QUACKERY PROSECUTED - NOT: Australia allows the quack medical scam

From: thomasjbest@hotmail.com (Thomas J Best)
Subject: QUACKERY PROSECUTED - NOT
Date: 30 Apr 2002 21:50:55 -0700

Well, I've finally had a response from the Feds. I won't post it, because you can deduce it's nature from my reply:

Mr I Lawrence                                           n/n xxxxxxx Street
Principal Investigator					RANDWICK 2031
Australian Competition &
Consumer Commission					30 April 2002
GPO Box 3648
SYDNEY 1044
Your ref: S2002/1/273638

Dear Mr Lawrence,

Thank you for your letter of 15 March concerning breaches of The Trade
Practices Act 1974 by the Church of Scientology.

I have to inform you that I found your response inadequate and
disturbing.

You state that Sections 65F and 65L allow the Minister to recall or
publish notices in respect to dangerous goods, and that you do not
believe that those Sections could be applied to provision of a
service in the form of the Purification Program.

I directed your attention, in my complaint of 14 February, to the
writings of Hubbard, the founder of the cult, which detail the regimen
to be followed in the 'Purification Program'. You obviously did not
investigate the matter, else you would have seen that the regimen
requires the preparation and administration of a cocktail of vitamins
and oils.  These are surely 'goods' within the meaning of the Act, sold
as part of the 'service'.  You were also supplied with evidence as to
the massive quantities of vitamins A and B involved, and their
potential for damaging the health of those foolish enough to submit to
the 'Purification Program'.  They clearly are 'dangerous' in the
meaning of the Act.

You confine your comments about breaches of Sections 52 of the Act to
the mere observation that 'regard is had to ensure that statements are
considered in the overall context rather than isolation'.

My allegations gave you the 'overall context', since I enclosed copies
of the cult's advertising as well as extracts from their secret
doctrines.  I repeat, the cult is engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct.  Your response does not deny this in any way.

Your anodyne repetition of my concerns about breaches of various
parts of Section 53 again does not deny the accuracy of my allegations.

Then you write that 'Although the alleged actions of ... Scientology
may raise concerns under the Act, the Commission is unable to pursue
all matters that are brought to its attention'.  I note that '... only
twenty five people participated in the program in 1998.'

Are you seriously telling me that it's in order for the cult to
defraud and endanger people in Australia so long as they do it to only
up to twenty five people per annum? Or would the limit be set at some
higher figure?  How, and by whom, would such a limit be set?  Your
response is utterly ridiculous.

Finally you assert that the 'Commission must give priority to health
matters with scope for significant and broad public detriment, this
office is unable to pursue the issues you raised.'  It is apparent
from this that you undertook no serious research into the matters
concerned, or you would be aware that the cult's 'Purification
Program' is merely the tip of an iceberg of fraud and abuse.

It is not good enough that the Commission, through you, tries to shrug
off such a matter. Breaches of the Act the Commission administers have
been brought to your attention, together with clear evidence. The
breaches continue. I insist that the matter be pursued.

Yours faithfully,

Thomas J Best

cc The Hon. Peter Costello MP (he's the Minister for the ACCC) Peter King MP (he's my local Member of Parliament.)

The other development is that the cult has hit the NSW Department of Fair Trading with an FOI request, seeking copies of all complaints made against them :-)

tam

"Of the few innocent pleasures left....
the jamming of commonsense down the throats
of fools is perhaps the keenest."
Thomas Huxley