HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:01:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.155731.3453@balrog.dseg.ti.com>
keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:

>I must say, you gathered a completely different idea from Brian's remark
>than I did.  Brian was posting along the lines of "psychiatrists either
>don't tell the patient the truth about the ECT treatment, or they lie about
>it".

Brian was posting along the lines of "I hope, having just finished a few
days of discussion about our views of psychiatry's use of ECT, I can make
a couple of not-to-be-taken-entirely-serious statements without using the
<sarcasm> additive." And boy was I wrong!

I think it's understandable that without an accurate understanding of the
human mind, psychiatrists might resort to psycho-active drugs and even
ECT, in extreme cases. However, I think it's equally understandable that
those that feel they do have an accurate understanding of the human mind,
might protest these treatments.

And since Scientologists do make this claim, I felt it was worth looking
into. Before ever stepping foot into a Church of Scientology, and before
ever spending a dime, and after studying the subject in-depth, I happen
to concur with those Scientologists. _Dianetics_ might give one an ink-
ling of the possibility of this claim, but one would have to delve
deeper into the subject and get some subjective experiences before the
accuracy or inaccuracy of this statement can be recognized.

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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
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> <ROCKWELL.92Jul21022406@socrates.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:38:38 GMT

Aside:  I've gotten a letter noting that people don't die at a flat
rate across the ages.  Which is true.

If someone happens to have information on the age distribution of
people who take the purification rundown, I'll see if I can find some
actarial tables and make a more precise estimate on how many people
should die from "demographic reasons", while taking the purif.

But, Scott Ballantyne has made claims that the risk of death is
significant.  He even acts like he knows what he's talking about.  So,
who died?

-- 
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 (Brian Wenger's)
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:31:04 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <920723104659.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>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.

I was on here when it started up, with a long hiatus during the semester
when I didn't have time. I'll judge Scott on my own terms, by my own
experience, since I don't think that the transcriptions will do much
more than show what happens with a barely-controlled flamewar over
statistics. 

Hellfire and brinstone, at least he *apologized* to me publicly --
perhaps because I was (mostly) trying to be civil?

I have no need of a third party in my discussions with Scott.

--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
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Who died?
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 17:56:39 GMT

In article <920723152746.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
   I'd like to unilaterally make the following apology to all the pro-ECT
   folks out there:

	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.

Well, this is progress!  Now, would you care to withdraw any of the
following additional inaccuracies?

	1) Use of the jaw brace.
	2) Jiggling, dancing feet.
	3) Convulsions.
	4) Frequency of application

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.

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.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Psychiatry
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:45:10 GMT

In article <920727232643.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
   >In article <Bs0DFB.Jq2@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
   >>In article <920723094730.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> 
   >>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
   >>writes:
   >>   But I would guess that in the vast number of cases, "Pernicious Cat-
   >>   atonia" occurs *after* drug-therapy failed to work. What was this
   >>   individual like before the drug-therapy and before the restraints?
   >>   I argue that if a drug approach were the very *last* resort,
   >>   instead of the very *first*, when it comes to treating the mind,
   >>   many resultant mental illnesses might be avoided.

   >>I'll guess that you guess wrong, how about that?  Donald Lindsays
   >>description said exactly what the patient was like before the disease
   >>onset.

   >I was talking about the over-all institutional history of a patient,
   >not just the few weeks prior to the onset of a particular mental ill-
   >ness.

You were *inventing* an over-all institutional history, which you then
went on to treat as a fact. Argument from a guess treated as a fact -
really persuasive, solid logic. Way to go, Bub.

   >Few people (if any) understand the relationship of "decision", "memory"
   >and "un/happiness" to serotonin levels (or other biochemical factors)
   >in the brain. Because of this, using Prozac and other psycho-active drugs
   >is not specific as a treatment for depression.

Bullshit. Reduced serotonin levels are well correlated to depression,
and Prozac is well recognized as a specific treatment for depression.
I can provide specific references and statistics to document these
facts.

   >Patients would be better off keeping their memory intact, and their
   >senses unclouded. If a person is dangerous to others, that's one thing.
   >But if Uncle Joe has been fighting severe depression, then I don't
   >think treating Uncle Joe as though he were a lab animal by giving him
   >psycho-active drugs is going to do the trick for him. It might dull or
   >change his senses enough so that the world doesn't come across so
   >vividly, but it's not going to address the real problem: Joe's depression.

Hey bub - I'll thank you to confine your unknowledgeable speculations
to areas where less is known. It has been well established that your
Uncle Joe has an excellent chance of recovery from depression when
treated by drugs.

Incidentally, 'treating someone like a lab animal' would be giving
them an unproven treatment for their condition, like any of the
options Scientology offers.  Giving someone a therapy that has a
proven track record is treating them like a human being.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:00:18 GMT

In article <BrzBFA.HD2@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.121243.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
>bwenger@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>   Oh really? That's odd, I could have sworn Scott Ballantyne lied -- said
>   a side affect of Niacin (as used by Scientologists on the Purification
>   Rundown) is DEATH.
>   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.

>Interesting comments, Mr. Wenger. Here's a little test for you to
>exercise those trained discriminatory powers of yours. Can you tell
>the difference between this sentence:
>   a side affect of Niacin (as used by Scientologists on the Purification
>   Rundown) is DEATH.
>and the original sentence:
>"There is some risk involved - roughly 17% of individuals experience side
>effects from niacin which is used in the rundown, some of these side
>effects are mild, some are more serious (including death)."
>(Here's a hint. If I had
>actually said what you claim I did, my own sentence would have read:
>"There is some risk involved - roughly 17% of individuals in the Purif
>experience side effects from the niacin used, some of these side
>effects are mild, some are more serious (including death)."

Thanks for the hint. Here's one for you: Have you ever heard of the
psychological principle called "rationalizing". In Scientology we call
it "justifying". It happens when someone does something that they
know they shouldn't have, and then searches for excuses that give
a "good reason" why they did it. The way one overcomes this little
problem is by owning up to the original mis-deed.

Your "Niacin side-effect" statement gave a negative impression of the
Purif that you knew was inaccurate. Now you are trying to "justify" it.

>I do not know if anyone has died from taking the rundown. Even if they
>have not, these does not mean the risk of death is zero.)

Thanks for admitting the former. The latter however is just another
"justification".

The "risk of death" of *living* is not zero!

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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Who died?
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 03:48:23 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


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:
>1. Russ Rymer, "Fifty Years Later, Electroshock," _Hippocrates_,
>(March/April 1989), pp. 65-72.
>2. "The London Sunday Mail" newspaper, Nov 26, 1989, entitled "Shock
>treatment benefit challenged"
[ #3 you hadn't read in full ]
>4. Lothar B. Kalinowsky, "Convulsive Shock Treatment," _American_
>_Handbook_of_Psychiatry_, (New York: Basic Books, 1959).
>5. Peter Sterling, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. Neurobiology, U. Penn. "Brain
>Damage and Memory Loss from ECT: Testimony Prepared for the Standing
>Committee on Mental Health of the Assembly of the State of New York;
>Oct. 5, 1978."
>6. Thomas Maeder, "Wounded Healers," _The_Atlantic_Monthly_Magazine_,
>January, 1989.
>I also have a 12-page report compiled by the "Citizens Commission on
>Human Rights" (established by the Church of Scientology, investigating
>and exposing psychiatric violations of human rights since 1969), dated
>February 14, 1991

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?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:10:37 GMT

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?

-----
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: 28 Jul 92 00:47:23 GMT

In article <Brz9tt.H8q@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <920723102806.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems,
>CCSU) writes:
>   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. 

>No. The peer reviewed studies and consensus paper I provided here
>demonstrates their own opinion of the treatment. That they would like
>to find better therapies demonstrates their dedication to improving
>treatments for the mentally ill.

Great, let's hope you're right.

>   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 suicidally depressed.

>That's what you call a fact? 

As far as I know, it is. But if you have statistics that show psychia-
trists, as a general rule, use ECT on themselves for suicidal depression,
when and if their drugs don't do the trick, I'd be interested in hearing
about it.

-----
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: 23 Jul 92 19:27:46 GMT

I'd like to unilaterally make the following apology to all the pro-ECT
folks out there:

     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.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:06:59 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <ROCKWELL.92Jul23091242@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) writes:

>Hmmm.....  If I have a bone to pick, it's that I don't think Scott
>Ballantyne is being consistent.  For example, although he apparently
>normalizes benefits against those of a placebo he does not normalize
>risks that way.

Ah. Something that I'm not good at catching -- statistics don't often
mean much to me.

>On the fourth hand, if I pursued this thread, what would it
>accomplish?  The niacin thread didn't seem to accomplish a whole lot,
>and this ECT thread is not as interesting to me.  Straw poll: who out
>there thinks this thread is worth me researching and posting about?
>If I see a good reason to proceed, I suppose I could.

Well, the only real reason to do something is because you see a need to.
A) do you think that there is a significant amount of misinformation
being spread, and B) do you think it's worth the effort to dispute it.
If you don't think that letting it go will produce hordes of people
burning niacin pills on your front lawn, or otherwise adversly affect
you or others that you give a damn about, then who cares.

*I'm* not going to research this any time soon -- the notion of spending
time in a library doing research on boring statistics (when I could be
either net-reading or (ugh) studying my Prolog book for class) is rather
disgusting. 

--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
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Studies
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:58:54 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon



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. 
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Psychiatry (was Re: ECT References (BW's))
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:47:30 GMT

Don Lindsay writes:
>"PERNICIOUS CATATONIA. - This illness begins suddenly, but there is a
>predromal period for a few weeks before the onset of the severe
>symptons, and during this time the patient may be dejected, lost in
>thought, or may complain of headache and constipation....

If a patient came in "off the street" or was committed exhibiting
these symptons, *with no prior psychiatric treatment*, and sedatives
and other non-physical methods had proven to be ineffective, then I
think any method which kept this person alive should be considered.

But I would guess that in the vast number of cases, "Pernicious Cat-
atonia" occurs *after* drug-therapy failed to work. What was this
individual like before the drug-therapy and before the restraints?
I argue that if a drug approach were the very *last* resort,
instead of the very *first*, when it comes to treating the mind,
many resultant mental illnesses might be avoided.

If a heart surgeon carefully cut open a human body, carefully put
on a blind-fold, and in a completely sterile and orderly fashion,
slashed around with a scalpel hoping to unclog an artery, we would
not stand for it. Analogously, electro-convulsive therapy and even
psycho-active drugs do the same thing, on a different order of magni-
tude.

I recognize and empathize with the desperation and frustration that
psychiatrists feel. But treating the human mind as though it were
an object will never solve the affected individual's problem, and
quite frankly, will never solve society's problem.

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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:01:47 GMT

In article <920727220018.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   Your "Niacin side-effect" statement gave a negative impression of the
   Purif that you knew was inaccurate. Now you are trying to "justify" it.

My Niacin side effect statement gave exactly the impression of the
Purif I wanted to. Until you cough up actual evidence that the purif
is more than just another health scam, my comment stays. You can
suffer serious side effects from megadoses of niacin (including
death). The purif uses megadoses of niacin.

sdb

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<Brru7C.IM@ssr.com> <1992Jul22.225852.7064@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:22:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.225852.7064@samba.oit.unc.edu> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:

   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.

Difficult to respond to an acusation like this, except to deny it. As
far as I am concerned, ECT and the Purif are simply procedures which
should be evaluated for safety and efficacy.

I do have to say that after reading your article it seems to me that
the Purif and ECT have more in common than I would have thought.  I am
having trouble understanding how you can characterize ECT and drug
therapy as crude, physical methods for attempting to effect a
metaphysical change and not apply the same yardstick to the saunas and
substances used in the Purif.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Date: 31 Jul 92 08:32:51 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <920727191734.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>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:
>>>
>>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".
>

It is very commendable that you researched scn and other practices
on your own!!  Unfortuneatly, scn does nothing for those
who have not learned this skill elsewere. 
>----
>Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
>Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
>Central Connecticut State Univ.
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology