From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (BW's)
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:39:15 GMT

In article <BrzAun.HBA@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <920723110058.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.
>CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>   >Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>   >  including references that show that the description provided by
>   >the Scientology group CCHR (via Mr. Wenger) is a tissue of lies.
>   Hmmm... "tissue of lies" ...that's strange. It seemed to me that
>   my description of ECT gave many more details than yours did. It
>   was based on only one reference by CCHR, and also based on indi-
>   viduals who witnessed it -- including one reporter who described
>   in detail exactly what it looked like.

>Well, it wasn't my description, I merely passed on the description
>given by experts who performed the procedure, as an exact quote. I had
>no need to kludge together a description from various sources that is
>inaccurate and inconsistent. I assume the description left out things
>like straps because they aren't used - it left out convulsions because
>they can't occur with muscle relaxants, etc.

Your description (yes, the one you passed along) was pleasantly in-
complete. But I really am getting bored with this thread. Let us finish
off by saying that we both had some informative things to say about
modern ECT.

>   >Well, first of all --- no one has to die to have a risk of death that
>   >is greater than zero --- use your noggin. But more to the point....

>   "More to the point", huh? I thought the point was that you said one 
>   of the side-effects of Niacin as used on the Purif was DEATH. Getting
>   caught in a deliberate lie is not fun, is it?  I might even overlook
>   it if you weren't so blatantly attacking my religion.

>But people don't have to die to have a risk of death > 0. Was it
>perfectly safe to fly on the shuttle until the Challenger disaster? Of
>course not, there was always a risk of death - there still is a risk
>of death, and there always will be a risk of death.

Scott, you lied. It may not have been deliberate, it may have been more
of an exaggeration than an out-and-out lie, but the impression your
statement gave was that one of the existing side-effects of Niacin
is death. I'm glad that you have reminded us that it was a "different
type of Niacin than the one used on the Purif" that could theoretically
cause death, but I think you know that your original statement gave a
certain impression that was not accurate.

>Am I attacking your religion? I certainly am asking it to judge itself
>by the same standards it judges others.  Scientology has made quite a
>lot of allegations about ECT, Prozac and other treatments used by
>Psychiatry, and has demanded that standards of safety and efficacy
>should be demonstrated.

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.

>                           What is wrong with me asking the same
>questions of a similar treatment from Scientology?

Please do. My gripe is more with the way you treat some individuals
with ridicule, insults and belittlement. If you were honestly trying
to get Scientologists to "understand the 'true' nature of Scientology",
you'd show respect for their ability to think and observe for them-
selves. I can repost some of your past statements if you'd like. But
I'd much prefer that you own up to what you have been doing.

>Finally, I'm really pretty tired of you scientologists calling me a
>liar. I think you owe me an apology.

No, Scott, it is you who owes the apology.

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