--- In [email protected], "Jeff Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Jeff Fischer" > > > > Again, I know everyone has to make > > > > their own choices. Review as much info as possible and then > decide. > > > > I am trying to review as much information as possible. Here is what I > > found on Scientology and its costs. > > I do Dianetics auditing. $200 per 12 1/2 hours. 25 hours usually does the trick. So, 400-500 bucks.
And Spraig says it costs him $180 yr for SSRIs. So it seems that if Scientology were an effective treatment for depression, it would be much cheaper in the long run. The present value of such payments over 10 years is about $1300. And Scientology as an organization appears to like generating revenues. So it seems a perfect fit. Why has not Scientology funded as series of objective peer-reviewed studies that could be published in respectable journals? If S. was effective, it could gain mainstream recommendations for depression treatment. Given maybe 50 million SSRI users world wide currently, a well docuemnted S program, per its clinical effectiveness, could expect to capture at least 10% of that market. 5 million new users at $500 each is $2.5 billon in new revenues. Why doesn't S. aggressively pursue this market by funding a series of credible studies? My only guess is that they have determined its not as effective as SRRIs and would not fare well under objectgive scientific scutiny. If not this, what? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
