secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
I have been working for some time on a list of Scientologists who have died from cancer, suicide and other abnormal causes.

Out of a list of 100 cancer victims we know the age or approximate at death in fourteen cases. Add up and divide by 14 gives an average age at death of 47. In the US the median age of cancer patients at death ranges from 68 for black males to 80 for white females. The average for the whole population is 73 (National Cancer Institute). Thus Scientologists who die of cancer have lost, on average, 25 years of their lives.

This predeliction has been attributed to the gross neglect of the basic rules of health and hygiene within the cult, particularly within the Sea Org: poor diet, long hours, lack of sleep, and stress, combined with neglect of the condition after diagnosis. Both of these are probably important but they are not the only factors operating here. Cancer also starts much earlier in the Scientology community than outside. The median age of American cancer patients at diagnosis is 67. Scientologists who die of cancer on average die twenty years before their neighbors make their first visit to the oncologist.

So an unhealthy life-style and neglect cannot be the main factors. Even in the most deprived sectors of the American community the date of diagnosis is postponed by twenty years or more. We need to identify a factor that is specific to Scientologists and which might conceivably affect their health. Could this possibly be the E-meter?

Arnie Lerma suggested in 2006 that it was possible that the radiation effect of the E-meter, which sends a low current through the body and which maybe used over many hours, days and weeks, and from childhood onwards, is dangerous. Maybe this is true? If not, can anyone suggest any other specific factors operating within the cult that would explain the very early onset of cancer?

Arnie said: "There is an undisputably notable incidence of cancer amongst long time scientologists, especially OTs who hang onto the e-meter electrodes for hours a day, day after day, getting rid of Hubbard's hypnotically suggested body thetans."

The reason for the danger was minuted by the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments meeting on 15 March1995 in Washington DC. It included the following:

"The nature of this curve is such that if you decrease it (the exposure intensity) by 10, the risk per millirad goes up tenfold. If you go down another 10, the risk keeps going up, and therefore we have a strange situation that the weaker the radiation intensity is, the more deadly it is ... We now find that we have a situation where we have far greater health effects than we ever thought."
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=21381&start=0

A simplistic view of this process is that a ray shooting off deadly radiation on all sides does more damage when it travels more slowly.

Arnie could find no suitable control group "with such a long occupational exposure to direct current electricity", but we now have a sample of 14 Scientologists with a known history who can be compared with the average population. The result would obviously be improved if we had more information on age at death about the other 86 in the sample - the problems of a small sample are evident - but the 14 so far known have pulled the average so far down that the remaining 86 would need to average 77 years at death to bring the whole group into line with the general American population. There is not the slightest chance that this could happen.

It might be added that so far there are very few signs of asbestos-related cancer; Pamela Mallison is the clearest example.
 
Last edited:

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I find the idea that the emeter is actually dangerous to people completely absurd. I think the burden of proof, for this one, lies with the people bringing the claim. While it may or may not have any benefit as a biofeedback instrument to assist therapeutic goals, I think it's ridiculous to assert that it causes cancer or other illness.

If you would like to substantiate this idea, I would recommend collating percentages of people who spent time on the meter versus populations that did not, and see if they have the same incidence of cancer. I doubt there is any statistical deviation at all.

This is not to say that Scientologists don't die of cancer more often than other people. That would be a claim I would believe without further evidence, simply because they don't see a doctor regularly. Thus, any cancer that would normally be caught early, and handled before it metasticized would instead likely kill the scientologist, who might only discover the cancer after they have extensive tumors.
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
I find the idea that the emeter is actually dangerous to people completely absurd. I think the burden of proof, for this one, lies with the people bringing the claim. While it may or may not have any benefit as a biofeedback instrument to assist therapeutic goals, I think it's ridiculous to assert that it causes cancer or other illness.

If you would like to substantiate this idea, I would recommend collating percentages of people who spent time on the meter versus populations that did not, and see if they have the same incidence of cancer. I doubt there is any statistical deviation at all.

This is not to say that Scientologists don't die of cancer more often than other people. That would be a claim I would believe without further evidence, simply because they don't see a doctor regularly. Thus, any cancer that would normally be caught early, and handled before it metasticized would instead likely kill the scientologist, who might only discover the cancer after they have extensive tumors.

In fact, on the data I currently have, it appears that Scientologists don't die of cancer more often than other people (though this might change when I get more data). But they certainly get cancer and die much younger than other people, about 20-25 years younger. The difference is so large that this is irrefutable. The incidence is much the same as in the general population; one might assume the predisposing factors are much the same. One thing I forgot is smoking, but wogs also smoke. Wogs use more drugs. There are lots of other factors but none that isolates Scientologists so much as auditing on the meter.

My sample of 14 is random insofar as it is based on those whose ages are published. But every one of them was dead 20 or 25 years before the average American cancer victim had been diagnosed.

Since there is this enormous gap, it cannot simply be poor medical care. Good medical care certainly lengthens the gap between diagnosis and death but most people succumb. Does good medical care add 25 years to average life expectancy? Median age at diagnosis is 67; median age of death from cancer is 73; so it doesn't appear so.

I am not equipped to collate hours spent on meter with the incidence of death by cancer but I hope soon to publish a list which might allow someone else to do this.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
It's not true that the only isolated difference is the emeter, that's my point. I think the meter is a red herring. The big difference is that scientologists don't see a doctor.
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
If E-meters are causing people's deaths, then you should be able to find a high rate of similar deaths in a group of people who use devices such as this.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Slenderto...0000003260410&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=10802553

I imagine this could be a very unpopular theory if it ever got close to proof. The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments quoted by Arnie said as much. The standard belief supported by other academics and by government, which is based on the imagination as far as I can judge, is that higher doses are more dangerous.

I wondered about my mouse. Is a current passing through my hand all the time I use it? I think we should be told.
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
@ Unique.. If, and/or when all factors are eliminated leaving only the absurd one, the absurd must be truth.

I won't consider the idea, that the e-meter is damaging the body, all too absurd though.. Hmm.. I don't know why radiation is mentioned? - But if you get an electric shock, that's bad for the body.. Electric shock can kill you. Scientologists would know I should think. What with all their protesting ECT? - That's a less powerful electric shock, so as not to kill the patient. But a scientologist will know that the current caused damage, right?

So.. The e-meter is an even weaker electric current.. Might this weak current produce damage only slowly?

Say.. You get a shock of 230 volts by sticking your finger in a light fixture. That's an amount of 'electrical current' in a short time. You can 'feel' that ain't doing you any good. - To get 'exposed to that same amount of 'electrical current' by using an e-meter you may need to hold the cans for a hundred hours.

Does the 'damage' accumulate? - That would be the question.

:yes:
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
That IS the question.

My answer is no.

This issue has been explored heavily by Arnie Lerma. He and I argued about it on alt.religion.scientology (and a bit here) extensively.

My view is that it's a threshhold thing. If you tap lightly on a particle board wall for years, it will never damage the wall. If you hit it once, sharply, with a hammer, you'll punch a hole. The same amount of total force may have been used (or much more by the tapping), but the tapping never surpassed the threshold to do damage, and so no damage was ever done.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
This brings so many silly discussions back. When Arnie first advanced his 'theory' I think the *other* proponents adopted it on a 'disinformation' basis; that is, that whether it was true or not, it would scare Scientologists, so, we might as well run with it.

That got about as much support as the 'theory' that 'Battlefield Earth' had subliminals in it.

I don't doubt that *Arnie* believes his theory, but, I just haven't seen anything that would support it. I'd be glad to see some *real* research into it, but, it's such a low current and over such an extended period, not to mention the slow development of cancer, that I'm not expecting it.

*However* it does tie into another silly theory; that the e-meter current travels over the nerves/brains, which would be far more easily tested. To the best of my knowledge, other Galvanic Skin Response devices (including the GSR segment of the polygraph) have a current that travels only over the skin layer; so, never even close to the nervous system/brain, and, likewise, not through the internal organs.

That's something that could be tested. Unfortunately, the last time I suggested that, AgentOrange went off on a tear about jabbing needles into his veins which seems pretty pointless. I suspect he didn't get what I was suggesting as a test, that is, using a needle that was insulated from skin contact as one meter lead with the other the usual can, or, better, a contact placed directly on the skin, with say, a fingertip electrode.

If the current travels through the body, it should show a response; if not; not.

But, that still wouldn't demonstrate *harm* from the current, just that harm would be unlikely with *no* current.

In any case, the level of hysteria, pseudo-science and deliberate disinformation is so high on the question that I wish I'd never heard about 'subliminal ECT' and 'e-meter cancer'. It doesn't help critics' credibility and *does* harm it, unless there's some real research.

Zinj
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
The point is not whether or not Arnie was right or whether his evidence was right or applied to E-meters. The problem is to account for a pattern in the recorded mortality of Scientologists, admittedly limited in scope but the best we have so far, that shows that 14 (out of 100) deaths from cancer - all the cases where age is given - give an average age at death of 47 years while in the US the median age of cancer patients at death ranges from 68 for black males to 80 for white females. The average for the whole population is 73 (National Cancer Institute).

Many people in the US have poor health care, poor diet and stressful lives but they don't seem to die of cancer at 47.

If someone can suggest anything other than neglect, poor diet and stress which might explain this I am open to suggestions.
 

AlphOhm

Traveler of time/space
Why not suspect spirulina "health" drinks?

Or maybe heavy doses of vitamins.

Or another common item/habit/environmental factor.

Jumping immediately on "e-meter" can be sensational--but it may also leave you looking foolish later.
 

Nicole

Silver Meritorious Patron
Fact is, that Scientologists die earlier than other.

It could be the E - Meter (but that has to get controled with a research), but imo it is also the stress, less sleep, less breaks, less time with the family etc. They don't care about their health, only after Hubbard rules. Some Vitamins in a high dosage are dangerous. That is proofed, e.g. Niacin can (in high dosage and a long time taken) damage the hepatic.
Vitamin A can damage the hepatic too and Vitamin A can make the bone resorption faster.


I think the social conditions (family, laughing, friends, time for yourself, enough sleep etc.) are very important for a long life.
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
That IS the question.

My answer is no.

This issue has been explored heavily by Arnie Lerma. He and I argued about it on alt.religion.scientology (and a bit here) extensively.

My view is that it's a threshhold thing. If you tap lightly on a particle board wall for years, it will never damage the wall. If you hit it once, sharply, with a hammer, you'll punch a hole. The same amount of total force may have been used (or much more by the tapping), but the tapping never surpassed the threshold to do damage, and so no damage was ever done.
Yes.. I would tend to agree, but noting that the analogy with a particle board may not suffice. The human body is an awesomly complex biological machine that operates on tiny electrical current in the nervous system.

Hmm.. So this small current is pushing the electrons from one e-meter can, through the body and into the other e-meter can. Will that create some kind of effect? (I'm just speculating.. I don't know squat about this stuff.. As I'm sure you all are aware?)

guy, the reasons ARE stress, poor diet, and neglecting to go see a doctor.
Again.. Yes, that sounds more plausible.. Those factors are indeed common for scientologists.. But are they really unique to scientologists?

But we're still left with the OP's observation that cancer diagnosis occurs 20 years early amongst scientolgists. If we assume that to be true, there must be some reason for it. Something unique to this particular group that causes it.

Well, I think we can't decide anyway. Not enough data..

My gut feeling is that scientologists do indeed have a high incidence of cancer. I knew some of them who died very young, and I read about a lot more. In fact I did get cancer myself at age 34, And I did suspect stress from being a scientologist and suspecting myself of being an evil SP for 10 years. (At the time the 'established' medical science was saying as much. That 'passive stress' or stress over a long time would cause cancer. Based on statistical research.. But later those statistical results were invalidated.)

:confused2:
 

Nicole

Silver Meritorious Patron
It exists researches, that say that electricity makes a higher cancer risk. It is proofed that humans that are living in the near of power lines are having a higher risk to get cancer. I changed my house because of this. The people that lived in that house died both on cancer. A mother and her son. The son with ca. 40 and the mother with ca. 70.

Imo that is the reason that I believe that the E-Meter can make people ill, but the other things in the live of a Scientologists are making a higher risk too.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
One additional thing I've observed in some scientologists is that, unlike "normal" people, they tend to avoid medical procedures and tests which might well expose/diagnose early signs of cancer or serious disease.

Having a terminal condition would make them ineligible for further auditing (illegal PC). I suspect that it's a case of, "don't ask = don't know = don't have to tell".

Some scientologists seem to believe that as long as they continue with their auditing it will eventually all work out fine. It seldom seems to work that way whereas early detection and appropriate treatment may well have prevented a worsening of the condition.
 
Top