The
director of Narconon in the Netherlands responded to our story about
the Dutch authorities' tighter supervision of her operation,
providing a unique perspective on the affair.
"Fatty residues? Seriously?" |
Last
month's story
about the Dutch Health Inspectorate's decision to put Narconon in the
Netherlands under enhanced supervision produced an interesting
response.
The story struck a chord, generating a debate
that was still going strong more than a week after the story was
posted – not least because one of the key players chose to get
involved.
It
was not immediately clear who the poster was, but the first
response
from “Joclusjo” made it clear she had inside knowledge of what
was going on at Narconon.
She denied any suggestion there had been
insurance fraud at Narconon – not an issue that actually appeared
in the article, but one that has been raised in the Dutch press.
And she denounced in fairly immoderate terms
those who had filed anonymous complaints about Narconon with the
Dutch Health Inspectorate (IGZ), comparing them to wartime
collaborators with the Nazis. A few lines give the flavour:
The Dutch
authorities respond to anonymous tips from poor pathetic creeps who
would have been fantastic collaborators in another era. Go ahead you
poor pathetic creeps, carry on from the woodwork you have hidden
yourselves in. have fun...
Keep on hating
you poor pathetic sods. Makes us more determined to carry on. You
creepy little worms. Keep on going. Nazi babes. Keep on going. Lots
of love from Narconon.1
It quickly became clear that this was Joanna
Kluessien, who manages the Narconon operation at Zutphen in the
Netherlands: the one put on warning by the Dutch health inspectors.
Kluessien
agreed to ease up on the abuse and debate the issues with the critics
– and kudos to her for doing so.2
It was hardly a meeting of minds, as you might
expect, but for more than a week, she maintained contact and fought
her corner.
Kluessien
insisted that “there are many people walking around
off drugs living great lives after having been in Narconon...”.3
In response to challenges to Narconon's
scientific credibility however, Kluessien offered the testimony of
graduates – success stories from the converted – showing a basic
misunderstanding of evidence-based scientific research.
And
she was still too willing to dismiss critics with ad
hominen attacks that did not
address the issues. (As Hubbard put it: “ALWAYS
ATTACK in a press release. Never Defend or Deny.”)4
But
Kluessien's approach to the exchange was not entirely negative: along
the way, she provided some valuable insights into Narconon's
situation in the Netherlands.
Kluessien's
position
She confirmed,
for example the practical effect of the supervision order. “We
can only take in people who have been off drugs for 1-2 weeks now,”
she wrote.5
And
she insisted that it had been her decision to come off WTZi
certification,
which allows it to offer services covered by Dutch health insurance.
It was not something the Inspectorate had forced her to do, she said
– even if the
letter to her that they posted on their website gives that
impression.6
But in any case,
she added: “We
have not received one cent from the insurance companies... No
insurance claims with insurance companies were made... No
insurance claims with insurance companies were made. ”7
Confronted with the deaths at Narconon centres
around the world Kluessien herself raised the issue of the death of a
woman at their centre in 2007.
“We had
one person dying here too. Because of drugs. It is a nightmare which
still haunts me every day. As I know the deaths in the other
Narconons haunt the staff there every day.”8
The death at her centre had not been
during the detoxification programme, which she made clear had never
presented any problems.
“We have been here for 30 years and
never had anything serious happening during the sauna program,” she
wrote.9
She was asked too, about the death of
Jocelyne Dorfmann, who died in 1984 at a French Narconon centre.
This case is covered in detail
elsewhere
on this site, but briefly, Dorfmann arrived at the Narconon
centre hoping to be able to come off the medication she was taking
for her epilepsy. She died because the non-medically qualified staff
mistook her epileptic fits for withdrawal symptoms.10
“Apparently she died of epileptic
fits as a result of ending her medication without consulting a
medical doctor,” Kluessien responded.
“Standard procedure is that people
before starting the Purif have to receive a medical check from a
qualified doctor.”
If the staff had followed policy, in
place at least since the '90s, then Dorfmann would have not have been
allowed to come off her medication, she said – and she probably
would not have had permission to do the programme.
“The staff members failed to use
common sense and call a doctor when she had clearly epileptic fits,”
said Kluessien.11
That much is certainly true.
But the idea that Scientologists would
not try to cure epilepsy is a curious one. Hubbard, after all, was
convinced his system could handle the condition, as covered elsewhere
on this site.12
Kluessien, in any case, was quite clear
on this point.
“On epilepsy, if people have it,
they should continue to take their medication and follow
any other instructions given by the doctor.”13
Hard sell
Kluessien said that she had devoted 30 years of
her life to Narconon.
“I heard about
Narconon after I became a Scientologist. I was involved in the
opening in 1981 and I was asked get involved in 1983.” She had been
working there ever since, she added.
“I have been a
Scientologist for 40 years,” she wrote. “I did a personality test
and did a communication course, which helped massively, totally
restored my relationship with my father and I decided to continue.”14
She was reluctant
to discuss how far she had progressed in Scientology, but according
to information from Scientology publications collected
at Kristi Wachter's Truth
About Scientology
website, she has reached
the advanced levels.
In
the the early to mid-2000s Kluessien spent time on
Freewinds, the Scientology-owned cruise ship reserved for
those taking the Operating Thetan levels, the most advanced courses
available.
At
her “I am a Scientologist” webpage, Kluessien's favourite
quote
is from Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's The
Way to Happiness:
The way to
happiness does not include murdering your friends, your family or
yourself being murdered.15
During the exchanges with the Infinite
Complacency regulars, Kluessien was asked about the hard sell of
Narconon services. In response, she offered Scientology's
redefinition of the term.
“The Scientology definition of hard
sell is caring for the person in front of you.
“Informing the person about the
program, really helping him see he should do something about his
addiction and helping him find the money. Because, unfortunately, we
need money to survive.”16
In Scientology terms this is perfectly
true. Here is what Hubbard wrote on the subject:
Hard Sell means insistence that
people buy. It means caring about the person and not being reasonable
about stops or barriers but caring enough to get him through the
stops or barriers to get the service that's going to rehabilitate
him.17
Kluessien continued: “One person who
desperately wanted to come here really had no money, then I gave some
ideas and the next day the money problem was handled thanks to a
donation.
“In the course you learn to get the
person to want to do something about his problem and help him solve
the money problem, which can be a barrier to doing the program.”18
Which course this is, is explained in a
2010
interview with Kluessien
posted at the Narconon International website.
“Joanna
is a staff member at Narconon in Holland and witnesses miracles every
day,” says the accompanying text.
In the interview
itself, Kluessien explains that she is
fresh off a registrar's course on how to sell the Narconon programme.
There she learned not just how to handle Dutch addicts – but how to
reassure the parents of addicts, she says.
“I will tell them that with the Narconon
programme that they will get their child back, the child who he was
before he started taking drugs and that is what the Narconon
programme does...,” she says.
“One mother even said to me, 'You know
Joanna, he is not only like he was before, he is even nicer',...”
She goes on to say: “Other programmes, with
all due respect they don't get the residues out of the body and they
don't make the people face up to their own responsibility for things
and face up to their cravings – and that is what the Narconon
programme does.” 19
But this business of residues is one of the
most controversial aspects of Narconon's detoxification programme and
deserves a closer look.
“Sloppy
and unscientific”
Here is how the Narconon Europe website makes
its case:
On the
Narconon New Life Detoxification Program, drug residues stored in the
body's fatty tissues are flushed out. This is vital as these stored
residual drugs have been known to be involved in triggering drug
cravings for years after someone has stopped using drugs.
This is a summary of Hubbard's theory, as set
out in Clear Body, Clear Mind, the book in which he explained
his Detox programme (the secular version of Scientology's
Purification Rundown).
“The most likely place for a toxic substance
to lock up is in the fatty tissue,” he wrote.20
Early tests of his programme had shown that all
kinds of substances were retained in body fat, he continued.
The list
included not only LSD, heroin, cocaine, marijuana and “angel dust,”
but many other biochemical substances - medicinal and pharmaceutical
drugs such as aspirin and codeine, as well as commercial and
agricultural and industrial chemicals.21
His detoxification pprogramme flushed these
toxins out of the system, said Hubbard.
According to the critics however, this shows a
complete ignorance of the relevant science.
