From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Organization: Traveller
	<BrMC81.3pE@ssr.com> <ROCKWELL.92Jul19163919@socrates.umd.edu>
	<Bro1Dv.EtB@ssr.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:24:06 GMT

Scott Ballantyne:
      Second off, the statistics that I read, in an earlier post of sdb's,
      were: 
       "In one recent study of almost 25,000 treatments, a
        complication rate of 1 per 1300 to 1400 treatments was found."

      That's not 0.07% of patients, that's 0.077% of treatments.  Some
      of these people are getting a hundred of these treatements, or
      more.  [Scott, did you even bother reading your own posts?]

   Ah yes, pardon me, that's 0.07% of treatments (not 0.077% of
   treatments). And yes I do read my own posts, from which I realize
   that the average series of treatments is 12, not 100. This barely
   affects my point.

Huh?  What do you get when you divide 100 by 1300?  I get 0.0769231
If I wanted to round that off, I'd say it's closer to 0.8 than to 0.7
How do you figure it, Scott?

Also, if the distinction between 0.077% and 0.07% is significant, why is
the distinction between 0.077% and 0.92% insignificant?  I mean, we're
talking major back injuries here, aren't we?  And that's an order of
magnitude difference, isn't it?

         For the Purification Rundown, ...  There is some risk
         involved ...  side effects ... (including death).

      First off, who died?  First time I heard about this.  ...

   No, Raul - First off, 'what benefits'.  ...

I asked who died.  Come on, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with
names?  Figure that the average life span of a human is slightly over
83 years [it's not, but this makes the numbers come out nice].  That
comes out about a thousand months.  Since the Purif takes about a
month, strict statistics would say that one in a thousand people who
start the rundown die before they complete it.  Now, either [a] way
less than a thousand people have completed the rundown, or [b] there
are people who died while taking it, so you can trot this out as a
horrible risk, or [c] there's a statistical anomoly here.

I kinda doubt [a] is true, but correct me if you have facts to the
contrary.  If [b] is true, you're missing your cues.  If [c] is true
then there's something going on here, but I wouldn't call the
purification rundown a risk because of it -- more the opposite.

Speaking of risks, though, another interesting sort of study, on the
subject of ECT and on the subject of the Purification Rundown, might
be to find out what the life expectancy of a person is who underwent
either program.  [Of course, this kind of study is hard to conduct
until you have a group of people who participated in such a study and
who have since all died...  Still, it should eventually be possible to
gather up such statistics and publish them.]


   I notice ... you still omit a description ...  for the benefits of
   the Purification Rundown... . The point is that with a procedure
   which has not demonstarted any benefits whatsoever, the smallest
   risk is a ridiculous one to assume.

Who died?  If there's no risk, that is indeed a benefit.


   [More ranting and raving deleted]

Awwhh... but I liked my Count Floyd imitation...  *sigh*  Some people
just don't appreciate Floyd.


   ...  there have been 5 or more ... references and a... report
   establishing the ... safety of ECT.  You have been unable to offer
   anything of similar weight for the Purification Rundown, ... and
   ... it would appear that you cannot.

Yes.  I do not have 5 or more psychiatric reports nor an
interdisciplinary panel report establishing the efficiacy and safety
of the Purification Rundown.  And, seeing as I am currently working
full time as a computer programmer and systems analyst, I doubt that
I'll be doing much to see that these occur.  

Also, as Scientology is entirely supported by private funds [while
Psychiatry is funded at the multi-billion-dollar level by the federal
government] I don't think you're gonna see such activities in the near
future.  Unless, that is, you're truly interested in seeing such
reviews and you do some of the work, yourself, to see that there are
such studies, by the psychatric profession.

[Some people might also consider it significant that I don't go to a
scientology church.  But then it was sdb that was saying that this is
my church, not me.  But, I suppose he has a point, especially since
I'm finding scientology significantly more attractive than psychiatry.
In any event, I'm happy talking about statistics and well-foundedness,
but I'm not the person to look to for major psychiatric research.]

-- 
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology