# The Cult of Scientology: Always Attack, Never Defend **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 22, 2006, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579 "2006-07-22T05:22:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/201 "2006-07-27T17:04:14Z")
[QUOTE=Dead Badger] > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by E-Sabbath > You’re not sure what Xenu is. Fine, link above, read and find out for yourself. If you don’t want to read, watch the South Park episode. It’s accurate. Because if they’d lied, it would have gotten them in trouble. Is it just me, or does this sound _exactly_ like **CM** ’s argument against some of the claims against Scientology? [/QUOTE] Only on the surface, actually. The **CoS** has a single mission: to protect the **CoS** , and they have the ability to effectively concentrate resources against perceived threats. By contrast, the Government, or more accurately, each bureau of the government, has a mandate to protect the citizens of the United States from the depredations of malefactors _everywhere_, not just the **CoS**. Where the absence of definitive results on the part of the government cannot be reasonably extrapolated to demonstrate that efforts have not been made (or are not being made) against the **CoS** , the absence of results from the **CoS** strongly suggests that their strategists have pre-emptively decided that pursuing the South Park episode would not be an effective use of their resources. One suspects that Parker and Stone would be able to use accuracy of their material as a defense, that that the **CoS** folks know that. In addition, there’s the whole factor of the U.S. government being squeamish about being perceived as piling on against a free association of law-abiding individuals. In the absence of a slam-dunk case against the organization, you’re not going to see a concerted government effort to disband it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/202 "2006-07-27T17:40:37Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Exactly no one has seriously addressed: -the reputable sources produced for the toxicity of niacin at high doses [/quote] Really? Not here? > [@Frylock](#): > > By the way, here’s a link about niacin. [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...icle/002409.htm](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...icle/002409.htm) Says side effects can include liver damage, ulcers, and rashes. Or here? > [@Frylock](#): > > If you’re asking whether good cites were provided after CM’s post 128, (this is the post where CM says no good cites had yet been provided,) then the answer is “yes.” Or here? > [@Frylock](#): > > So you are right: Good cites about niacin’s danger have appeared in this thread. (I even provided one of them!) Or here? > [@Frylock](#): > > I consider it to have been well established for a while now that Niacin is dangerous at doses far lower than those LRonHubbard recommended. Or here? > [@Frylock](#): > > Let’s be clear: What’s been going on between CM, Waverly, myself and others hasn’t been a debate about niacin, but rather, a debate about the debate about niacin. 🙂 Or here? > [@Constipated Mathematician](#): > > Frylock went out and supplied a better cite on the danger of niacin. So did others. But that was only after the first few fell flat. I To use your word, I’ll ask that you “retract” your first claim, then we’ll move on to the others. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/203 "2006-07-27T17:41:46Z")
I should note that ‘get them in trouble’ refered specifically to Stone and Parker being sued for defamation of character. Which would probably have happened if they’d lied. It refers to this episode, > **[Trapped in the Closet (South Park)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet_(South_Park))** > > "Trapped in the Closet" is the twelfth episode in the ninth season of the American animated television series South Park. The 137th episode of the series overall, it originally aired on Comedy Central in the United States on November 16, 2005. In the episode, Stan joins Scientology in an attempt to find something "fun and free". After the discovery of his surprisingly high "thetan levels", he is recognized as the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the church. The episode was writte... where there is a long depiction of “THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE”. > [@South Park](#): > > “It all began 75 million years ago. Back then, there was a galactic federation of planets which was ruled over by the evil Lord Xenu. Xenu thought his galaxy was overpopulated, and so he rounded up countless aliens from all different planets, and then had those aliens frozen. [At this point, the text “This is what Scientologists actually believe” appears on the screen, and stays on the screen for the rest of this sequence.] The frozen alien bodies were loaded on to Xenu’s galactic cruisers, which looked like DC-8s, except with rocket engines. The cruisers then took the frozen alien bodies to our planet, Earth, and dumped them into the volcanoes of Hawaii. The aliens were no longer frozen, they were dead. The souls of those aliens, however, lived on, and all floated up towards the sky. But the evil Lord Xenu had prepared for this. Xenu didn’t want their souls to return, and so he built giant soul catchers in the sky. The souls were taken to a huge soul brain-washing facility, which Xenu had also built on Earth. There the souls were forced to watch days of brain-washing material, which tricked them into believing a false reality. Xenu then released the alien souls, which roamed the Earth aimlessly in a fog of confusion. At the dawn of man, the souls finally found bodies which they could grab on to. They attached themselves to all mankind, which still, to this day, causes all of our fears, our confusions and our problems.” … Anyyyyhow. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/204 "2006-07-27T17:47:28Z")
Look… any of you who are angry at the Scientologists for the poor sheep who’ve subscribed to this stuff are, frankly, being a little unreasonable. “Disembodied souls in volcanoes”? Are you fucking kidding me? _GI Joe_ had more believable storylines. You can only protect the gullible up to a point, guys- and anyone who actually believes an alien warlord is going around harvesting alien spirits or whatever is probably much safer parted from their money. Are you going to lead a campaign against the _National Enquirer_? They use similar storylines to turn a profit, and they slander people too… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/205 "2006-07-27T17:49:52Z")
That should have read _“…on behalf of the poor sheep who’ve subscribed to this stuff…”_ ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/206 "2006-07-27T18:01:05Z")
My big question; where are the CO$ “clears”? Being clear is supposed to make you a super genius. So, how do they explain a Tom Cruise? is he a “clear”? If so, why isn’t he a genius? My guess is that this cult is probably beginning to die out. It probably attracts a lot of losers, who don’t have a lot of money. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/207 "2006-07-27T18:12:13Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] Look… any of you who are angry at the Scientologists for the poor sheep who’ve subscribed to this stuff are, frankly, being a little unreasonable. “Disembodied souls in volcanoes”? Are you fucking kidding me? _GI Joe_ had more believable storylines. You can only protect the gullible up to a point, guys- and anyone who actually believes an alien warlord is going around harvesting alien spirits or whatever is probably much safer parted from their money. Are you going to lead a campaign against the _National Enquirer_? They use similar storylines to turn a profit, and they slander people too… [/QUOTE] Well, until very recently, people generally couldn’t be expected to know about CoS’s weird mythology until they were already well-invested in the organization. Besides, even if someone is gullible as you describe them, this does not mean no one should care if they are harmed by the group which is leading them on, and that no one should try to make sure that group is answerable to the law. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/208 "2006-07-27T18:23:42Z")
RANTB: The thing is, they aren’t told about Xenu until they’re running at Operating Thetan III. Which is several levels and tens of thousands of dollars in. Trust me, with the proper social organization, you can get any single person to believe just about any damn fool thing, given time and investment. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/209 "2006-07-27T18:33:44Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Really? Not here? … \ …I’ll ask that you “retract” your first claim, then we’ll move on to the others. [/QUOTE] Need I point out that acknowledging a cite has been produced, and acknowledging the logical impact that cite has on the question of safety of ultra-high dose niacin therapy, which is the real issue, are two very different things? I guess I do. After all the cites had been produced, after all the differences between the valid references and more questionable references had been discussed, after all the faulty logic inherent in the “the government would stop it if…” fallacy had been pointed out, CM states: [Quote=CM] OK. One medical expert said… which one? And why only one? Is this the one dentist out of the five surveyed that recommend sugared gum for their patients that chew gum? [/quote] Addressed to me, this conveniently confuses my statement with that of some article, which I specifically declined to claim as the source of my information (you will remember I looked it up in the PDR) and continues to question the risk. I didn’t produce that article, I didn’t read it, and I make no claims as to its credibility. I produced a more reputable source, which you aknowledge exists, but niether you nor CM have been honest enough so say, “yup, based on the PDR it looks like a risky practice.” > [@CM continues:](#): > > If it’s killing people, I think you have your way into the CoS to shut them down. This was in response to me, but it’s staw man followed by one of several phallacies that keep appearing. _ **I** _ never said it was killing people. I stated the risks just as they appeard in my source: liver damage, ulcers, etc. And why the assumed link between established risk and forcible shut down? The link between cigarattes and lung cancer hasn’t resulted in tanks rolling into Phillip Morris, has it? You never hear anyone say the risk of cigarettes must not be well established because the cigarette companies haven’t been shut down. It even sounds silly… yet apparently there are some that like that same logic in the context of CoS. It couldn’t be clearer that at this point in the conversation, \*\*CM has _not_ acknowledged the implications of “the reputable sources produced for the toxicity of niacin at high doses” on CoS prescribed ultra high dose therapy. \*\*The fact that you, and other members of the SDMB, would not only allow such a dodge, but defend it, saddens me. Fighting ignorance my arse. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/210 "2006-07-27T18:45:35Z")
I offer one data point. A few years ago, on a newsgroup, I observed a discussion much like this. A new poster appeared, claimed to know nothing about the CoS and not support it, and offered arguments much like **CM** ’s. He eventually made a mistake and started posting stuff that he’d only know if he were in the Church, and was thus exposed. **CM** ’s posts are indeed well written, if evasive, but surely the CoS would not send a teenage idiot into a place like this. They aren’t stupid. **ConstipatedMathematician** , I’ll accept that you aren’t a Scientologist, but you are doing a very good imitation of one in this thread. You might think about that. You surely know that the government is limited in investigating the CoS because it is a church (and surely you now know why it became a church.) If the Mafia wrote themselves a holy book, we’d be screwed also. BTW, I haven’t read any of the later Hubbard sf, but the stuff in the '40s wasn’t all that bad. It was at least as good, and in my opinion better, than the stuff Silverberg wrote in his hack period during the late '50s. Some of it, like Typewriter in the Sky, with a hack writer as God, was actually quite good. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/211 "2006-07-27T19:16:01Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] After all the cites had been produced, after all the differences between the valid references and more questionable references had been discussed, after all the faulty logic inherent in the “the government would stop it if…” fallacy had been pointed out, CM states:Addressed to me, this conveniently confuses my statement with that of some article, which I specifically declined to claim as the source of my information (you will remember I looked it up in the PDR) and continues to question the risk. I didn’t produce that article, I didn’t read it, and I make no claims as to its credibility. I produced a more reputable source, [/quote] In the post of CMs which you are talking about in this post, in the passage you quote, he is not addressing the issue of whether any good cites have been brought up, but rather, the issue of whether one particular cite was any good. He argued that cite was no good. I agree with him. You produced a more reputable source than that cite. I agree with you. But this: > [@Waverly](#): > > which you aknowledge exists, but niether you nor CM have been honest enough so say, “yup, based on the PDR it looks like a risky practice.” Is incorrect, as you would know if you read my last post to you. I quoted myself there as having explicitly said “Niacin is dangerous at doses lower than the ones recommended by Hubbard.” Go back and read the post: It’s right there. In that post also is a quote from CM, in which he says good cites against Niacin have been produced by myself and others. He hasn’t said anything as explicit as me as to whether he thinks Niacin is dangerous, but it seems a clear implication of his comment (that I quoted) that he does think its dangerous. He has not been explicit about this because _he is not arguing with you about whether Niacin is dangerous or not, but rather about whether particular cites about it have been good cites._ Good cites _have_ been produced, and he _has_ acknowledged this, but you and others have refused to take his original point–that your _original_ set of cites were no good, and hence, the argument between him and you continues. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/212 "2006-07-27T19:20:20Z")
Frylock: Waverly didn’t say cites weren’t offered. He said that people weren’t acknowledging them. Voyager: I’ve seen the same kind of behavior repeatedly over the years, in one group or board or forum or another. That’s why I thought he was one. He acts like one, and sometimes half-identifies as one. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/213 "2006-07-27T19:21:49Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I offer one data point. A few years ago, on a newsgroup, I observed a discussion much like this. A new poster appeared, claimed to know nothing about the CoS and not support it, and offered arguments much like **CM** ’s. He eventually made a mistake and started posting stuff that he’d only know if he were in the Church, and was thus exposed. **CM** ’s posts are indeed well written, if evasive, but surely the CoS would not send a teenage idiot into a place like this. They aren’t stupid. **ConstipatedMathematician** , I’ll accept that you aren’t a Scientologist, but you are doing a very good imitation of one in this thread. [/QUOTE] This is what I haven’t been able to understand about this thread. I can’t see how anyone could think CM is doing anything which could help support the CoS. To criticize an argument is _not_ the same thing as to support the view argued against. We all understand this, correct? Actually, please raise your hand if you disagree. Assuming for the moment we all agree, then it follows that just because CM is criticizing anti-CoS arguments, this does not imply his comments support CoS. To establish that his comments support CoS, other considerations must be adduced. Such adduction of such considerations is something I have yet to witness on this thread. Please adduce those considerations for me. If anyone here thinks something CM (or maybe myself) has said actually works to aid and abet CoS nefarities, please explain what comment(s) do so and how. To repeat: It is not sufficient to point out that the comment criticizes an anti-CoS argument. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/214 "2006-07-27T19:32:19Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I offer one data point. A few years ago, on a newsgroup, I observed a discussion much like this. A new poster appeared, claimed to know nothing about the CoS and not support it, and offered arguments much like **CM** ’s. He eventually made a mistake and started posting stuff that he’d only know if he were in the Church, and was thus exposed. **CM** ’s posts are indeed well written, if evasive, but surely the CoS would not send a teenage idiot into a place like this. They aren’t stupid. **ConstipatedMathematician** , I’ll accept that you aren’t a Scientologist, but you are doing a very good imitation of one in this thread. [/QUOTE] This is what I haven’t been able to understand about this thread. I can’t see how anyone could think CM is doing anything which could help support the CoS. To criticize an argument is _not_ the same thing as to support the view argued against. We all understand this, correct? Actually, please raise your hand if you disagree. Assuming for the moment we all agree, then it follows that just because CM is criticizing anti-CoS arguments, this does not imply his comments support CoS. To establish that his comments support CoS, other considerations must be adduced. Such adduction of such considerations is something I have yet to witness on this thread. Please adduce those considerations for me. If anyone here thinks something CM (or maybe myself) has said actually works to aid and abet CoS nefarities, please explain what comment(s) do so and how. To repeat: It is not sufficient to point out that the comment criticizes an anti-CoS argument. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/215 "2006-07-27T19:32:44Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] RANTB: The thing is, they aren’t told about Xenu until they’re running at Operating Thetan III. Which is several levels and tens of thousands of dollars in. Trust me, with the proper social organization, you can get any single person to believe just about any damn fool thing, given time and investment. [/QUOTE] That and the Xenu story is the least of their faults. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/216 "2006-07-27T19:33:44Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] Frylock: Waverly didn’t say cites weren’t offered. He said that people weren’t acknowledging them. [/QUOTE] Right, and my point was that I, at least, have acknowledged them, several times. And I argue CM acknowledged them as well. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/217 "2006-07-27T19:41:36Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] This is what I haven’t been able to understand about this thread. I can’t see how anyone could think CM is doing anything which could help support the CoS.(…) Actually, please raise your hand if you disagree. (…) [/QUOTE] OK, I’ll raise my hand. The gist of CM’s argument seems to be: 1.-Why would anyone rant about an organization that doesn’t directly affect them? 2.- Even if they would want to rant about it, it hasn’t been shut down, so it can’t have done anything flagrantly illegal Now, many of the rants I’ve read around here have those elements in them. However, most people who don’t agree with these kind of rants simply disregard them and don’t post. At worst, they’ll post one time, saying “I don’t care one way or the other”. And, if the CS is really as nefarious as its reputation, non-discussion of their activities would certainly help them. Information is power, or so they say. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/218 "2006-07-27T19:43:58Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] RANTB: The thing is, they aren’t told about Xenu until they’re running at Operating Thetan III. Which is several levels and tens of thousands of dollars in. [/QUOTE] Not to mention that CoS has waged court battles to have documents involving this story suppressed, claiming it is a trade secret. To their followers, they claim that this documents, as well as other ones further along their secret teachings, will cause insanity to someone who has not undergone the previous levels. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/219 "2006-07-27T19:47:07Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This is what I haven’t been able to understand about this thread. I can’t see how anyone could think CM is doing anything which could help support the CoS. What I said before about the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread operating to the benefit of the **CoS** applies. And it doesn’t need to be **Constipated Mathematician** ’s intent to have that effect (to the benefit of the **CoS** ). Although I have to admit that the S:NR has been going up during the past fifty or so posts. You’re right about that. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/220 "2006-07-27T19:53:39Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Good cites _have_ been produced, and he _has_ acknowledged this, but you and others have refused to take his original point–that your _original_ set of cites were no good, and hence, the argument between him and you continues. [/QUOTE] What’s with “you” and “your”? Not wanting to research and vouch for the cites of others, I went directly to a reputable source and produced one and only one niacin related cite of my own. Hopefully you can understand my frustration at having my points stemming from the facts provided in that cite answered with criticism of other cites from other people. I rightly consider this evasive. If you are agreeing, or have agreed, that the CoS niacin treatment is risky, then you have my thanks and you and I do not need to discuss it further. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579.md?page=12)