My Original Response to Steve Hassan

For the record, just so we can have this completely out in the open, here is my initial original response to Steve Hassan about a statement he made on CNN. This has been portrayed by Dennis Erlich as a vicious, nasty response that compelled Steve Hassan, instead of addressing the issue directly with me, to bring Dennis Erlich onto the list, who then proceeded to attack me (Dennis' nastiness was not just my perception, it was also the perception of the list serv owner and moderator, Cathleen Mann). I am posting this so people can read it and decide for themselves how horrible they think it is. Or was it, perhaps, just an expression of a disagreement and challenge? You decide.

To: freedomofmind@yahoogroups.com
From: Monica Pignotti
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:10:12 +0000
Subject: [freedomofmind] Re: CNN Transcript

I located the CNN transcript, and I really have to challenge the
following statement:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/05/ijvm.01.html

"STEVE HASSAN, COUNSELOR/SCIENTOLOGY EXPERT: Well, Scientology basically believes that all medical problems whatsoever can be handled by their techniques, through their auditing policies and such. So they very much dissuade members from seeking out medical attention, getting any medication."

That is simply not true. The second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out medical attention or getting "any medication".

[Note that Erlich has taken this statement completely out of context, changed the punctuation and continues to deliberately misrepresent what I actually wrote -- the quotes around "any medication" are very important because here, it is clear I am quoting Hassan's statement. It would have an entirely different meaning without the quotes. Erlich has taken this quote out of context and he is so obsessed with this that he has now put it below his signature on his postings.]

Mainly what they disallow is psychiatric medication and in some cases anti-seizure medication because some of those meds are also psychiatric drugs (e.g. Depakote) but even that has varied depending on different Scientologists and orgs. It was true in the case of Tory Christman but it is not true in all cases. Jett Travolta took Depakote for years, something that would have been impossible if the above statement were true, given that the Travoltas have been active, highly committed Scientologists for years. We may never know what actually happened and I find it troubling that people are engaging in so much unfounded speculation.

They do not bar regular medical care at all. Even though it is true that they believe that most illness is psychosomatic and can be eliminated with auditing, they do not ban medical treatment. In fact, when I was on the Apollo under L. Ron Hubbard, I was given antibiotics when I got sick, and I directly witnessed several others there receiving medication and people were even freely given Dramamine if they experienced sea sickness, if they asked for it. There is a restriction on getting auditing if these drugs are taken, but no one gets in trouble for taking them and people are not generally stopped from taking medical drugs, other than psychiatric drugs.

While it is true that some Scientologists because of their beliefs that auditing could cure them of a medical ailment delayed getting treatment for conditions such as cancer, Scientology does not have any policy against getting treatment for cancer or other serious medical conditions. This is a different issue that involves the substandard living conditions in the SO. Scientology is not like Christian Scientists who explicitly ban medical treatment, but that is the false impression that some are giving here. This, again, is very easy for Scientologists to refute and then critics lose credibility and are not taken seriously about anything.

The idea that Scientology bans or even dissuades people from all medical care and medication is a myth that is easily refuted and will unfortunately destroy the credibility of people who want to expose real concerns about Scientology.

Monica

This is what I posted prior to that, in response to Steve's notice of his appearance on CNN where he had commented on the death of Jett Travolta. These were some general comments I had on the issue, before I read Steve's transcript. As I noted in the beginning, they were not directed at Steve Hassan.

I didn't get to see the CNN piece, but I have to say that I find much of the media coverage on this topic very troubling on a number of different levels, especially some of the unwarranted conclusions some ex-Scientologists and Scientology critics are jumping to way before all the facts are in. We do not know whether Jett was deprived of proper medical care. The information we have thus far is that he did have a history of seizures and was on the drug Depakote until it stopped working and began to cause liver damage. We really don't know if Scientology encouraged them to take this child off of Depakote or if it was a legitimate medical decision. I would strongly urge people to be cautious about jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Scientology has been inconsistent about allowing people to take anticonvulsants. At times they have not allowed it but at other times they have and one fact that we do know is that Jett was once on Depakote while his parents were active Scientologists. We probably will never know exactly why he was taken off of it, but it is true that neurologists do monitor people on that drug for liver damage and if that is occurring they are taken off for valid medical reasons. At this point, again, the most credible position to take is that we just don't know and to expose this grieving family to this kind of attack is in my opinion very cruel.

The other uncalled for assumption that is being made is that Jett had autism. Whether or not he had autism is something we are never going to know because he was never tested for it by a qualified professional. Even though this is the case, I am appalled at the number of completely unqualified people who think they can "diagnose" him on the basis of video tapes, as one Anonymous website and others are claiming. This is on the level of tabloid gossip.

This kind of jumping to conclusions is making people trying to expose the dangers of Scientology look very bad and opportunistic, using this tragedy that we still know very little about to further an agenda. I can tell you that based on the responses I have seen on other list servs, this is really hurting the credibility of ex-Scientologists and critics of Scientology. This kind of zealotry is going to backfire and quite possibly end up getting the CofS sympathy and support rather than criticism. I am not the only one concerned about this. I am on a list serv that has many doctors who are activists who fight health fraud and many there are also appalled at the way some anti-Scientology activists are jumping to completely unwarranted conclusions and making statements that cannot possibly be known as if they were facts.

So there you have it. People can decide for themselves whether I was being mean and nasty, or just thoughtfully challenging authority. After that, thanks to Dennis Erlich's appearance on the list serv, the discussion escalated into an ugly dispute, but that could have been prevented, if only Steve Hassan had addressed me directly, rather than bringing on Dennis. Hassan later admitted to me that his bringing Dennis on was a mistake and he apologized to me for doing that. I accepted his apology, even though now, Dennis is claiming that Steve is denying this. Perhaps he is just sorry that this whole fiasco was made public by Dennis when he brought it onto alt.religion.scientology, something that I had no intention of doing until I had the need to set the record straight after Dennis publicly misportrayed the situation.

What saddens me most is that until this happened, I had thought that Steven Hassan held himself to the same standards of being open to critical questions and discussion that he holds cult leaders he criticizes to, but when I made an effort to engage him in such a discussion, it appears that he was anything but open and instead made appeals to unfounded authority of a former "Flag cramming officer" rather than discuss whether what I wrote was accurate or not. I find this very disappointing and yet another example, in my opinion, of an anti-cult activist becoming what he is fighting.