Dutch
officials have put Narconon on warning that they are under “enhanced
supervision” – and could even face closure – after spot checks
raised concerns about patient safety.1
Narconon: put on warning |
Dutch health
officials have put Narconon under six months of special monitoring
because of concerns about patient safety, warning them they could
face closure if they fail to make improvements.
The Heath Care
Inspectorate (IGZ) announced its decision in
a statement posted on its website Monday, after a series of
spot checks on Narconon's operation raised the alarm.
Two unannounced
visits early this year by the officers from the Health Care
Inspectorate (IGZ) turned up deficiences that a subsequent inspection
in May revealed had not been corrected.
So the IGZ has
imposed the following restrictions:
- Six months of supervision, which may be extended;
- a ban on admitting drug addicts and people with serious psychological and psychiatric problems;
- all new admissions must first be examined by a doctor (and Narconon has to provide documentation to that effect)
Earlier
this week, the Inspectorate posted a
copy of a letter it wrote
on May 24 to the director of Narconon Netherlands, Joanna
Kluessien, in which it
set out these restrictions.
The one-month
delay in making this decision public was because Narconon had tried
to block its publication, as the letter itself makes clear.
The supervision
ruling and the restrictions that go with it were made after surprise
inspections in February and March of this year, at the Narconon
centre in Zutphen, about 30 kilometres (20 miles) northeast of
Arnhem.
These
inspections had themselves been prompted by anonymous complaints
about Narconon which the Inspectorate had received in the previous
year.
After its first
two inspections, the IGZ drew up a list of changes it wanted made and
delivered its report to Narconon in April. The release does not make
it clear, but these appear to have involved restrictions on the kind
of work Narconon is permitted to do.
The IGZ carried
out a third surprise inspection on May 16 to see if Narconon was
respecting the terms it had imposed: and concluded that it was not.
As the
inspector's letter noted, Narconon tried to defend its position in a
response sent on May 21.
Narconon's
understanding of the restrictions placed on them in the April report
had been that they could not treat patients suffering from physical
withdrawal symptoms.
There was a disagreement over a patient admitted on
May 15 suffering from a cocaine addiction.
Narconon did not
think that someone who had recently been taking the drug qualified as
the kind of patient they were not allowed to treat because –
according to them – cocaine addiction did not involve physical
withdrawal symptoms.
The
letter also seems to suggest that Narconon has been ordered to hand
in its WTZi
certification: its
authorisation to function as a care institution offering services
covered by Dutch health insurance. Narconon had not been quick enough
complying
with the agency's instructions, said the IGZ letter.
With its accreditation pulled, it can
no longer receive health insurance payments for the services it
offers.2
The
IGZ said that it was imposing the six-month period of enhanced
surveillance in part because of the results of the May 16 inspection,
which had revealed Narconon's failure to respect the restrictions
imposed earlier.
As the IGZ press
release put it, they had doubts about the “willingness and ability”
of Narconon to comply with the terms it had set out.
The more intense
supervision, again using spot checks rather than preplanned visits,
is to ensure that this time, Narconon does as it is told.
But in its
letter to Narconon the Inspectorate made it clear that if the
situation did not improve in the coming months it would consider
recommending its closure to the Health Minister Edith Schippers.
If there are
still dangers for the health of your patients during or after the
period of six months, than the Inspectorate will consider advising
the Minister to issue an instructive measure or another corrective
action available under the Health Institutions Quality Act.
In this context,
that could very well mean closing Narconon down in the Netherlands.
Dutch
Suppressive Guy
One of those who
contacted the IGZ to express concern about Narconon's operation in
the Netherlands was someone who we'll call Dutch
Suppressive Guy.
DSG has posted
anonymously on some of the message boards and follows developments
closely.
He
has put together a Dutch-language website – and the title alone
suggests he does not mince his words: Scam
of Scientology: een portret van een waardeloze organisatie
(portrait of a worthless organisation).
In 2012 and 2013, DSG made six
complaints about Narconon to the Dutch regulatory authorities,
complete with a substantial amount of supporting material.
He has been good enough to forward them
to Infinite Complacency and among the issues he raised, were the following:
- Narconon's relationship with Scientology
As I have argued elsewhere on this
site, Narconon does not just have a relationship to Scientology, it
is entirely subordinate to the movement and used both as a source of
income and of recruits.3
- the dangerously large doses of Niacin (AKA Vitamin B3, Nicotinic Acid) used at Narconon “New Life Detoxification Program”
Narconon's detox
programme is no more than the secular version of Scientology's
Purification Rundown, developed by the movement's founder, L. Ron
Hubbard.
When Scientology
runs the Rundown, they describe it simply as a process of spiritual cleansing; when
Narconon runs the Detox however, they say it is a process that has proven therapeutic
benefits.
The dangers of taking such massive
doses of Niacin were spelled out at the 2009 fraud trial of
Scientology in Paris, where several defendants were convicted for the
illegal practice of pharmacy.
Olivier Saumon, lawyer for France's
Order of Pharmacists, plaintiffs in the case, pointed out in his
summing up that the maximum recommended dose of niacin, was 54 mg:
yet Hubbard had recommended taking between 100 and 5,000 mg a day
during the Rundown.
He noted too that Scientologists
interpreted the dangerous side effects described by the
court-appointed experts as evidence that the
process was working.
“Sometimes the symptoms created –
in particular by niacin – are seen as being beneficial rather than
considered as being one of the dangerous effects of niacin,” he
observed.
Such thinking of course, has its roots in Hubbard's insistence that “the way out is the way through” and that participants should stick with the process no matter how hard it gets.4
Such thinking of course, has its roots in Hubbard's insistence that “the way out is the way through” and that participants should stick with the process no matter how hard it gets.4
- The closure of a Narconon centre in Canada and the deaths in several US centres
DSG provided information on the closure
of Trois-Rivières Narcon in Quebec, Canada after a campaign by
former patient-turned-staff-member David Love.
He also informed them of the deaths at
Narconon Oklahoma in the United States.
And in a later communication, DSG
updated them about the sanctions handed out to Narconon Georgia for
their obstruction and deceit as they tried to fend off a wrongful
death lawsuit over the death of Patrick Desmond.
As reported by Tony Ortega at The Underground Bunker, Judge Stacey Hydrick sanctioned them for “...repeatedly and wilfully obstructed the discovery process both by failures to respond fully to legitimate discovery requests and, even more egregiously, by false responses”.5
As reported by Tony Ortega at The Underground Bunker, Judge Stacey Hydrick sanctioned them for “...repeatedly and wilfully obstructed the discovery process both by failures to respond fully to legitimate discovery requests and, even more egregiously, by false responses”.5
DSG's point this time was that this
kind of deception was not an isolated case in Scientology.
To illustrate his point he provided
them with the killer quote from Hubbard: “THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN
CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your
book in great big letters.”6
All of which leads us nicely to:
- Inflated success claims of Narconon's efficacy
DSG pointed out that while Narconon
International claimed a success rate of 75
percent, a 2008
Norwegian health ministry study had reached a different
conclusion.
It stated:
There is currently no reliable evidence for the effectiveness of Narconon as a primary or secondary drug prevention program. To the extent our extensive database search could determine, no randomized controlled trials about the program have been conducted...7
He also tipped them off to a
leaked document from Narconon International's legal affairs
officer Claudia Arcabascio, which Tony Ortega revealed earlier this
year.
In it Arcabascio wrote that Narconon
needed to drop the claim of a 70-percent success rate as “we do not
have scientific evidence of it”.
As Ortega put it in his report: “As
smoking guns go, this one is high caliber and billowing.”
In fact, Arcabascio got her figures
wrong. Narconon is claiming not 70 percent, but a 75-percent success
rate – and while it may not be on the front page, it is still
posted at their site.
It was at about this point – April
2013 – that DSG suggested they should themselves be checking in at
Tony Ortega's The Underground Bunker for regular exposés of
Narconon's activities.
By now, as he confessed to Infinite
Complacency, an
exasperated tone was creeping into his correspondence because he did
not think the Inspectorate was taking him seriously.8
What he did not know was
that the wheels were already in motion: at the time he wrote his
letter, in early April, the ISG had already made two surprise visits
to Narconon.
Narconon
on probation
From
the details provided at the
IGZ website, “enhanced
supervision” appears to be moving towards the upper range of
measures available to the agency. Here is how the IGZ explains it:
“Enhanced supervision” is a more
stringent corrective measure. The Inspectorate will impose corrective
measures if there is a higher-than-average risk of failure to provide
responsible care, provided that risk is not so great or immediate as
to preclude the health care provider taking appropriate remedial
action within a reasonable period.
The agency also
says:
The inspectorate will usually impose
enhanced supervision if an improvement plan has yielded insufficient
results or if there is little confidence that the health care
provider will be able to achieve the desired results otherwise.
This certainly
appears to be what has happened here.
It
is still not clear what aspects of Narconon's operations set off
alarm bells at the agency. I have put in two requests for
clarification to the Inspectorate but I am still waiting to hear back
from them.
The IGZ's letter
makes it clear it reserves the right to extend its surveillance and
if necessary take the matter to the Dutch Health Minister, Edith
Schippers with a view to harsher sanctions.
Narconon
is on probation then.
The
question is, can they actually clean up their act without abandoning
Hubbard's system?
---
1 This
piece is an extended version of the one published on June 26 at Tony
Ortega's site The
Underground Bunker.
2 But
in any case, this would only apply to Dutch clients and some of
their intake, perhaps even most of it, comes from abroad.
3 For
more on Narconon's role inside the Scientology movement, see both
“Narconon:
an Introduction” and “Narconon
is Casualty Contact” elsewhere on this site.
4 For
more on this, with the relevant Hubbard references, see “...for
the Pharmacists”, my account of Saumon's closing arguments in
the 2009 Paris trial, elsewhere on this site. DSG even provided the
inspectors with a link to my review
of the original judgment in the case (confirmed on appeal). His
point was that inspectors from France's health products watchdog the
AFSSAPS had testified as expert witnesses as to the dangers of the
Purification Rundown during the Paris trial.
5 See
Tony Ortega's write-up at The Underground Bunker: “SHOCKER:
Court Punishes Scientology For Acting Like…Scientology”. Of
course anyone who has been following developments at The
Underground Bunker will know that that is only the
tip of the iceberg.
6 From
Hubbard's “Technique 88” up at Dutch writer and campaigner Karin
Spaink's website. Veterans of the Scientology beat will know
that she fought a long, bruising, but ultimately successful legal
battle from the mid-90s with Scientology over her summary of the
movement's upper levels. My thanks to her for helping me with the Dutch texts cited in this article.
7 “A
brief summary and evaluation evidence base for Narconon prevention
intervention”,
a 2008 report commissioned by the Norwegian Health Directorate. The
quote is from page 16 of the document.
8 An
additional complication, says DSG, was that he was not receiving
regular updates from them as he had chosen to remain an anonymous
complainant.