Narconon's Supporters:

Last updated
22 November 2002
Contents > Narconon's Supporters > Individuals

Individuals | Corporate/Government| Scientific/Medical

Narconon's individual supporters are the most numerous and prominently cited group in its literature. Although its collection of individual supporters looks impressive on the surface, it becomes much more problematic when examined in detail. "Success stories" from Narconon graduates and their relatives are two a penny - and are discussed elsewhere - but professional endorsements of Narconon's programme are much less numerous. They also suffer from the same problem encountered with the success stories. It certainly sounds impressive that the organisation can claim to have been endorsed by an arbitrary number of its own graduates, or that individual politicians, civic leaders or celebrities have commended it for its social benefits. However, like success stories, endorsements often suffer from flaws of subjectivity. Some of these endorsements are actually subjective assessments of other subjective assessments, multiplying the problem still further.

Strangely, many of the endorsements provide only the scantiest details about the endorsers, omitting basic information such as what they are and when their statements were made - sometimes not even their names are given. This gives a very misleading impression of the currency of their endorsements and their own independence. It also makes it extremely hard to verify the existence of the endorsers, their veracity and any possible biases. A case in point is the endorsements page of Narconon Northern California's website ["Narconon Endorsements", <>], where, remarkably, every single endorsement is problematic. It quotes the following individuals but in many cases does not disclose their interests in the matter:

So, to sum up, of the 12 endorsements that are provided by Narconon Southern California, four are from people who are no longer in their claimed positions; four are from people with direct professional or personal involvement in Narconon; five are from Scientologists; and the identities of the remaining two endorsers is unknown, save presumably to Narconon itself. This pattern of undisclosed links, vague job descriptions and outdated references is entirely typical for those cited in support of the organisation. Anyone given the responsibility of assessing the credibility of Narconon's individual supporters would be well advised to check those individuals' backgrounds for past or present links to Narconon or Scientology.

Individuals | Corporate/Government | Scientific/Medical

Back to top