# 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:** 9
**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, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/161 "2006-07-27T00:40:27Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] Um, no he didn’t. He didn’t even HAVE a point. [/quote] Really? Then his point wasn’t that the information that has been provided in this thread and in the various links has not been very well put together? Because I gathered that was his point. In fact, now that I look again, yes, that was his point. > [@](#): > > Niacin in large doses IS indeed dangerous. Lessee… CM says all he can find in the links are _mere assertions_ that niacin is dangerous, without any information backing up this claim. Your response to CM? To provide yet one more _mere assertion_ that niacin is dangerous, without any information backing up this claim. As I said before: The proper response to CM’s post is to be inspired to develop _better methodologies for showing what is wrong with the CoS._ You, however, have responded… deficiently… by simply repeating the same mistake he has tried to point out to you. > [@](#): > > The sauna treatment proposed by Scientology IS dangerous. My response to this comment is substantially identical to my previous comment. > [@](#): > > Tom Cruise doesn’t know JACKSHIT about psychiatry or psychology. I was a little puzzled by the line from CM’s post about Tom Cruise. It seems to me the natural assumption is to think Tom Cruise knows nothing about the history of psychology. But, come to think of it, however natural assumption may feel to me, it turns out I find I have no facts to adduce to back that up. I still think it’s true that TC knows nothing about the history of psychology, but I take CM’s point to heart that, if I were to actually _claim_ that he doesn’t know anything about it, I should be able to adduce facts in support of that claim. You do make the claim, but as before, you _merely assert_ it. This is not sufficient if your purpose is to persuade. In your posts, all you have succeeded in doing is showing quite demonstratively that you believe the CoS is a very evil organization. You have _failed_ to do anything which is reasonably _persuasive_ regarding this point. I agree with you: The CoS is a very evil organization. That’s the way it appears to me, just as it is the way it appears to you. I am not motivated to try to persuade others of this. It’s just not on my radar. You, I suspect, _are_ so motivated. And I am glad for people like you. But quite frankly, you’re doing a _piss poor job_ of it. It’s _almost_ enough to get me off my ass to come in and do the job for you guys. Please think about the difference between a _declaration of team membership_ and an _effective work of persuasive power_ and adjust your methods as you may see fit in light of that consideration. -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, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/162 "2006-07-27T00:44:31Z")
By the way, here’s a link about niacin. [Niacin: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002409.htm) Says side effects can include liver damage, ulcers, and rashes. Were these the dangers you were referring to, or are there others not even listed there? (Or, forgive me for asking, \*do you even know?\*\*) -FrL- \*Well, hey, it is the pit still… ---
**Author:** ![Constipated\_Mathematician](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5fc32e/32.png) [@Constipated\_Mathematician](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Constipated_Mathematician)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/163 "2006-07-27T01:07:33Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] Um, no he didn’t. He didn’t even HAVE a point. Niacin in large doses IS indeed dangerous. The sauna treatment proposed by Scientology IS dangerous. Tom Cruise doesn’t know JACKSHIT about psychiatry or psychology. Operation Snow White and Operation Freak Out DID happen. CM’s user name is apt, if you get my meaning. [/QUOTE] Wow. Actually I did have a point. Frylock hit it on the nose. > [@Frylock](#): > > The correct spirit in which others should take it is as a call spurring them on to better anti-CoS arguments. I hope they don’t take it in… the other way they might take it… if you know what I mean. :dubious: The point was that the links provided to prove the evils of the CoS were really not very good at proving to an outside reader anything. If you are pre-disposed to hate the CoS, then you won’t have problems with the articles. They say what you believe. But read my post again. Click on the links provided as “evidence”. Unnamed Dr’s, unnamed sources. Magically intercepted emails. This board usually expects more. You say Niacin in large doses IS dangerous. So are a \*lot \* of things. What’s the dose? And why is the article so vague