much was given, where and when was it spent, and what evaluation was conducted into the results?
E. Is funding still being provided and if not, why was it terminated?
(The following questions are for states where Narconon organisations used to exist but are now defunct.)
F. A Narconon organisation used to operate in your state; was it accredited or licensed to operate?
G. If the answer to question F is yes, who approved it, what was the justification, what evidence was presented for and against Narconon's application and when was approval given? And was approval ever withdrawn?
----------
2. Specific major issues (Note: these invariably concern evaluations of Narconon which have so far not made it into the public domain, but are potentially highly relevant to the organisation's bona fides and even its continued existence.)
A. CARF, Oklahoma: In 1992, Narconon obtained accreditation from an Arizona organisation called the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). This allowed it to obtain licensing in Oklahoma and has been invaluable to the organisation elsewhere. However, serious questions have been raised about the CARF accreditation which have so far gone unanswered. If there were irregularities in the process, their exposure would be devastating to Narconon's credibility and quite possibly its legal status. Right now, there simply isn't enough evidence to say that there *were* irregularities; but those unanswered questions need to be addressed. They are:
- CARF conducted a review of Narconon which gave it a glowing report, but this review has never been published; what does it say? - Which individual CARF staff conducted the report and what were their qualifications? - Where methodology was used to evaluate Narconon? - What influence, if any, did Narconon/Scientology have with CARF? In particular, were any Scientologists or individuals connected with Scientology-related organisations on CARF's staff?
B. Oklahoma. During the early 1990s, the state authorities fought a ferocious battle with Narconon over the organisation's accreditation - a battle which was eventually rendered moot by CARF's accreditation, which forced the state to give Narconon a license to operate despite it having been declared a menace to public health by the state's own accreditors. An equally bitter battle was fought by the local Indian tribes on whose land the Narconon Chilocco centre was established, eventually resulting in Narconon being forced to relocate several hundred miles away.
- What information did the state authorities (particularly the Board of Mental Health and the Dept of Health) receive for and against Narconon's accreditation?
- What info did the state authorities receive for and against Narconon's relocation to Lake Eufaula?
- What did the state's own reports on Narconon say? (Only one has actually been published.)
- Does the state have a copy of the CARF report? (presumably it must do; it could hardly have granted Narconon a license on the basis of the CARF accreditation without some confirmation on the matter).
- The Church of Scientology and Citizens Commission on Human Rights both played an active role in pressuring the state; what representations did they make?
- What discussions did the Indian tribes have concerning Narconon, and what representations did Narconon make to the tribes?
- How much money did Narconon pay to the tribes in the end and how much should it have paid?
- What did the original agreement between Narconon and the tribes actually say?
C. Massachussetts: In the mid-to-late 1990s, the state of Massachussetts not only permitted Narconon to lecture in public schools but provided over $1m in funding to facilitate it - thus enabling Narconon to promote its unscientific and religiously-based theories on drug issues to thousands of children.
- How much funding has MA (presumably the state Departmenbt of Education) provided to Narconon and is it still ongoing? If not, why not?
- On what basis has this funding been provided?
- What representations did Narconon make to the MA authorities?
- Did the state conduct any evaluation of the results and if so, what did it find?
- How did the state react to the Boston Herald's exposure of the programme in 1998?
D. Utah: Fox News exposed the disturbing activities of a local judge, who was sending convicted drug users to compulsory Narconon courses - an illegal and unconstitutional action that appears to have been stopped by the Fox report.
- Was this the only court in Utah that was sending people to Narconon?
- Who paid for this, and how much was spent?
- What evaluations were done concerning the results?
- What was the state's response to the Fox exposé?
- Has the programme now been ended for good?
E. Arizona: In 2001, some Arizona lawmakers were pushing "Second Chance", a Scientologist-run programme which uses the Scientology Purification method. It was eventually squashed following strong and apparently well-informed opposition from the state Director of Corrections, who highlighted the constitutional and efficacy problems. Some years before that (in the 1970s) Narconon had been operating for some years in Arizona prisons - where in fact it was founded, by a convict named Willie Benitez - but subsequently lapsed for some reason.
- Why did the state reject Second Chance?
- What did the state receive information for and against the programme?
- What evaluations did the state itself conduct, and what were its findings?
- Narconon was active in Arizona prisons in the 1970s. Did the state fund this? What evaluations were conducted? When and why did this activity end?
- Narconon claims that some time in the 1970s the "Arizona Correctional Authority reported on 76 Narconon students who had been released from prison". Is this true, and is a copy of the report available?
F. Pinellas County, Florida: In 1999, the county's Family Life Education Committee heard an application from a local Scientologist to undertake a Narconon anti-drugs programme in local schools, but rejected it on the grounds that it was "not aligned with school district and federal guidelines governing drug education." This is highly significant - if Narconon isn't aligned with federal guidelines in Florida, that suggests that the same may be true elsewhere in the U.S. too.
- Why did the county reject the programme?
- What representations were made for and against it?
- In what ways was Narconon "not aligned with school district and federal guidelines governing drug education"?
G. The US Government: Over the years, the USG has had a number of run-ins with Narconon, most notably when the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs took over the management of Narconon's Chilocco facility from 1995.
- What dealings did the BIA have with Narconon?
- Why was Narconon's stay at Chilocco cut short by the BIA? (It was agreed in 1989 and was originally due to run until 2014, but was renegotiated in 2000 to require Narconon to leave within 3 years. It left the following year.)
- Have the US Government's medical experts (notably the Dept of Health and NIDA) ever reviewed Narconon/Purification, and if so, what are their conclusions?
