A few points to clarify:
I've audited people to "Clear" - once with a discontinued process from the 1950s - so, I recognize that a person can experience a change, and I recognize that, in an environment where "Clear" (and the word "Clear") is accepted, and is accepted as a desirable state, that someone might decide, "I'm Clear," or "I think I'm Clear," etc. If that occurs, fine.
However, there is a huge amount of confusion for many on the topic of this thing called "Clear." The person is encouraged to go into agreement with the idea that there is a "state of Clear," and that it's important, even vital. Then, because this word has been used for PR and marketing purposes, or has been used by those who are dupes of someone (Hubbard, or some other Scientology con man) who uses it for PR and marketing purposes, confusion usually eventually results.
The 1991 article by David Mayo has helped a lot of people. It has helped bring considerable relief to many caught up in a confusion about something that they've been told is vital to their survival and well being.
If someone honestly believes that Clear (as a state) exists. That's fine. But to say one believes that, and also to say, no, I don't believe that (double talk/weasel wording), and to play manipulative games with people recovering from Scientology, is, IMO, reprehensible.