Dave Touretzky, at the Narconon
Exposed website he developed with
Chris Owen, devotes
a section to demolishing the pseudo-science
behind these claims. Here are just a few of the highlights.
Hubbard had claimed there was no such thing as
a fat cell, wrote Touretzky.22
“In fact, there is. The body stores fat
molecules in stored in 'brown cells'; where there are large numbers
of such cells, that is referred to as 'fatty tissue'.”
Hubbard was right to say some toxins were
stored in fatty tissue for significant periods, including some drugs,
Touretzky wrote, “...but they do not remain in the body for
anything like as long as Hubbard claimed.”
Touretzky
provided a table listing how long different drugs stay in the body.
Traces of cocaine might remain for up to four days;
Ectstasy for up to four days also; LSD, up to two.
“This differs
radically from Hubbard's contention that such substances can be
retained in the body for years or even decades,” noted Touretzky.23
Another
non-starter was Hubbard's idea that non-fat-soluble drugs and toxins
can also be stored in and released from fatty tissues, Touretzky
argued:
“The
most glaring example is of alcohol, a water-soluble drug which is
flushed out of the body in a matter of hours (as anyone who has done
a bar crawl will have discovered when their bladder begins to
complain)...
“This
is a perfect example of Hubbard's sloppy and unscientific research...
.”
Touretzky,
never one to mince his words, is often quite scathing in his analysis
of Hubbard's system.
A
Scientologist might be inclined to dismiss Touretzky's arguments
simply because he is a veteran critic of the movement. They might
regard him as one of those Suppressives, those antisocial
personalities Hubbard warned them about:
The antisocial
personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and
attacks any constructive or betterment group.
This type of
personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against
constructive or helpful actions or activities.24
But
a number of specialists in the field of toxicology, experts with no
particular interest in Scientology, also take a dim view of the
science behind Hubbard's Detox/Purification Rundown.
“Useless
and fraudulent”
Maryland
toxicologist Ronald Gots gave his view of the Rundown to the St.
Petersburg Times in a 1999 article.
“I just found
that it was useless," he told the Florida paper. "Useless
and fraudulent, considering the claims that were made. And very
expensive.”
In particular, he
said, the doses of niacin taken during the programme were so high as
to be “potentially toxic”.
Gots, of the
International Center for Toxicology and Medicine in Rockville,
Maryland, had been asked by the local authorities to assess the
Purification Rundown, which firefighters were using. He was not
impressed.
“I think it's
scientifically fallacious to say that you can remove toxic substances
from the body this way,” Gots told the Times
“Materials
stored in fat are not going to be removed in the sweat. It makes no
sense.”25
In 2007,
California-based forensic psychologist and toxicology expert Stephen
M. Pittel was equally scathing.
In comments to
John DeScio of the New York Press, he dismissed the
Purification Rundown as “as a total myth”.
The Press
was investigating the high-profile New York Rescue Workers’
Detoxification Project, where some firefighters were singing its
praises.
But Pittel told
reporter DeSio that Hubbard's
idea toxins could be stored indefinitely in fatty tissue was false.
Detoxification
is a natural process, he said: “There's nothing that does anything
to hasten the detoxification process.”26
And
as the years roll by, the science does not appear to have changed.
Fourteen
years on from Gots' comments to the St Petersburg Times,
Professor Cor de Jong, a Dutch specialist in addiction issues,
echoed his reservations about the high doses of niacin taken during
the Rundown.
You would not
even give out these levels of niacin in veterinary medicine de Jong
told Trouw newspaper. This was not treatment, it was abuse, he
said.
De Jong was
interviewed by the Dutch daily after the news broke about the
supervision order against Narconon.
In 2007, he said,
four people had been hospitalised in the United States with liver and
heart problems after having overdosed on niacin. They had been taking
amounts similar to that prescribed for the Narconon programme he
argued. (See the following extended footnote for more details.)27
Narconon's
clients were also at risk because trained medical staff were not on
hand around the clock, he said. The doctor who had agreed to be on
call for the centre should have his licence withdrawn, he added.
Denouncing
Narconon for preying both on vulnerable addicts and the families
desperate to help them, De Jong called on the health inspectorate to
close them down.
On the
other hand...