H. London, UK: In August 2001, Mayor of London Ken Livingstone banned a Narconon/Purification rally in Trafalgar Square and issued a statement calling it "a spurious medical programme" which was merely a "cynical method of promoting the Scientology creed."
- What prompted Livingstone to ban the rally?
- According to Livingstone, he had received advice and expressions of concern from "many drugs professionals". What did they say?
- What representations did Narconon/Scientology make?
- What was the subsequent reaction to the ban?
----------
3. Specific lesser issues (Note: these concern a miscellany of issues relating to Narconon's operations in specific localities.)
A. California (Dept of Corrections):
- Narconon claims that at some unspecified dates in the 1970s the "California Dept. of Corrections reported on 19 inmates who had participated in the Narconon program while in prison" and that "the California Institute for Women reported on 25 Narconon clients" . Is this true, and are copies of the two reports available?
B. California (Dept of Health): During the 1970s, the Dept of Health was providing funding to Narconon New Life of Los Angeles through what was known as the Short Doyle Act. An evaluation team was sent to the facility on October 31, 1974 and was highly critical, recommending termination of funding. A copy of the report is available on Narconon Exposed but it is, unfortunately, incomplete.
- Does the Dept of Health have a complete copy, including attachments, of the "Outline for Recovery, House Evaluation" of Narconon New Life of Los Angeles, written by Forrest S. Tennant, Jr., M.D., Dr.P.H., Jane Thomas, R.N., Mike Reilly, and Joseph Shannon, M.D., M.P.H. and submitted to Don Z. Miller, Deputy Director, Health Treatment System, State Department of Health, Sacramento, CA, on Oct 31, 1974?
- How did the Dept of Health respond to this report?
- What dealings with the Dept of Health have with Narconon after Oct 31, 1974?
C. California (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board):
- According to testimony of Dr. David Root given to Congress in 2001, the state Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has repeatedly ruled in favour of compensation for Narconon/Purification "treatment" being provided to workers suffering the effects of toxic exposure. Is this true, and if so, in how many cases has it occurred, what level of funding has been bestowed and what evaluation has been conducted into the results?
D. California (Warner Springs): In 2002, the town of Warner Springs gave Narconon permission to establish a facility near the town.
- What representations were made for and against Narconon?
- On what grounds was Narconon given permission to establish its facility?
E. Minnesota (Dept of Corrections): In 1981, Narconon was kicked out of the St. Cloud Reformatory for Men after a newspaper exposé and a raid on its offices by state officials.
- On what grounds was state funding or permission for Narconon to operate in prisons discontinued?
- Were any reports or evaluations conducted into Narconon's activities and the effects thereof, and if so, what were the conclusions?
F. Connecticut (Dept of Corrections): In 1976, a Narconon program in the Montville Correctional Facility was terminated.
- On what grounds was state funding or permission for Narconon to operate in prisons discontinued? - Were any reports or evaluations conducted into Narconon's activities and the effects thereof, and if so, what were the conclusions?
F. Delaware (Dept of Corrections): In 1976, Narconon programs in Smyrna and Georgetown prisons were terminated and an investigation by the intelligence unit of the state police was carried out.
- On what grounds was state funding or permission for Narconon to operate in prisons discontinued?
- Were any reports or evaluations conducted into Narconon's activities and the effects thereof, and if so, what were the conclusions?
G. Michigan (Dept of Corrections): The Michigan DoC put over $120,000 into a Narconon program in the Ionia State Prison between 1977-80, which was terminated following an exposé by the Detroit News. Michigan Corrections Dept. psychologist John Hand was quoted as saying that Narconon was "so misleading as to be termed a con. "
- On what grounds was state funding or permission for Narconon to operate in prisons discontinued?
- Were any reports or evaluations conducted into Narconon's activities and the effects thereof, and if so, what were the conclusions?
H. Michigan (Pennfield County Zoning Board of Appeals): Narconon applied for permission to establish a facility in the town of Battle Creek and succeeded, despite strong local opposition.
- What representations were made for and against Narconon?
- On what grounds was Narconon given permission to establish its facility?
I. New York (Dept of Corrections):
- Narconon claims that at some unspecified time in the 1970s, Rikers Island Institute for Men conducted a study of "81 students who had started the voluntary Narconon program". Is this true, and is a copy the study available?
J. Louisiana (City of Shreveport): Dr. Ronald E. Gots, a toxicology expert invited by the city authorities to review the Narconon/Purification program following concerns raised by the city's insurers, delivered a blistering report in 1988 which labelled the Hubbard program "quackery".
- Does the city have a copy of the report?
- How much money did the city pay for Purification threapy?
- What representations did the city receive concerning the regimen?
- How did the city respond to Dr. Gots' report?
K. Georgia (Bowdon): Narconon attempted to establish a facility in the town but was rebuffed following resistance from the townspeople and local media, especially from local Carroll Star News.
- What representations were made for and against Narconon?
- On what grounds was Narconon given permission to establish its facility?
----------
I'm sure that everyone will agree that this is a pretty comprehensive list. :-) Obviously, it's far too big for any one person to deal with, and there are significant complicating factors that need to be dealt with as well (chiefly the numerous local freedom of information laws, which require requests to be tailored to local templates). I'm happy to work out what needs to be requested and how it needs to be done - but the actual work of sending out the requests and receiving the responses will need to be shared among several volunteers. More details in my next post, on how you can help.
| Chris Owen - ronthewarhero@OISPAMNOyahoo.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| NARCONON EXPOSED: The full facts about the Narconon program |
| http://www.narconon-exposed.org |