From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:58:52 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <Brru7C.IM@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.223711.5097@samba.oit.unc.edu> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:
>
>   >>In article <BrMC81.3pE@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>   >> I just want to add a comment
>   >>about comparing the risk of procedures which seems to me to be
>   >>missing from most discussions of this type - namely the balancing of
>   >>benefits against risks. Comparing the risks of ECT and the
>   >>Purification rundown should be done objectively and fairly.
>
>   >A very good point -- it is, however, very hard to objectively analyze
>   >the benifits of something when many percieved benefits will be
>   >metaphysical. 
>
>As I understand it, the expressed purpose of the Purif is a
>detoxification program. This is an objective matter which can be
>objectively tested.  This is the first I have heard that the purif has
>any other function.

It has to do with the physical-well-being of the body affecting the
mental/spiritual well-being of a person. The duration of the rundown is
based on the person deciding that sie's been in there long enough and
getting a floating needle on an E-meter when sie says so.
(Floating needle: phenomenom <sp!> that signals someone is in a very
good mental/spiritual state, has come to grips with some problem&won,
and doesn't need to do whatever procedure sie was doing for a while, if
ever again. Characterized by grins and chortles.)

>   >I will, however, ask you to read what I posted in response to
>   >the above mentioned very good article -- about computers and head
>   >injuries.
>
>As I understand your point it is that you view ECT is a primitive
>procedure, and that with more knowledge of how things work ECT might
>not be necessary. I agree completely. Unfortunately I find that the
>Church of Scientology *also* opposes recent scientific advances (drug
>therapy) which are helping make ECT obsolete in a majority of cases.

Well, to many Scientologists, I suspect that the drug therapy seems just
as primative.  When one sees great gains being made by merely talking to
someone, anything that affects the body in such a crude way as drugs and
ECT is pretty bad.  If there's a life-threatening situation, one uses
what works best and fastest, but the more effecient treatment should be
done ASAP. (If you don't think that there is any more effecient
treatment, that's fine. I'm just pointing out the viewpoint.)
 
>In response to a question about the 17% effect side effect from niacin
>I cited:
>
>   >Is this individuals who take the Rundown, or world population? This is
>   >unclear to me.
>
>This figure is derived from the study of individuals who are
>undertaking niacin therapy for cholesterol.

And how many people is this? I.e., what sort of x out 100 does this 17%
break down to?

>After quoting my table of risk and benefit figures (which asigns a
>benefit value of zero to the Purification Rundown), your write:
>
>   >At *least* give the
>   >Purification Rundown the same efficacy as you would give voodoo dolls. 
>
>Well, I did. The efficacy of a treatment which does not differ from a
>placebo is exactly 0, which is exactly the efficacy of a voodoo doll.

Okay. So long as you're being consistant. I would give even a placebo a
>0% efficacy, but then I'm an English major.

>   >For that matter, I, being a humble English Major (for my sins), do not
>   >follow your math at all. Please, explain it to me.
>
>I'm just saying that when you evaluate the risk of something, you also
>need to evaluate the benefits --- it's not enough to just look at the
>risk column alone. As long as risk > 0, and benefits = 0, people
>taking the purif are taking unreasonable risk. As long as the benefits
>= 0 and the cost > 0, people taking the purif are paying an
>unreasonable cost (even if the cost is pennies). The specific figures
>are from the references I posted earlier, with the exception of the
>80% figure which comes from Weiner and Coffey 'Indications for use of
>ECT' APA Review of Psychiary, Vol7 as cited in the APA fact sheet on
>ECT.  The guesses are just that, educated guesses based on the
>literature I have read - you can remove the **'ed and ***'ed columns
>from the table and my argument remains unaffected.

All right.  I do think that your assessment of the benefits of purif are
somewhat off, though. (Not to mention the benefits of ECT vs. the risks
of ECT. But I'm not willing to do the research to find arguments to
prove that it's riskier than your sources say.)

>   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. 
>
>I apologize. It appears I have given offense where none was intended.

Apology accepted. I did (and still do, somewhat) think that your
comparison of ECT and Purif was rather spurious, specious, and designed
to cause teeth to gnash, and I therefore reacted somewhat acidly.

--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
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology