HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:28:06 GMT

Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>You have not established that ECT is unsafe.

The fact that psychiatrists would love to find an alternative to
ECT, demonstrates their own opinion of the treatment. Then there's
the fact that psychiatrists, as a general rule, would not consider
using ECT on themselves or their co-workers when they become sui-
cidally depressed.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Who died?
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:57:33 GMT

In article <Bs0CIG.Jny@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
[In regards to my description of ECT]:
>Well, this is progress!  Now, would you care to withdraw any of the
>following additional inaccuracies?
>
>	1) Use of the jaw brace.

Still used, according to Russ Rymer who reported on it in _Hippocrates_
in 1989.

>	2) Jiggling, dancing feet.

Russ Rymer used that description.

>	3) Convulsions.

The body convulses, that's why you get the jiggling feet. It sounds
like succinylcholine might not completely expunge a convulsion.

>	4) Frequency of application

I said about 6 in a week. You said about 2-3 in a week. Perhaps it depends on
the doctor or the hospital....

>There are others, but these are the major ones. Both of our
>descriptions agree on the use of muscle relaxants - 1,2,3 are just not
>possible with a muscle relaxant, and I'll explain why: The relaxant
>used (succinylcholine) prevents muscle action by combining with the
>neurotransmitter acetylcholine - this prevents acetylcholine from
>causing the crucial first step in muscle contraction --- the opening of
>multiple protein channels. Without the opening of these channels, the
>sodium ions (which initiate the action potential in the muscle fiber)
>won't be able to get in, and therefore muscle contraction is just not
>possible, which means convulsions are not possible. References: Any
>recent physiology text, such as Guytons. Also Goodman & Gillman,
>'Pharmacological Basics of Therapeutics' 4th Edition or later.

Cool. Well, glad they're getting those convulsions under control. Now if
we can just get them to bring down the 100+ voltage by about 99.5%
then we'll really have made some progress! ;-)

>You stated the frequency of application is 12 over two weeks. In the
>U.S., the frequency of application is 3 per week. For twelve
>treatments that would be 4 weeks. The APA fact sheet on ECT (published
>in Feb 1992) says the most common number is 8 (2 and a fraction weeks).

>I also think it's misleading to describe me as pro-ECT (I'm
>pro-choice :-). It is also not 'my' electric shock method.

The straps-are-no-longer-in-use apology wasn't directed at you, Scott.
It was directed at anyone who might have been upset by the inaccuracy
of my original description of ECT. I used "pro-ECT folks" cause I 
thought it communicated what I meant.

(I wonder if this whole thing can get any sillier....)

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.083230.5914@microsoft.com> erichill@microsoft.
com (Eric Hill) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.121243.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> bwenger@eagle.
>>wesleyan.edu writes:
>>
>>Scientology is *about* becoming more adept at discriminating between
>>plausible lies and hard truths.  It happens to be a "plausible lie"
>>that it's not.
>>
>Scn does force feed its version of truth, one modles the data as
>presented but does not ever discuss the data vs other modles or 
>viewpoints.  A very one sided presentation.
 
Well, it's a good thing we have alt.religion.scientology!

I can't speak for other Scientologists, but I spent three years studying
the subject of Scientology, comparing it to other approaches, and trying
it out in my life, before I considered myself a Scientologist.

Later, when I was on staff for two-and-a-half years, I also found out
what it's like "on the inside". I never felt that anyone was "force
feeding" their version of truth on anyone. "It's true, only if it's true
for you." I suppose if one let go of that principle, one might feel that
it was being "force fed".

----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Studies
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:58:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.034019.252382@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>>Trying to use psychological/psychiatric-established testing methods
>>on Scientology auditing's efficacy, is a little like using the earth-
>>is-flat theory to understand Newton's Law of Gravity. It can be done,
>>but will be misunderstood.

I have always thought that gravity dealt with mass and distance, not shape.



-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Studies
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 22:35:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In article <920720163025.22e3425d@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>>A double standard isn't fair.
>
>I think there *are* two standards. One has to do with treatments
>that _directly_ affect the body. The other has to do with treatments
>that don't. A psychiatrist helping a severely depressed individual
>with physically safe methods, is not the same as a psychiatrist using
>ECT.

Your dividing line might be well-chosen if we were talking about
(say) informed consent. Since we were talking about statistical
studies, the dividing line should be based on how the data is
collected, not on how the patient is treated.

Specifically, on one side of the line, the "before" and "after" are
physical measurements such as blood sugar levels.  On the other side
of the line, they are measurements of behavior. Behavior is hard to
quantify and it is hard to get different patients measured against
identical standards. This does not mean that it's hopeless: there are
written tests, there are objective measures such as "was the patient
subsequently readmitted", there are normalizations and other
statistical methods.