Kluissien,
in her comments here, was dismissive of De Jong, with whom she has
clearly crossed swords before. About the nicest thing she could think
to call him was “the nutty professor”.28
She was not concerned about the high
doses of Niacin and any claims that there might be healths risks
because she had never seen it do any harm, she wrote.
“In the 30 years I have done this
work I have never seen anyone coming out of the sauna program looking
anything less than with good skin, bright eyes, much more alert,
spontaneous, cheeky. Really nice.
“Some
people left before the sauna program was finished. But the people who
completed all looked great.”29
Narconon could not afford to have a doctor on
site all the time, she wrote.30
But she and the rest of the Narconon team had a very good working
arrangement with their two doctors.
“A doctor can be on site and still be too
late to save anyone and this is the type of story I have heard quite
a few times in this country. We are very alert to any non-optimum
signals and get someone to a doctor very quickly.”31
But
if several specialists, over the years, have criticised the
unscientific basis of Hubbard's detox programme, there are
dissenters.32
Narconon
has its own experts to call on.
Dr
David Root, an occupational medicine specialist, wrote the
introduction to recent editions of Hubbard's Clear Body,
Clear Mind.
He
has run Hubbard's Detox programme in several places in the United
States, helping to set up the controversial New York clinic running
the detoxification programme in the wake of the September 11, 2001
attacks – the one criticised by Pittel above.
He
has also been involved in similar initiatives in Slovenia and Russia.
Root
swears by Hubbard's system and at the 2009 Paris trial of Scientology
testified at length as to its efficacy.33
Asked about the
issue of niacin, he told the court: “Niacin causes an intense red
flushing of the skin. In the general population, this flushing is
felt to be a negative aspect of the use of niacin.
“But the programme uses that effect because the flushing produces sweating, which is the main mechanism by which the body eliminates toxins.”
“But the programme uses that effect because the flushing produces sweating, which is the main mechanism by which the body eliminates toxins.”
During the trial,
he was asked by the lawyer for France's Order of Pharmacists,
Olivier Saumon, about contra-indications for the consumption of
niacin.
Certainly they
exist, he said, but in his experience it was very unusual.
It
was important to understand, he said, that there were two forms in
which niacin could be taken: the version they used on their programme
was crystal-form rapid-acting niacin, he said.
“The other form is slow-release niacin and that is the form that has been shown to be occasionally toxic to the liver.
“There are no more than one or two cases in the world literature that show this problem in fast-acting niacin…”34
“The other form is slow-release niacin and that is the form that has been shown to be occasionally toxic to the liver.
“There are no more than one or two cases in the world literature that show this problem in fast-acting niacin…”34
And
he insisted: while the flushing and the itching sensations niacin
sometimes produced might be uncomfortable, it did not of itself
constitute a medical problem.
Pressed
by Saumon, Root did concede that not all his professional colleagues
agreed with him. (Saumon mentioned Stephen Pittel, cited above, by
name.)
Infinite
Complacency
approached Dr. Bertil de Klyn,
one of two Dutch doctors working with Narconon there, for a response
to the controversy over the treatment.
“I
have seen clients from Narconon for nearly 30 years,” he replied.
“I was critical
about it in the beginning, but we always checked liver and kidney
functions in the blood before and during the program and it proved to
be safe,” he replied.
“Clients felt
much better after the sauna detox. Blood pressure was also checked
daily. There were no casualties by the sauna detoxification.”35
Articles of
faith
Narconon has of
course, been at pains to present itself as scientifically credible.
Last month,
Narconon International released a 10-page booklet, The
Narconon Program: 40 years of Evidence of Recovery,
just chock-full of facts and figures and colourful bar charts.
Then
one former Scientologist, Patty Moher, stepped forward to say that
the figures from one of the studies cited had been completely
fabricated.
“I
made them all up. Personally,” she posted at Reaching for
the Tipping Point, a message
board dedicated to charting Narconon's abuses.
“I
knew the numbers were awful, I knew they wanted to show great
results. Being a Scio I thought oh well, greatest good and all that
and so just pulled those numbers right out of my ass.
