OT 5 and cancer?
Author: surver
Posted: Wed Dec 20 2000 06:38 pm
About three years ago, I encountered the new website www.freezone.org from capt.Bills group. After reading it, I went to my ethics officer and asked what it was about. He said that capt.Bill was indeed a former high-ranking Scientologist, but he couldnt be trusted because he had been squirreling the OT levels. My Ethics officer said that a lot of his friends had died of cancer on OT 5 because some things were missing in that level, and that was because capt.Bill had removed those. Those things have only recently been found and added back to OT 5.
I didnt believe him at that time, it sounded too much like dead-agenting (although I didnt know the term at that time). But I recently talked to a Hare Krishna follower and he said that if you get spiritual progress without Krishna you have a large chance of dying of cancer.
It made me wonder. Can unbalanced auditing cause cancer? Is there a self-destruct mechanism in the human body (cancer) if you make too much spiritual progress? Did LRH find a remedy for that? Was there recently ( >3 years ago) stuff added back to OT 5?
Author: mike
Posted: Wed Dec 20 2000 10:14 pm
Hi surver,
I have wondered a lot about what you speculate above and not just on OT 5 but on most of the upper levels. I've mentioned this in other areas, you may have seen it.
I know it sounds simple and it may not be the only answer, but I think it does apply to at least a few. The upper levels lack havingness processes. The body and/or GE have not been handled yet. The group loses mass or havingness as BTs blow. By getting the cells to overcreate this havingness loss is "handled". But this is a basic definition of cancer.
As a caution, if you are running any NOTs or OT III processes run havingness at the EOS. In the fifties LRH could not stress enough the importance of these processes. No reason to drop them now.
ARC,
Mike
P.S. The e-mail function doesn't seem to be working with my name in the header. (Paul, any help here?) You can find me at mike@fza.org
Author: charles
Posted: Thur Dec 21 2000 08:33 am
As far as I think, cancer is to a very large degree psychosomatic, or if you are under mental stress you more likely get cancer.
On Ot 3 and up you go in some heavy areas, getting them stirred up and not handled can cause you quite mental stress, therefor, yes I agree it can cause cancer. I was long on all OT levels 79 started NOTS, still on 7, but not in the church anymore, and went through some hells, came out again, but therefor know this stress.
Zhe things with Captain Bill are stupid. Once it was Mayo, then it was Captain Bill.
And what does this new Management: Gang sec check, altering tech....6 months check off policy.....
I am sure golden age has much good, but is it still LRH?
Author: mike
Posted: Thur Dec 21 2000 08:41 pm
Hi Charles,
You are right, I just don't think you go far enough. It is all "psychosomatic". You are cause. I am cause.
The new program is read and study what Ron did in the 50s. The OT data is there. The Pilot has put it into a usable form for us in his two books. Read them. Listen to the tapes from the fifties. See what Mayo had to say, same with Cpt. Bill. Judge them for yourself.
ARC,
Mike
mike@fza.org
Author: Tom
Posted: Sat Dec 23 2000 10:38 pm
When I was in the church it was very common to put down an opponent by saying he got cancer. Just a thought but cancer can be induced by radiation, and I am sure that the technology exists to induce it with good aim. This would be effective since it would discourage others from following this opponent since they would fear getting cancer themselves.And what more subtle way could there exist to get rid of an opponent. Zap him one day and he gets sick 3 years later, then you get to slander him and use his illness as evidence of the wrongess of his cause.No one would do that of course, because it would go against their conscience, but I'm just saying "if there really were bad people".
Radiation causes cancer. Aren't radioactive materials nearing criticle mass? Too much mass explodes. An atom bomb is just a radioactive lump with explosives packed around it, and when the explosives go off, it pressurizes the lump to over criticle mass. Too dense and it blows up. Why? One thought that occurs to me is that if you tell a lie, you will be believed, but if you lie too much, and pass credibility too much, the lie is recognized as such and rejected. Could be that matter makes itself too obvious to the life that it surounds. Ron made the comparison in the PDC lectures between a thetan surrounded by ridges and an electron, and how an atomic wexplosion is just the completion of an explosion that got froze in time, or the completion of a cycle of action, something like that. I just think that it is interesting that a radioactive substance which exceeds criticl mass blows up, and when it almost exceeds criticle mass(an unstable radioactive substance) it causes cancer. that which is almost too dense causes cancer. Chemistry was my worst subject, so I could be talking jibbberish. I don't get what Mike is saying,and I don't know much about havingness processs, except the ones in the fundamentals of thought"look around and tell me something you could have, dispense with, remain in place etc.
Why do you suppose that radiation causes cancer?
and what is criticle mass?any thoughts ?
Author: surver
Posted: Fri Mar 23 2001 02:03 am
I recently heard that capt. Bill Robertson died of cancer. Does anyone know if that is true?
Author: INJUN
Posted: Sat Mar 24 2001 03:24 pm
I always wondered if "revolutionaries" are zapped with microwave guns. It is much neater than machine guns for "elimination".
|