if the medical facts exist? Did you read the article? If you did, did you read it with an open mind? If we go back to my far-fetched example of 9/11, and the idea that jewish people were somehow warned about not going to the WTC that day, and I wrote an article that has no sources, and printed above each snippet of email in the article that “proved the conspiracy” something like **:Intercepted Jewish Conspirator Email:** , wouldn’t you at least question it? Of course you would. When I say “why hasn’t the law done anything about this horrid group”, the basic answer is that they litigate the hell out of everything and everybody and bleed them dry. Really? The FBI has infiltrated the Mob (Donnie Brasco comes to mind). They couldn’t get someone inside to watch the CoS? Tap their phones? Subpoena records? Our massive, intrusive government (in which there are a thousand threads out here slamming… Bush’s use of the NSA for domestic wire tapping, for instance) wouldn’t hesitate to put these mind mushers out of business? Imagine the votes they’d win! You claim they killed some poor woman named Lisa McPherson. I never heard of her before this thread, but if the CoS did kill her, and you have the proof (it’s on the internet! See? Didn’t you read the links?), why hasn’t the CoS been held accountable? Oh, because of some technicalities. And an unlimited source of funds. And the ability to get to judges, police, and politicians. I keep forgetting. I’m sorry. The people out here complaining about the CoS sound extremely paranoid to me. I wish I had a better example than a Tom Cruise movie (irony!), but in _Vanilla Sky_, there is a scene where David Aames (T.C.) has lost it. His best friend (Brian Shelby, played by Jason Lee) comes to pick him up from the police station (I think). Anyway, it sounds like this thread. Brian Shelby - You’re insane.You’re losin’ it, man. David Aames - You have revealed yourself. Brian Shelby - Oh, yeah. I’m with them. oooooooooo! Sadly, many of you folks sound a lot like David Aames. Paranoia has overwhelmed you. If you really want to make a difference, why not camp out outside their headquarters, tackle everyone that is heading in, and help get their minds right? When the CoS is convicted of one of these incredible crimes that you have alleged as fact, get back to me. And I’ll be happy to bash the CoS. The only person to give a reasonable answer to me was **fluiddruid** , and I thanked him for that. The rest have resorted to name calling, insults, and a complete avoidance of the points I posed in my “epic” post #128. Didn’t you think I’d actually read that stuff? For the rest of you well-intentioned zealots, I’d suggest writing your congress persons, law enforcement agencies, local and national television stations (NBC Dateline comes to mind. They like outing sexual predators, imagine the fun they’d have with the CoS!) and keep up the fight. Apparently, evil lurks everywhere in the CoS, so finding it shouldn’t be so hard. I’m actually amazed at the amount of “evidence” that has been compiled, and yet no major CoS scandal. Again, what part of the story am I missing? Seems to me all you need to do is walk into the CoS building, and you’d trip over illegal activities. After reading this thread, I’m not sure who is crazier. Those that believe in Xenu, or those that are ranting about it on a message board. Finally, to answer a post by another guest: > [@Enter the Flagon](#): > > If the result of this thread is that even one person is dissuaded from joining this cult, then this thread might well be considered a storming success by an apparent majority of participants. Would you deny these people so much as a voice, or would you rather they be silenced for taking a position you disagree with? > > Likewise, a more modest goal might simply be to help educate people generally about the dangers of a religion that enourages people with treatable mental illness to shun psychiatry; it can be reasonably hoped that this thread might accomplish that mission. > > What’s not to like about that? Nothing wrong with it at all, **EtF**. I hope this thread works, but do you honestly believe someone who is teetering on the brink of joining the CoS is reading this thread? But fair enough. If one person does read it and stops, then I guess it has a purpose. And in your words, could be considered a “storming success”. I wish you all well. But beware of the short, rubber truck parked outside your house. ---
**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, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/164 "2006-07-27T01:31:42Z")
**Frylock** , all I have to do is LISTEN to Tom Cruise spout off about how methadone was founded by the Nazis and how Ritalin and Paxil are anti-psychotics and any idiot can tell you that he doesn’t know JACK SHIT! ---
**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, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/165 "2006-07-27T01:37:48Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] **Frylock** , all I have to do is LISTEN to Tom Cruise spout off about how methadone was founded by the Nazis and how Ritalin and Paxil are anti-psychotics and any idiot can tell you that he doesn’t know JACK SHIT! [/QUOTE] Right, that’s how I fell as well. But I do not have _facts_ to _adduce_ in support of my belief that Tom Cruise does not know anything about the history of Psychiatry. I don’t even know what he has ever said about the history of Psychiatry, nor do I know whether he has ever said anything about it. If he’s spoken on the subject, and was incorrect, then there’s a _fact_ to adduce. If he’s never spoken about it, then there’s another _fact_ to adduce which would lead to suspicion of his claim. I don’t know whether either of these hold, so all I’m left with is my impression that he’s crazed by his religion and thinks he knows things that he does not know. Fine. You and I have the same impression of him. And as my impression is all I have to go on, it’s what I’ll go on. But neither of us (apparently) has a _rational case_ to make against his claim. Anyway, the Tom Cruise issue is possibly the least important issue on the table. Who takes him seriously? Nobody. So there’s really nothing to debate about that. You should focus on more important issues if you want to be persuasive and make a meaningful difference. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![look\_ninjas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@look\_ninjas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/look_ninjas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/166 "2006-07-27T01:41:06Z")
**Frylock** already found the information, but since **Constipated Mathematician** apparently missed it, allow myself to quote… myself. [QUOTE=look!ninjas] [This](http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/detox.htm) has information on the vitamins used during the Purification Rundown, if you scroll down a bit. The link at the bottom, however, no longer works, and I couldn’t find the research on the Institute of Medicine’s new site. So I did a little digging. [Here](http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=295) is a big list of nutritional supplements, how much is safe to take, and what the effects can be. As the anti-Narconon site above claimed, niacin carries a risk of liver damage in high doses. So how much do you take during the Purification Rundown? [This](http://drugrehab.lronhubbard.org/page37.htm) page, (apparently very very very much pro-Scientology) states that Hubbard had experimented with dosages of niacin, ranging from 200 to 2,000 mg, as part of an experiment involving niacin and radiation. It [later](http://drugrehab.lronhubbard.org/page39.htm) says that most addicts can be cured with less than 5,000 milligrams of niacin. When you consider that the UL according to earlier sites is 50 mg… not exactly comforting. I can’t seem to find an exact citation for the amount of niacin taken during the Purification Rundown, though, which isn’t exactly a surprise. If the info was readily available on their own websites, people could just go jogging, sit in a sauna, and take the vitamins recommended without ever having to go through Narconon or the CoS. [/QUOTE] To sum up - niacin is dangerous to the liver in doses above 50 milligrams. L. Ron advocated using up to **5,000 mg** to treat addiction. Yes, Virginia, it is dangerous. And there is proof. And it’s not all from Operation Clambake. So can we please consider this one solved? Right. Drama queen moment over - we will now return you to your regularly scheduled pit thread. ---
**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, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/167 "2006-07-27T01:56:02Z")
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician] You say Niacin in large doses IS dangerous. So are a \*lot \* of things. What’s the dose? And why is the article so vague if the medical facts exist? Did you read the article? If you did, did you read it with an open mind? [/QUOTE] More misdirection. How hard is it to look it up in the Physicians Desk Reference, and find out that Niacin doses in excess of 75mg introduces a risk of flushed skin, liver damage, and stomach ulcers? Such doses will also introduce an imbalance of other B-complex vitamins (niacin is B3). Niacin has harmful interactions with some antibiotics, cholesterol medications, diabetes medications, and nicotine patches. Not hard at all. It’s easier to push the burden of proof off onto others, but it’s also a transparent, juvenile tactic. I’d expect more from a clam. ---
**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, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/168 "2006-07-27T02:02:59Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] But, come to think of it, however natural assumption may feel to me, it turns out I find I have no facts to adduce to back that up. [/QUOTE] Wrong again. Is this the only trick you people know? Tommy claims extensive knowledge of the sinister history of Psychology. It’s up to Tommy, and Tommy alone to back up that claim. It’s not up to Guin, or Frylock, or Waverly to disprove his fantastic claim. To my knowledge he hasn’t done so satisfactorily. We are on safe and logical ground to meet his claim with skepticism. ---
**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, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/169 "2006-07-27T02:17:02Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Wrong again. Is this the only trick you people know? Tommy claims extensive knowledge of the sinister history of Psychology. It’s up to Tommy, and Tommy alone to back up that claim. It’s not up to Guin, or Frylock, or Waverly to disprove his fantastic claim. To my knowledge he hasn’t done so satisfactorily. We are on safe and logical ground to meet his claim with skepticism. [/QUOTE] As I said, if Tom hasn’t said anything about the history of psychiatry, or if he has said things and they are incorrect, then we have a rational case to make against him. I don’t know, though, whether either of these is true of Tom. So, while I do think he’s nuts and wrong, I _don’t_ have a _rational case_ that shows that his claim is incorrect. I consider my own skepticism of Tom’s claims _warranted, but not properly persuasive._ To _persuade_ someone that they should think Tom’s claims false, I need to indicate, through cites of fact, that he has failed to demonstrate his claim: I need to either show he’s made incorrect statements, or failed to make any statements in defense of his claim at all. And again, as I said to Guinistasia, the Tom Cruise issue is the _least important one_ on the table because _no one takes him seriously_ and therefore _no one needs to be persuaded_ that his claim is false. My only point is a forensic one–I am pointing out that nothing _sufficient for rational persuasion_ has occured in anyone’s attempts to persuade that Tom is wrong. It’s a logical point, not a point of fact about Tom. In fact, I, like you, _don’t take him seriously in the first place_. So you don’t need to persuade me that he’s wrong. So it’s not so big a deal you haven’t said anything persuasive–its only a big deal if you think you _have_ said anything persuasive because you _haven’t_. Absent that, there’s no big deal here to be made about Tom Cruise: You need to focus on the more serious aspects of the CoS threat. I’ve tried to do this myself, today, in the GQ board, in case you hadn’t noticed. -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, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/170 "2006-07-27T02:26:27Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Wrong again. Is this the only trick you people know? Tommy claims extensive knowledge of the sinister history of Psychology. It’s up to Tommy, and Tommy alone to back up that claim. It’s not up to Guin, or Frylock, or Waverly to disprove his fantastic claim. To my knowledge he hasn’t done so satisfactorily. We are on safe and logical ground to meet his claim with skepticism. [/QUOTE] To clarify: Here’s exactly where you are wrong. I said “I don’t have facts to adduce” to show Tommy’s claim is wrong. You said that sentence is incorrect. This means you believe I do have facts to so adduce, or that I need not adduce any facts. In fact, I do need to adduce facts, facts such as “If his claim were true, he would not make false statements such as…” or “If his claim is true, it is highly likely that, somewhere sufficiently prominent, he would have made a series of true sentences about the history of psychiatry,” and so on. So I do need to adduce facts. The other option for showing I was wrong would be, then, to show that I am indeed in posession of such facts to adduce. But I assure you I am not. You know why? Because I take Tom’s claim with so little seriousness that I don’t even want to bother to go through the motions of verifying his claim. But it is precisely for this reason that, for all I know, somewhere (what, maybe on his website or something? I dunno) he’s got a diatribe about the history of psychiatry published. I haven’t checked to see whether or not this is the case, and I haven’t checked to see if its a correct or incorrect set of sentences. Conclusion: I am not in posession of the necessary facts to adduce to constitute a _persuasive case_ that Tommy’s claim is incorrect. I think I am warranted in dismissing his claim, for various reasons. But my warrant does not in itself constitute anything that _should be persuasive_ to anyone I would want to make this assertion to. Neither does anything you have said. Now, it would be an easy matter for someone to say, “No, here’s his website, here’s some news articles, here’s his freakin’ myspace page, and as you see, there’s nothing about the history of psychiatry here. I can’t think of anywhere else to look, can you? Looks like Tommy was probably talking out his ass, then.” A very easy matter. But no one bothers to do it. Why? Because it’s _freakin’ obvious the dude is crazy._ This is not a persuasive argument. It’s just an impression we all share–and I maintain its a warranted impression. So _no persuasion is needed_. We’re _on the same page_ So _other things about the CoS, that are way more important, and about which some do need to be persuaded_ need to be discussed. In the spirit of what I just said, this is the last I will be saying about Tommyboy. The issue is non-starter. It is a waste of breath talking about him in this connection. There are much better ways to attack the CoS. -FrL- ---
**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, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/171 "2006-07-27T02:55:04Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] I’ve tried to do this myself, today, in the GQ board, in case you hadn’t noticed. [/QUOTE] I hadn’t noticed, and I won’t notice. This may come as a shock, but I don’t give a flying fuck about you. I’m just wondering if you are willfully ignorant, or are trolling. If someone, anyone, tries to argue from authority instead of using a factual argument, they are half under water already. If Stephen Hawking said I should believe him because he knows all about stuff… I’d tell him to fuck off. And in _his_ case, he does demonstrably know a lot of stuff. But Stephen Hawking wouldn’t do that. He knows better. He’d form an argument. If anyone else, Tom Cruise for example, said they should be listened to because they know all about the history of psychology… well in this case, he hasn’t even demonstrated he has authority to argue from. He hasn’t even get the logical fallacy right. He’s fully under water, and so are you. So this is why I think you are an idiot for harping on the supposed relevance of the idea that you have no facts to ‘adduce’. The person making the claim is the one who needs to produce facts. To suggest otherwise is misleading, at best. Fuck off. W. ---
**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, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/172 "2006-07-27T03:01:51Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Fuck off. W. [/QUOTE] Frylock: I’m an expert in string theory! Waverly: Really? Prove it–show me some string theory. Frylock: Umm, let’s talk about something else instead. Waverly: Right. You’re not an expert in string theory. Your conclusion in this dialogue is perfectly warranted. Why is it warranted? Because you are in posession of a certain fact: When I was given an opportunity to support my claim, I failed to do, and there was no clear reason why I might have failed to do so other than that my claim was a falsehood. Waverly: Frylock’s not telilng the truth when he calls himself an expert. Guinstasia: Why do you say that? Waverly: I asked him to demonstrate his expertise, and he changed the subject. Again, this is perfectly persuasive. And it’s exactly what you would naturally say in such a situation. And you know what happens in this dialogue? You _ **adduce a fact which gives the lie to my claim.** _ You _have_ do adduce a fact like this: otherwise, you’ve got nothing with which to rationally persuade Guinistasia. Here’s what’s funny about this thread: I have taken three actions which do a good job of making a rational claim that the CoS is an evil, kooky organization, while you have taken _zero_ such actions. (You’ve tried, but failed.) Yet you’re calling me a troll and implying I’m an apologist. That’s fucked up. -FrL- ---
**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, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/173 "2006-07-27T03:08:12Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Lessee… CM says all he can find in the links are _mere assertions_ that niacin is dangerous, without any information backing up this claim. Your response to CM? To provide yet one more _mere assertion_ that niacin is dangerous, without any information backing up this claim. [/QUOTE] Do you want to retract this now, or are you gearing up for a backpedal attempt? As look!ninjas pointed out, the information about niacin can easily be found within this thread. It is not just an assertion. I provided a further cite, but that was from the 2005 PDR. Maybe you have an advanced copy of the 2007 PDR, in which it tells you to shovel niacin down your throat in 5000mg doses while checking under your bed for errant Thetans? ---
**Author:** ![Constipated\_Mathematician](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5fc32e/32.png) [@Constipated\_Mathematician](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Constipated_Mathematician)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/174 "2006-07-27T03:08:57Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] More misdirection. How hard is it to look it up in the Physicians Desk Reference, and find out that Niacin doses in excess of 75mg introduces a risk of flushed skin, liver damage, and stomach ulcers? Such doses will also introduce an imbalance of other B-complex vitamins (niacin is B3). Niacin has harmful interactions with some antibiotics, cholesterol medications, diabetes medications, and nicotine patches. Not hard at all. It’s easier to push the burden of proof off onto others, but it’s also a transparent, juvenile tactic. I’d expect more from a clam. [/QUOTE] \ where is the shaking head smilie when you need it? Let me get this straight. it is your contention that it is my responsibility as a reader to do all the legwork in ferreting out the truth in an article? How hard is it to look these things up? Apparently, not hard at all, if you know where to look. But why should I have to? Why isn’t it up to the author to provide the information that is so easily found to prove his/her point? (and where IS my copy of the Physicians Desk Reference?) Shouldn’t the author have pulled out their copy of the PDR and provide some information? Why is the burden of proof pushed on the reader instead of the author? Where is the fact-checking? Where is the journalistic rigor? What about the editor? Isn’t anyone responsible for doing the proper leg-work, or is it all up to the reader? Since you are refusing to read the article (posted by someone arguing against the CoS) I used for a reference, I’ll quote two paragraphs, word for word. > [@](#): > > \*This process supposedly eliminates toxins from the body. It includes saunas and **large doses of niacin, that some say may actually be a health risk**. > > \*\*One medical expert \*\* said, “ **There is no documentation to show that the Hubbard method of detoxification… conforms to scientific standards and medical experience.** ” And he added, “ **The risks and side effects of the treatment method have also not been evaluated in a serious way**.” \* (bolding mine). If, as you (and **Guin** ) state that it IS a health risk, why isn’t it stated emphatically in the article? The article says “ **that some say may actually be a health risk**.” Who are the _some_? 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? The evidence that was written in this thread about niacin is pretty convincing. Again from the article, “ **There is no documentation to show… conforms to scientific standards and medical experience**.” What does that mean? Does there have to be? If it’s killing people, I think you have your way into the CoS to shut them down. And if the “ **risks and side effects of the treatment method have also not been evaluated in a serious way**.”, I have to ask again, why not? I guess it is, as you say “easier to push the burden of proof off onto others.” Indeed, I’d suggest that you “are using a transparent, juvenile tactic.” Or can’t you see the contradiction of your argument? The Tom Cruise example is another one. Again, \*\*Frylock \*\* understood what I was trying to say. I don’t know anything about the history of psychiatry in this country. I admit it. Tom says he does. Most of us think he is off his rocker. But I don’t have any idea what Tom \*thinks \* he knows, yet alone how that matches up to the history of psychiatry. **waverly** , let’s look at a short discussion between you and Frylock: > [@Frylock](#): > > But, come to think of it, however natural assumption may feel to me, it turns out I find I have no facts to adduce to back that up. your answer: > [@waverly](#): > > Wrong again. Is this the only trick you people know? So, if someone asks for more documented information, they are automatically thrown into the “you people” column? This sounds like a child’s playground argument. The best you can come up with is “I know you are, but what am I?” \*\*Frylock \*\* explains very well what his point is, and where he is coming from. But you deflect it by (I’ll use your words again) pushing “the burden of proof off onto others, but it’s also a transparent, juvenile tactic.” Indeed. It’s exactly what you have continued to do. I’d expect more from a doper, not to mention a clam. :dubious: ---
**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, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/175 "2006-07-27T03:09:06Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Now, it would be an easy matter for someone to say, “No, here’s his website, here’s some news articles, here’s his freakin’ myspace page, and as you see, there’s nothing about the history of psychiatry here. I can’t think of anywhere else to look, can you? Looks like Tommy was probably talking out his ass, then.” A very easy matter. But no one bothers to do it. Why? Because it’s _freakin’ obvious the dude is crazy._ This is not a persuasive argument. It’s just an impression we all share–and I maintain its a warranted impression. So _no persuasion is needed_. We’re _on the same page_ So _other things about the CoS, that are way more important, and about which some do need to be persuaded_ need to be discussed. -FrL- [/QUOTE] For fuck’s sake, how many different cites did we give for the dangers of Scientology and their bullshit? How many cites did we point out showing that overdoses of niacin are dangerous? Yet **Full of Shit Numbers Jockey** is the reasonable one? ---
**Author:** ![Constipated\_Mathematician](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5fc32e/32.png) [@Constipated\_Mathematician](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Constipated_Mathematician)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/176 "2006-07-27T03:22:18Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] For fuck’s sake, how many different cites did we give for the dangers of Scientology and their bullshit? How many cites did we point out showing that overdoses of niacin are dangerous? Yet **Full of Shit Numbers Jockey** is the reasonable one? [/QUOTE] You know, **Guinastasia** , that just wasn’t called for. I read a thread a while ago slamming you for your excessive post count. What is it, 28 thousand or so? Some people came to your defense, others suggested you have a problem. Which is it? Personally, I don’t care if you post 100 times a day. That’s your right as a paying member. But people made some pretty harsh judgements about you in that thread if I remember correctly. And now you are reduced to name calling? How sad. I know this is the pit, but I’ve read many of your posts. I thought you were better than that. If I have the time, I’ll pull out 10 or so cites that give reasons (and “prove”) why the US government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Will that make you a believer? Because based on your logic, it should. After all, the buildings did go down, a lot of people died, and we did go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. And I’ll have the cites to “prove” it. ---
**Author:** ![Enter\_the\_Flagon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Enter\_the\_Flagon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enter_the_Flagon)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/177 "2006-07-27T03:33:57Z")
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician] I hope this thread works, but do you honestly believe someone who is teetering on the brink of joining the CoS is reading this thread? But fair enough. If one person does read it and stops, then I guess it has a purpose. [/QUOTE] Actually, CM, it’s not necessary for “someone who is teetering on the brink of joining the CoS” to read this thread in order to be dissuaded. This thread can, as I said, serve to educate people generally about the CoS. I’d say that’s a good thing. True story: years ago, I was an “emotionally vulnerable” kid, teetering on the brink of joining the CoS, being avidly pursued by cult members, after taking a free “personality test” in a fast-food restaurant. A friend of mine, older and wiser, explained to me that it was a money-making scam of a pseudoscientific “religion”, and not to be trusted. I owe him for that. Apparently, [Cecil doesn’t trust them either:](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_134.html) "In 1984 several former Scientology officials claimed Hubbard told them to divert $100 million of church funds into foreign bank accounts. The church denied any wrongdoing, but you see the pattern. Whatever may be said for Scientology as a philosophy (and there are those who say it has helped them), its record as an organization is one of unmitigated sleaze. Get mixed up with these people at your peril. –CECIL ADAMS" ---
**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, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/178 "2006-07-27T03:37:42Z")
For goodness sakes, **Constipated Mathematician** , what will satisfy you? Certainly the number of cites is not the issue, the issue is the credibility of those cites. Sure, you could quote any number of dubious individuals to ‘disprove’ the Holocaust, and so on. Yet, if our cites are so dubious as these, it should be easy for you to disprove them. I made an assertion, I backed it up; you deny that assertion, and say it is not your responsibility to back it up. That isn’t so; certainly if I make an assertion with no basis, I should provide evidence to back it up, but then if you wish to discount such evidence, we need to know your reasoning. Otherwise we are stuck in an endless loop: “You can’t even back up what you said! I don’t believe your cites. Or those. Or those. Or those. The number of cites doesn’t matter…” Niacin aside, there are numerous examples of poor medical treatment from CoS, not to mention distortion in describing psychology (“but they do _lobotomies_ so they’re evil!”). How else can you classify Lisa McPherson, who died with hundreds of insect bites on her body and lost a huge amount of body weight from neglect after being forcibly kept by CoS? How else can you classify recommending dropping prescription medications and replacing them with very high (at levels not tested for safety) doses of vitamins? Can you not see a problem with an organization that takes a “religious” stand against anti-depressants or any other drug used in psychiatry, deny them to their members, but whose own founder died with such drugs in his system? Tell us what **you** assert to be true on this topic, and back that up with evidence. We have done so; I believe it is only fair that you put your cards on the table at this point. ---
**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, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/179 "2006-07-27T03:39:25Z")
[QUOTE=Constipated Mathematician] Why is the burden of proof pushed on the reader instead of the author? [/QUOTE] You are deliberately misusing the burden of proof concept. You are smart enough to know it, and you are smart enough to conclude that I know it. So why the charade? It isn’t for your benefit or mine. Earlier in this thread, you took issue with attacks on ultra high dose niacin therapy. You stated that no compelling evidence that such doses were dangerous had been shown. It had been, but you ignored it. It’s been shown again, but you still cling to questions from some insipid article that no, I’m not going to read. Why would a study on risks and side effects from treatment on an unknown and unreliable sample of undetermined size be necessary? We know the risk threshold for niacin, and we know when it’s been exceeded. Now back to the burden of proof concept. How does the FDA work? Hmm? Do they say, “hey, your claims are good enough! Far be it from us to push the burden of proof on to you?” Um… no. The burden of proof is on the claimant. In the absence of such proof, the burden remains with the niacin pushers and e-meter readers. Even if the risk threshold for niacin were completely unknown, no reasonable person would advocate ultra high doses until safety and efficacy had been proven. Have they? You haven’t been able to do more than raise irrelevant questions about the stated dangers. What about proof of safety and efficacy? I know, I know… if the FDA, government, Xenu haven’t stepped in to stop it, then how bad can it be? I’ll say it and save you the trouble. The fact is that no government agency is omnipresent, and absence of enforcement does not equal endorsement. Not by a long shot. But you know this too. ---
**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, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579/180 "2006-07-27T03:53:35Z")
[QUOTE=Waverly] Do you want to retract this now, or are you gearing up for a backpedal attempt? As look!ninjas pointed out, the information about niacin can easily be found within this thread. It is not just an assertion. I provided a further cite, but that was from the 2005 PDR. Maybe you have an advanced copy of the 2007 PDR, in which it tells you to shovel niacin down your throat in 5000mg doses while checking under your bed for errant Thetans? [/QUOTE] You will note that Lookninja’s and your own posts come _after_ CM’s post in which he says there are not good cites about niacin linked to in this thread. Here’s what I said, which you’re asking me to retract: > [@](#): > > Lessee… CM says all he can find in the links are mere assertions that niacin is dangerous, without any information backing up this claim. Your response to CM? To provide yet one more mere assertion that niacin is dangerous, without any information backing up this claim. 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.” But I never claimed they weren’t. I characterized CM as saying in post 128 the links he had seen so far were mere assertions, and that Guinistasia’s response constituted another mere assertion. The fact that lookninja meanwhile provided better cites just as CM asked for someone to do is irrelevant to my statement quoted above. So you are right: Good cites about niacin’s danger have appeared in this thread. (I even provided one of them!) But I can’t comply with your request for a retraction, because I never claimed otherwise. I gladly affirm it, in fact! It shows CM’s intention (to get you guys to do a better job of arguing for your point) is being followed through on! -FrL- [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-cult-of-scientology-always-attack-never-defend/365579.md?page=10)