Will the FDA Cave in to Scientology?

[David Baxter PhD]

Will the FDA Cave in to Scientology?
Treatment Advocacy Center
January 7. 2011

The FDA is holding hearings Jan. 27 and 27 to decide whether to approve the use of electroshock therapy (ECT) for treatment of some severe mental illnesses.

The Church of Scientology?s Citizens Committee on Human Rights (CCHR) and anti-psychiatry poster child Peter Breggin, MD, are rallying in opposition. Those of us who live and work with severe mental illness need to rally in support. The FDA is taking public comment on the subject.

As former Treatment Advocacy Center board member DJ Jaffe put it in his Huffington Post blog, ?On one side are doctors, scientists, patients and their advocates. On the other side is a doctor who doesn't believe mental illness is real and a religion. The FDA will have to side with one or the other, and the outcome is by no means certain.?

As a doctor, scientist, patient or advocate, please speak up for FDA approval of a therapy that has proven for decades to be effective in the treatment of severe mental illnesses.

Instructions on commenting are available on the FDA website

Tips on effective advocacy can be found on our website

 

[Yuray]

Hopefully the FDA is entertaining Scientology's views as a courtesy only in the land of free speech.

Dianetics - Scientology - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com this is a long read, but the first paragraph or two is all that is required to formulate an opinion.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

See also Scientology controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

L. Ron Hubbard and starting a religion for money
Further information: Scientology as a business
While the oft-cited rumor that Hubbard made a bar bet with Robert A. Heinlein that he could start a cult is unproven, many witnesses have reported Hubbard making statements in their presence that starting a religion would be a good way to make money. These statements have led many to believe that Hubbard hid his true intentions and was motivated solely by potential financial rewards.
Editor Sam Merwin, for example, recalled a meeting: "I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money—he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult." (December 1946)[71] Writer and publisher Lloyd Arthur Eshbach reported Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." Writer Theodore Sturgeon reported that Hubbard made a similar statement at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society. Likewise, writer Sam Moskowitz reported in an affidavit that during an Eastern Science Fiction Association meeting on November 11, 1948, Hubbard had said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."[72] Milton A. Rothman also reported to his son Tony Rothman that he heard Hubbard make exactly that claim at a science fiction convention. In 1998, an A&E documentary titled "Inside Scientology" shows Lyle Stuart reporting that Hubbard stated repeatedly that to make money, "you start a religion."[73]
According to The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. Brian Ash, Harmony Books, 1977:
" . . .[Hubbard] began making statements to the effect that any writer who really wished to make money should stop writing and develop [a] religion, or devise a new psychiatric method. Harlan Ellison's version (Time Out, UK, No 332) is that Hubbard is reputed to have told [John W.] Campbell, "I'm going to invent a religion that's going to make me a fortune. I'm tired of writing for a penny a word." Sam Moskowitz, a chronicler of science fiction, has reported that he himself heard Hubbard make a similar statement, but there is no first-hand evidence."The following letter, written by L. Ron Hubbard, was discovered by the FBI during its raid on Scientology headquarters. The letter shows Hubbard turned Scientology into a "religion" for financial reasons:

(1953)

DEAR HELEN​

10 APRIL​

RE CLINIC, HASThe arrangements that have been made seem a good temporary measure. On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the place - probably not a clinic - but I am sure that it ought to be a company, independent of the HAS [the Hubbard Association of Scientologists] but fed by the HAS. We don't want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3. keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business. I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We're treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that's religion, not mental science.

Best Regards,
Ron​

 

[Yuray]

Heinlein was a favourite author of mine, along with Clark and Asimov in the long past. In the 80's I was invited to an EST meeting. I was not swayed. The opposite happened, investigation into pseudo religion/science etc. Hubbard was included. His life is a sad story, but I feel no sympathy for him...a con man. I have read the story about 'taking up the challenge" with Heinlein

Yet, some of my favoutite movie stars subscibe to Scientology. Fortunately, I can forget about this while watching the movies

 

[CarlaMarie]

I "investigated" scientology as a young person living in Boston. At the time I was a college student and had taken psycology 101 so I was watching for all the tricks people use in sales. It was Beacon Street near where they have one of their facilities. I was approached by a young woman my age and asked to take a quiz. It was one of those questioneers where they look for the vulnerable and lonely. They say they have the answer. They then ask that you go to a seminar and watch a movie and it was about cleansing the body. It all sounded like crap to me. It was all about him. The worship of him and his power. They had pictures of him everywhere. It made me mad how they solicite the vulnerable. I can't believe it has gotten as far as it has. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. The celebrities that back them up make me sick. That is my hot sports opinion!

 

[Yuray]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck.

you forgot something here "quacks like a duck"

A lot of quackery in Scientology.

 

[CarlaMarie]

:rofl:

 

[MoGlow]

I "investigated" scientology as a young person living in Boston. At the time I was a college student and had taken psycology 101 so I was watching for all the tricks people use in sales. It was Beacon Street near where they have one of their facilities. I was approached by a young woman my age and asked to take a quiz. It was one of those questioneers where they look for the vulnerable and lonely. They say they have the answer. They then ask that you go to a seminar and watch a movie and it was about cleansing the body. It all sounded like crap to me. It was all about him. The worship of him and his power. They had pictures of him everywhere. It made me mad how they solicite the vulnerable. I can't believe it has gotten as far as it has. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. The celebrities that back them up make me sick. That is my hot sports opinion!

They do solicit the vulnerable. What confuses me though is that isn't this the group that some well known, wealthy, powerful hollywood types are members. Is Tom Cruise a member? and John Travolta, or is that another church?

These powerful actors can not be vulnerable, right? Or maybe they can.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

What confuses me though is that isn't this the group that some well known, wealthy, powerful hollywood types are members. Is Tom Cruise a member? and John Travolta, or is that another church?

No, it's the same one, if you can even call it a church. More like a cult, IMO.

These powerful actors can not be vulnerable, right? Or maybe they can.

Just because they're famous doesn't mean they're intelligent. Or mentally healthy.

 

[CarlaMarie]

It seems we do the same with our politicians here in America. We get confused and think they are intelligent when they are really just beauiful, gifted actors. :rofl: (I crack myself up)

 

[MoGlow]

No, it's the same one, if you can even call it a church. More like a cult, IMO.



Just because they're famous doesn't mean they're intelligent. Or mentally healthy.

That's true. But they do not seem to be vulnerable. I mean they have power and money. I feel vulnerable because I have no achievements in life. I am uneducated and divorced and money is tight. But these actors seem to have everything. I think I would be happy if I had their money and stature in society, despite a lot of negative emotional things in my life. But maybe that is just a fantasy.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

Money has nothing to do with anything. Many entertainers struggle with anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and suicidal thoughts. Many turn to substance abuse to cope. Many end their lives, either accidentally or intentionally.

 

[Kathy R]

Scientology' successes strike me the same way most of the Evangelical religions and cults keep going. They do solicit the vulnerable and the monied people without the time or want to do the research first. The results are only that the top people want to be rich and the Joe Blows beneath them are their sources of money. I was raised in a conventional religion and even now I practice my faith in my own life and I do not advertise it. Be wary of any so called religion/cults that claim that they are the true faith to follow because they are the biggest fakes around and Scientology heads the list. Just look at their main belief. They are immortal alien spiritual beings trapped in a human body and are called Thetan's. That should tell the government that these people are full of crap. What ever happened to keeping state and religion separate.