This dividing line puts ECT and auditing in the same camp. That is,
their efficacy is equally measurable, except for the small detail
that it is different behaviors that get a person into one or the
other.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Organization: Traveller
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:17:08 GMT

Scott Ballantyne:
   >It is obvious that the patient being under deep anesthesia would
   >not be able to describe any of the process that either of us
   >included.

Brian Wenger:
   >Is this an admission that the psychiatrists that use ECT don't let
   >their patients know what will be done to them? Or perhaps these
   >psychiatrists are in the habit of lying, so the description they
   >give their patients can't be considered factual.

Donald Lindsay:
   Is this an admission that you think that _all_ psychiatrists are
   habitual liars?

Heavy.

My suspicions:

Scott was posting along the lines of "someone under anesthesia has no
experiences of that time to report".

Brian was posting along the lines of "anesthesia doesn't prevent
experience, just makes it more difficult to access."

Donald was posting in support of Scott.

Donald Lindsay:
   You protested recently that you weren't paranoid. Naturally, you
   suggested the above because you have evidence?

I'd suspect that psychiatrists do not trust their patients to describe
ECT.  I fail to see how such a suspicion is paranoid.  I don't think
that an expression of such a suspicion is completely out of line --
though, maybe it should be recognized as nothing more than a
suspicion.

Also, it looks *real* bad to use "psychiatric diagnosis" on a person
in a discussion of psychiatry as a subject.  This says that you do not
care to discuss the facts and that you'd prefer to discredit the
individual.

-- 
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>
From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (BW's)
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:05:52 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Jul29.023817.2353@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Rogue Agent) writes:
>In article <920727213915.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> 
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>>
>>Safety? Yes. Efficacy? Not really. Although the CoS in general
>>thinks that current psychiatric and psychological methods could stand
>>some improvement, you'll rarely see the Church *publicly* criticizing
>>non-physical psychiatric/psychological methods.
>
>	Would this include the Scientologist I met tonight outside the Fenway,
>handing out flyers espousing the Purif?  He seemed to think all psychiatrists
>are involved in a massive conspiracy to destroy Scientology.  He's no newcomer,
>been involved over 5 years.
>
>	Now I already know what the response is gonna be - the Church cannot
>be responsible for the opinions of its members, he's misinformed (no shit!),
>etc.  That's the problem - whenever somebody says something unfavorable,
>or has information putting scn in a bad light, it's 'just an isolated incident,
>I've never heard anyone say that, and it's not policy'.  But it happens so 
>often, that it might as well be policy.

Well, just because I grew up in Austin, Tx., where fundies of all
stripes hand out stuff on campus and around campus, I can't *really* say
that all Christian churchs have the same policies.  I do admit, however,
that it took me moving up to Newt Hamster :-) and meeting some very nice
and sane people who happen to be very religious before I managed to
seperate fanatic fundies from nonfanatics &/or nonfundies.

I find it quite deplorable that there are a number of nutcases who are
very loud about it. I try very hard to show by example that while some
subset of nutcases are Scientologists (or vice versa, or whatever...),
we aren't *all* like that. 

Saying, "it might as well be policy, since it happens so often," is like
saying, "since I know so many psychiatrists who use ECT as a cure-all,
they must all think that way."  The statistics are skewed.  How many
Scientologists do you know who don't mention their religion? Or who
aren't being "pushy" about it? The ones that get noticed are the ones
who are out on the street corner handing out pamphlets, or debating
things loudly, not the person at the other table in a resteraunt
discussing Star Trek with hir SO. 

--EM 

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Studies
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:07:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.175854.49052@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu
(Donald Lindsay) writes:
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
>writes:
>>>Forms of counselling are *often* measured by studies, and it would
>>>please me if Scientology would go with the flow.
>>
>>What kind of study would you suggest? Scientology auditing's general
>>goal is greater personal happiness and ability in life.

>You're being purposely obtuse, right?  Other kinds of counselling are
>somehow unrelated to happiness, wellness, and life situations?

>The exact same kind of study used on all the other forms of
>counselling. 

The Church of Scientology wants to prove itself to the individual on
an individualized basis. We feel that that's really the only way we
will ultimately benefit society.

Scientology is not psychology, it is not medicine, and it is not yoga.
It's a religious philosophy that someone can use to improve his overall
happiness and enjoyment of life. The benefit that it can bring to the
field of medicine and the understanding that it can bring to the field
of the human mind, is immeasurable. But we're dedicated to the indivi-
dual, not a "particular field" or a "particular group". It keeps us free.
And we like that.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:46:59 GMT

Elizabeth McCoy wrote:
>   I'm fairly bright. I don't think that will give me much trouble. If I'm
>   missing the point of the example, please be assured that it's quite
>   deliberate. 

Scott Ballantyne responded:
>I apologize. It appears I have given offense where none was intended.

Elizabeth, in case you are fairly new to this newsgroup, I have been
keeping a running log of all the conversations that have transpired
since April 1992. They might give you a more complete picture of where
Scott Ballantyne is coming from.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Date: 27 Jul 92 00:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations
In-reply-to: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU's message of 23 Jul 92 14:46:59 GMT

WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

>Elizabeth, in case you are fairly new to this newsgroup, I have been
>keeping a running log of all the conversations that have transpired
>since April 1992. They might give you a more complete picture of
>where Scott Ballantyne is coming from.

For those who don't know, I have a near-complete archive of this group
(there are some articles missing for various reasons beyond my
control).  I now have approximately 1900 articles on tape.

--
A man walks into a crowded theater and shouts, "ANYBODY WANT TO BUY A
CAR?"  The crowd stands up and shouts back, "WRONG THEATER!"
	-- Edward Vielmetti (env@msen.com), news.admin
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:53:24 GMT

Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>                                             It is obvious that the
>patient being under deep anesthesia would not be able to describe any
>of the process that either of us included.

Is this an admission that the psychiatrists that use ECT don't let
their patients know what will be done to them? Or perhaps these psy-
chiatrists are in the habit of lying, so the description they give
their patients can't be considered factual.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: SP
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:16:34 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Jul20.212245.2521@samba.oit.unc.edu> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:
>.... Suppresives who haven't "owned up
>an' apologized" to the satisfaction of their victims are not allowed
>auditing, and other Scient. aren't allowed to talk to them or hang
>around them. 

So, the church is in the business of tracking who hurt who, who
apologised, and who you can talk to.  Who needs the bill of Rights?
We have a church to handle all of these funtions for us. :(

I would like to suggest that this "church" is interfering
in the private lives of individuals.  It labels people and
tells its members what to think (with the threat of being
labeled an SP if you do not agree).
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Who died?
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:10:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.034823.254332@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu
(Donald Lindsay) writes:
>>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
>>writes:
>>     I originally thought that ECT was still used with
>>     straps, but apparently straps are no longer used.
>>     I was not, in my original description, aware of
>>     this recent development in your electric-shock
>>     method.
>Thanks for the honesty. But, in your post of 3Jul92, you gave your
>ECT references:
....
>That post went on to mention the very thing which you have now
>retracted. Could you tell us which of your references led you
>astray?

Actually, the more formalized description of ECT that I eventually
posted excluded any mention of straps. The above apology was for my
original straps-still-in-use "dramatic" description.

I had read a quote by a 1967 Harvard graduate of psychiatry who
stated in 1989 that what is called "modern ECT" has hardly changed
at all, except for electrode placement. He said that everything
else used back then during ECT (at least in the Harvard Medical
School) is the same as it is today. I can't find the article that I read,
but that is one of the reasons that I thought straps were still used.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Rogue Agent)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (BW's)
Date: 29 Jul 92 02:38:17 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <920727213915.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> 
WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>
>Safety? Yes. Efficacy? Not really. Although the CoS in general
>thinks that current psychiatric and psychological methods could stand
>some improvement, you'll rarely see the Church *publicly* criticizing
>non-physical psychiatric/psychological methods.

	Would this include the Scientologist I met tonight outside the Fenway,
handing out flyers espousing the Purif?  He seemed to think all psychiatrists
are involved in a massive conspiracy to destroy Scientology.  He's no newcomer,
been involved over 5 years.

	Now I already know what the response is gonna be - the Church cannot
be responsible for the opinions of its members, he's misinformed (no shit!),
etc.  That's the problem - whenever somebody says something unfavorable,
or has information putting scn in a bad light, it's 'just an isolated incident,
I've never heard anyone say that, and it's not policy'.  But it happens so 
often, that it might as well be policy.

	Responses?

	RA
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:41:15 GMT

In article <920723101037.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>>Besides, this group is often read by newcomers to Scientology, people
>>who are trying to decide whether or not to get involved --- I get
>>mail from them all the time.
>
>Why do I have a hard time believing that anyone would go to you
>for information on Scientology?
>
>
I found this amusing from the man who knows that Scientology improved his 
eyesight, but can't prove it, but just knows it.


-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:51:14 GMT

In article <920727185342.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   No, I suggested it because individuals who choose to perform ECT and
   then pass it off as "merely making someone's toes wiggle", should not
   be trusted. I never said that _all_ psychiatrists do that.

This implies that some psychiatrists do that. Which ones?

sdb
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:46:11 GMT

In article <920720163025.22e3425d@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   I think there *are* two standards. One has to do with treatments
   that _directly_ affect the body. The other has to do with treatments
   that don't. A psychiatrist helping a severely depressed individual
   with physically safe methods, is not the same as a psychiatrist using
   ECT.

You have not established that ECT is unsafe. In fact, I have
established that it *is* safe.

sdb
--
sdb@ssr.com

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology