When people like Jon Atack, who was actually a Scientologist and concluded he'd been scammed, write a book, it is an understandable reaction to their having been scammed: they want others to know what happened to them, so they don't fall into the same trap. But even academics and outside observers, such as Roy Wallis in the 1970s, have been brave enough to write about Scientology. Wallis' book "The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology" came out of his PhD research into Scientology. I read it, and I thought it was a fair, and not particularly critical, discussion of the Church of Scientology and its practices. After he published it, the church sent plants into his lectures at Stirling University to foment discord among his students, and sent a homosexual love letter purporting to be from Wallis to his boss. Wallis, it seems, was also guilty of 'religious hate crimes'. The underhanded retaliation of the Church to his book, on the other hand, was presumably totally legitimate and justified in the eyes of the church. Wallis later committed suicide. I do not know whether his suicide was related to Scientology harassment. Presumably the church would say that he committed suicide because he realised that he had been attacking mankind's only hope for spiritual freedom. This is an example of the confirmation bias that is systematically installed into the minds of adherents of Scientology. If you do well in life whilst in Scientology, it is because of Scientology. If you do badly, it is because of your own overts and withholds. If a person criticises Scientology or leaves the church and then subsequently fails in some way, it is because they are an enemy of mankind, reaping the karmic consequences of their attacks on Scientology. Of course, the Scientology machine does its best to ENSURE that prominent critics fail in their lives. All for the greatest good, mind you.