Book 2 - Conclusion

There is more in Preventative Dianetics which has to be analysed, beyond my previous conclusion.

Some things like the potential for injury on an individual who isn't mobile, for example. It stands to reason that if someone presses against you while you are standing, it is yourself that is in control of the resistance. If you are lying on a bed, then you are effectively a sandwich between the persons hand and the bed. There is no difference in the pressure of the hand; the difference is in the resistive force. There is actually no difference in the amount of damage that a given amount of pressure will have on a body; the difference is the ability to offer no resistance to the force when standing.

Hubbard attempts to put forward the act of a mother, in the late stages of pregnancy, damaging the child when tying shoelaces or lifting heavy objects; even going to the stage of describing that a babies head could be crushed if the mother collides with an object like a table edge. Hubbard writes this as if these are everyday incidents which are responsible for the engrams in us all at birth; a matter of fact style of writing which is evident throughout the book so far which makes rare occurrences seem almost every day.

I ask you to consider the last time you knew of an expectant mother who had a deadly collision with a table, or lifted heavy weights or even tied her shoelaces. We know about these things already and the mother herself has a safety mechanism ... pain ... which stops her from doing these things.

Another statement is, "Attempted abortion is very common. And remarkably lacking in success." which is taken to imply both a demonstration as to the strength of a foetus to survive and also that there is a high degree of attempted abortion which is causing engrams in children.

Sadly, this is yet another instance where there are no scientific proofs, figures, studies, nothing to back up this assertion. In reality in the modern world, especially the world where people are likely to be considering this work, the face of abortion has changed dramatically. It is safer, legal, and I don't know of any, "failures," as such. Therefore it is easy to see that in our societies, failed abortion is quite a rare occurrence; we either have children carrying to full term, we have children still born, or we have children being aborted safely. Attempted abortion is more or less out of the window these days because there is more than adequate choice and support. Attempted abortion is nearly extinct in the developed countries; you either abort, or you don't.

We thus move on to the next assertion, "Morning sickness is entirely engramic, so fas as can be discovered, since Clears have not so far experience it during their own pregnancies." Let's take this page from the American Pregnancy Association, "More than half of all pregnant women experience morning sickness" What do we take from this? Even from the statistical standpoint, if both statements were true then roughly a little under half the mothers in the US are clear, without the support of Dianetics, and don't know about it.

To go further and investigate what medical science has to say on the causes of morning sickness, the NHS has this to offer...

The exact cause of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is unknown. However, a number of different causes have been suggested, including:

* increased oestrogen levels
* increased human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) levels
* nutritional deficiency
* gastric problems
* evolutionary adaptation
* psychological influences

The psychological influences are quoted as, "Although it is not a very popular theory, it has been suggested that NVP may be the result of the body responding to stress or negative feelings towards the pregnancy. Conversely, it has also been suggested that these psychological symptoms may possibly be the result of NVP." So while considerable research world wide with statistics and studies to back them up, has not got a solid conclusion, Dianetics is offering a conclusion based on ... oh yes ... as usual, despite the statement of, "The entire field has been a subject of considerable research in Dianetics," ... no research whatsoever is to be found or referenced.

The numbers are not adding up here.

At the very best possible way of supporting Dianetic theory at this point, we might conclude that as fluctuating human beings, we naturally pass in and out of, "clear," through our lives.

The unsubstantiated statements continue to pour one on top of the other until we hit another blinder, "A cleared mother needs no anaesthetic." Oh boy. According to the statements prior, we can conclude that half the women giving birth in the US are clear. So now we need statistics as to how many of them use anaesthetic.

The first statistic I came up with was for a segment of Australia where the NSW Department of Health said that the rates of women receiving spinals were 4.9% in 1999 and 6.1% in 2000. This is akin, according to Dianetics, to roughly 95% of all women in New South Wales, being clear.

I did face a problem here in that there are no accurate statistics available that I can find which are specifically for USA natural births. The statistics found world wide so far do throw considerable doubt on the Dianetics statements and once statistics do surface, providing that they are in line with the rest of the developed world, they will deliver a death blow to the unsubstantiated and contradictory statements that are being made in this book.

There is another question related to the research element. Returning to the claims that much investigation has been carried out in Dianetics; or subjects have been the subject of much research; to this we have the claim documented in Wikipedia that, "Hubbard always claimed that his ideas of Dianetics originated in the 1920s and 1930s. By his own account, he spent a great deal of time in the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital's library, where he would have encountered the work of Freud and other psychoanalysts." so that by the time Dianetics was brought to the world in the 1950's, it was based not on dianetic research, but on analysis of non-dianetic research. To this point there is no serious trace visible or accounted that I can find, which actually shows any investigative research on the behalf of dianetics itself. Narconon wasn't formed until 1966 and Criminon didn't fire up until 2000. Second Chance, 1995.

The fact remains that of all the organisations listed, there is no research body easily identifiable that would have generated the research listed herein. Also, there is mismatch between the language and assertions made in the book and the original publishing date of 1992. The details on abortion suggest that little has changed in the book since its original publication in the 1950's. If this is the case, then even the limited research done by Narconon wouldn't have even gone one step toward being counted as being the dianetic research so often quoted in this book thus far.

There remains ... no evidence of any specific dianetic research whatsoever ... without which, this book remains to this point, a collection of unsubstantiated personal beliefs.

Next up ... once I can summon the energy to waste my time on this ... Book 3 - Therapy