“Consider this my confession. I personally fudged all the numbers because I knew it's what they wanted. There was no study. I just made them up.”36
“Consider this my confession. I personally fudged all the numbers because I knew it's what they wanted. There was no study. I just made them up.”36
That
does rather make you wonder about the other studies.37
For a
Scientologist however, what the experts say is neither here nor
there: because for a Scientologist,
the scientific credibility of the Rundown, of Narconon, is an article
of faith.
Scientologists
are taught – they have to believe – that Hubbard was infallible.
So the Rundown, the Detoxification Programme, works: end of story.
Which
is why, in the end, the debate over Narconon could only go so far.
---
4 From
“Handling Hostile Contacts/Dead Agenting”, published May 30,
1974 as part of a series on public relations.
6 I
ran this by two Dutch speakers, including writer
Karin Spaink, the original Dutch Suppressive Woman. Her name
will be familiar to veterans of this beat: her work confronting
Scientology's excesses has already earned her a place in the
Suppressive Hall of Fame. (But that's a story for another day.)
Spaink
and my other source Dutch Suppressive Guy, one of those who filed
the complaints against Narconon (see the
original story), confirmed that the
health inspectorate's letter to her
posted on their site gives the impression that they had instructed
her withdraw from the insurance scheme. Spaink however did add:
“That sounds weird. Why should a disputed institute
be charged with pulling its certification itself, instead of the IGZ
pulling it?” The Inspectorate itself, I should say, has so far
been less than helpful with its responses to my questions.
10 “A
Death in France”, on the death of Jocelynne Dorfmann,
published on this site in April, is the first in the “Ignoring
Epilepsy” series, a sub-section of the series on Narconon.
12 See
“Hubbard
on Epilepsy” elsewhere on this site. I'll be returning to this
issue in a future post.
14 This
information is from an email exchange.
15 In
the Successes
in Scientology
part of the same webpage, she has posted a story from a Croatian
addict treated at Narconon's Dutch operation who explains how he
wants to set up a similar centre back home. According
to the Narconon
International website they do have an operation in Croatia, but
it is not clear if this former graduate was involved in setting it
up.
17 Hubbard
Communications Office Policy Letter Sept. 26, 1979 thanks to John
Peeler for tracking that one down. See also the official Scientology
definition of hard sell: 1. means insistence people buy. (HCO PL 4
Mar 65 II) 2. caring about the person, not being reasonable with
stops and barriers and getting him fully paid up and taking the
service (LRH ED 159R-1 INT) Modern Management Technology Defined.
This issue came up
more than once during the 2009 fraud trial of Scientogy in Paris. In
court, Judge Sophie-Hélène Château dismissed as “beyond
fanciful” (plus que fantaisiste) attempts by the defendants
to translate the English phrase “hard sell” as “taking care of
people” and the eventual judgment reflected that scepticism. See
“Reviewing
the Judgment” elsewhere on this site.
19 In
the interview, Kluessien also appears to reject the idea put forward
by other drug treatment programmes that the way someone was brought
up might be a contributory factor to their having become an addict.
“No – the kid is a drug addict because the
kid decided to become a drug addict,” she tells her interviewer.
“The parents never gave him the drugs.
“And that is really what the Narconon
programme does: it gets the residues out of the body and makes the
kid face up to life and face up to the problems that he has and
communicate about the bad things he did so he won't do them again.”
20 Clear
Body, Clear Mind, New Era Publications, p9 of my 2002 edition.
21 Op.
cit., page 18 of my edition.
22 “Toxic
substances tend to lock up mainly, but not exclusively, in
the fat tissue of body. (There is no such thing as a fat cell.)”
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, February 6, 1978. “The
Purification Rundown Replaces the Sweat Program”. That first
sentence appears at the start of Part One, Chapter Seven, of my
edition of Clear Body, Clear Mind: – but not the following
sentence, in parentheses. Does anyone have an earlier edition?
23 Here's the official account from the official Scientology website's
account of the Purification
Rundown:
In
the 1970s, while working with cases that had previously used drugs,
Mr. Hubbard’s research revealed that LSD stays in the system for
years after ingestion, lodging in the fatty tissues of the body.
Months or even years later, a person can re-experience a
“trip” as LSD residues dislodge from the fatty tissue. (My
emphasis)
Touretzky
gives his source for the table on how long drugs stay in the body as
Drugtestsuccess.com.
Other websites give slightly different figures, but his basic point
remains valid.
24 From
Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p116 of my edition, but
you can also find the relevant passage at this
Scientology website.
25 “Store
selling Scientology vitamin regimen raises concerns” by Geoff
Dougherty, St. Petersburg Times, March 28, 1999. The
newspaper noted that several families had filed lawsuits over the
deaths of people doing the Purification Rundown. They included the
parents of 25-year-old Christopher Arbuckle, of Portland Oregon, who
died of liver failure. “His parents settled out of court for an
undisclosed amount and agreed not to discuss the case”, the Times
reported.
26 “The
Rundown on Scientology's Purification Rundown”, by John DeSio,
New York Press, June 6, 2007.
27 From
the June 29, 2013 online edition of Trouw:
“Scientologykliniek
mishandelt cliënt” (Scientology Clinic mistreats Client).
De Jong's comments appear to be a reference to
a 2007 paper in the Annals of Emergency Medicine,
“Toxicity
From the Use of Niacin to Beat Urine Drug Screening”, by
medical doctors Manoj K. Mittal, Todd Florin, Jeanmarie Perrone,
João H. Delgado, Kevin C. Osterhoudt. (DeScio cites the same study
in his excellent New York Press
investigation, cited above.)
All four patients admitted had taken high
doses of niacin in the mistaken belief that it would flush out
traces of drugs from their bodies so they could beat urine drug
tests.
Two of the patients were adults in their early
20s: one suffered a “flushing and burning sensation”; the other
an itchy rash. The other two patients had severe, “life-threatening”
reactions however, the paper noted:
A 14-year-old boy was admitting after having
taken 5,500 mg of time-released niacin tablets (11 x 500mg)
suffering “nausea, vomiting, upper abdominal pain, palpitations,
and dizziness for about 6 hours....
“He felt dizzy when getting up from bed and
when trying to walk.”
And a 17-year-old girl was admitted after
having taken 2,500 mg (five 500-mg tablets) of niacin.
She was admitted having suffered “nausea,
vomiting, and dizziness for 2 to 3 hours and Unresponsiveness for a
few minutes before emergency medical services were called.”
Putting that in context, Hubbard recommended a
daily dose of 100 mg of niacin daily to begin with on the
Purification Rundown. “It is then increased
gradiently to as high as 5000 mg,” he added. (Hubbard
Communications Office Bulletin, February 6, 1978. “The
Purification Rundown Replaces the Sweat Program”)
In their discussion of the cases, the doctors
noted: “Niacin is associated with gastrointestinal upset,
including vomiting, headache, lightheadedness, and hypotension. In
high doses, it has been reported to cause liver injury that usually
resolves spontaneously once the drug is withdrawn.
“Rarely, however,
niacin can cause acute liver failure, warranting liver transplant.”
32 For
more expert criticism of Narconon's detox programme, see Narconon:
an Introduction, elsewhere at this site.
33 See
elsewhere at this website: “A
Doctor backs the Rundown”. During his testimony Dr Root was at
pains to underline that he was not a Scientologist, but an elder of
the Presbyterian Church.
34 I
asked Kluessien if she could tell me if, like Root, they use the
rapid-acting version of niacin on the Dutch Narconon programme, but
she has not got back to me on this point.
35 From
an email exchange with Dr. de Klyn,
who runs a holistic
medicine centre in the Netherlands.
I asked Kluessien to put the same question I
had put to him to the other doctor they use, as I have not yet
identified him, but I have not heard back.
36 You
can find Moher's comments at Reaching for the Tipping Point here;
see also Tony Ortega's May 27 write-up at The UnderGround Bunker:
“Scientology
Drug Rehab Network goes on the Offensive”. Thanks to Jens
Tingleff for drawing my attention to this.
37 Even
if they were true and accurate however, a glance at the
booklet summarising the studies, raises further problems.
The numbers
involved in these studies were sometimes so low – 10, 11, and 13 –
as to raise questions about how significant the results could be;
several had no control group.
For a critique of the booklet, see Luke
Catton's website, Have
You Told All? Catton is another disillusioned Narconon
executive turned whistleblower who recently published a book about
his experiences.
That was a good read. It is worth spelling out what an individual narCONon programme does and does not do.
ReplyDeleteI do seem to remember that Kluessien stated that the Dutch narCONon website specifically mentions that epilepsy sufferers should continue to take medication (i.e. in addition to stating it in comments on this blog) and that you verified that.
It would be interesting to find out if that was always on their website or if it's a recent addition (but I'm too lazy to go figure that out myself).
She didn't provide the actual link and I never made time to track it down. But the quote was worth highlighting. I'll have more on Scientology's attitude to epilepsy in a forthcoming post.
ReplyDeleteNice to see the John DeSio exposé on the Purification Rundown cited in this article (reference no. 26). A few years back the NYPress website took that epic piece offline. So I recovered a copy of it from the wayback machine, published it to my Scribd account for educational purposes and fired off a harpoon to the outlet expressing my disappoint and asking for official reprint permission. I initially got a somewhat confused response back that they weren't sure what happened regarding why that article got removed. Nearly a year later, following a few more email exchanges, they finally resurrected it under a new URL.
ReplyDeleteI noticed there was a link that was no longer valid and I think I stumbled on your Scribd version when looking for another copy. Good to see it back where it belongs at the NYPress site because it is a good piece that deserves to be widely read.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonny, thanks for another excellent article. It may be useful to add a clarification regarding your comment on the insurance fraud.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably true that Joanna did not make regular insurance claims with commercial health insurers. However, there is also a collective insurance scheme which is known as Personal Budget (PGB) or by the name of the law (AWBZ or Law Special Health Costs). Although the insurance scheme is financed by government money, it is executed by the commercial health insurers. Fraud related to PGB/AWBZ is very common and of significant political concern. The insurance fraud that Narconon is being accused of, relates to this scheme as well.
Another comment I'd like to make is that I believe Joanna when she states she voluntarily pulled out of the WTZi. This registration requires public reporting about finances and the quality control system. Narconon would have had to publish these accounts on June 1st.
From her own comments, I get the impression that Joanna didn't have a clue about these requirements until the Health Inspectors pointed them out to her. I suppose she panicked a bit and was very relieved indeed when it turned out that she could escape this closer scrutiny by pulling out of the WTZi registration.
If I am correct, it surely gave the Inspectorate a very dim view of the degree with which Narconon is professionally managed. When Joanna failed to actually put in the required paperwork, the Inspectorate seems to have reacted quite strongly and commanded Joanna to follow up on the agreements that were made.
The fact that the WTZi registration is voluntary, by the way, is one of the holes in the Dutch legislative framework which is currently being plugged.
Thanks for that clarification SoS: I didn't want to get to deep into the insurance issue precisely because of the complexities you have just outlined, but I am inclined to agree from what Joanna Kluessien told us -- and from what I could gather from the Dutch press reports -- that it was a case of more cock-up than conspiracy. Of course, if the health inspectorate had been as forthcoming as Narconon we might have a clearer picture.
ReplyDeleteOn the WWP thread, a woman emerged with the username of Chriystall7. A triggerhappy moderator moved her posts to a derail thread, so I suggested this thread to be able to have an honest debate.
ReplyDeleteI asked her a question on WWP, so I hope she'll be giving a response here.
The post I made on WWP is:
Chriystall7, as far as people being free to do the program: in my view Narconon has every right to help people in need, as long as they do so within legal boundaries. Would that be something we can both agree on? My concern is that there are several areas in which Narconon is skirting these boundaries. I could be wrong (in fact, I have been proven wrong on one account) but I feel it's important that Narconon takes such concerns serious.
Anyways, one thing I'm curious about (and I hope you'll be willing to give me an honest answer) is a reponse to the rumors that somebody died in Narconon Netherlands in 2006. As far as I am concerned this is not bad in itself - I am certain that every drug rehab has to deal with somebody dying in their centre every once in a while. But unless Narconon explains what happened if and when such incidents occur, I'm afraid people like myself will continue to assume Narconon is not safe.
As an additional comment: Chriystall7, I suppose we may both be quite dogmatic in our opinions (I know I am), but if you read the post by Jonny and the comments here, I hope you'll see that the Narconon opponents posting here at least have the intellectual honesty to be looking for the truth.