Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.(R) is not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

BRI® is not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

Saint Jude Retreats(R) are not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

St. Jude Retreats(R) are not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

Saint Jude Program(R)  formerly known as the Jude Thaddeus Program(R)  is not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

St. Jude Program(R)  formerly known as the Jude Thaddeus Program(R)  is not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

Saint Jude Home Program(R)  formerly known as the Jude Thaddeus Home Program(R)  is not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

St. Jude Home Program(R)  formerly known as the Jude Thaddeus Home Program(R)  is not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

Saint Jude Home Audio Program(R)  formerly known as the Jude Thaddeus Home Audio Program(R)  is not in any way associated with, connected to, or supportive of Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm or L. Ron Hubbard.

Narconontm, Scientologytm, the Church of Scientologytm may be trademarks of the named organizations, individually or collectively.

The Forum website that started this damaging and misleading controversy is:

Guilt by innuendo is not guilt at all – it is slander.

Be it known to all that: Baldwin Research Institute, Inc., Saint Jude Retreats and Saint Jude Home Program has never been, nor will ever be, in any way, associated with or connected to or supportive of  the Church of Scientology, Narconon and/or L. Ron Hubbard regardless of the innuendoes and misleading and baseless defamation posted on

It is of more than passing interest that, with the exception of one, “whyweprotest” is an anonymous forum. “whyweprotest” explains their reason for anonymity is: “Scientology protesters cover their faces in order to protect their identities, to preserve anonymity and to ensure safety. Consistent with its “Fair Game” policy, which requires that critics and enemies of the organization be “utterly destroyed,” Scientology has a well-earned reputation for harassing critics and openly critical ex-scientologists at their homes and workplaces. Taking measures to protect your privacy and anonymity when confronted by an aggressively litigious cult – a cult whose mantra is “Never Defend, Always Attack!” – is a matter of common sense.

Is it possible for any reasonable human being to miss the hypocrisy here? “whyweprotest”’s practices, appear to be the same as Scientology’s alleged practices: i.e. that critics and [perceived] enemies of “whyweprotest” be “utterly destroyed...”  Whether or not there is any truth to “whyweprotest”’s claim that Scientology “requires that critics and enemies of the organization be “utterly destroyed, this assertion by “whyweprotest” is not sufficiently documented on “whyweprotest”’s website to determine validity. On the other hand, “whyweprotest” clearly demonstrates on its blog about Baldwin Research that it,“whyweprotest’,” does, in fact, try to “utterly destroy” its perceived “critics and enemies.”

Setting aside, for a moment, the fact that “whyweprotest”’s protestations are false; make no mistake about this – anonymously making or implying falsehoods about others is not “a matter of common sense.” It is simply a matter of avoiding the ramifications of their false claims.

Earlier it states: “It is of more than passing interest that, with the exception of one, “whyweprotest” is an anonymous forum.” So who is the one exception to the list of anonymous bloggers that hide their identities with such name conventions as “TheBitch,” “shorty6981,” “Asshole,” “JohnnyRUClear” and “FUCK?” The one exception is the writer with a real catchy naming convention: “Slate.”  His opening words are “Hi, my name is Steven Slate...” So, how does the forum respond to factual information? Anonymous responds: “Not that you aren't who you say you are or that your statements aren't true but you do understand your seemingly singular purpose being here instantly puts you under suspision as such. We have had plenty others try to do the same only to find out that their attempted damage control only made things worse for whom they were trying to protect.” Anonymous, Jan 26, 2011

Anonymous, without any factual information, raises a question as to “Slate being who he says he is.  Would it not strike any reasonable person as hypocritical for one who hides behind a pseudonym to question someone else’s identity, particularly when that someone else uses his own name?  Furthermore and according to Anonymous, Slate is immediately “under suspicion” because of Slate’s “seemingly singular purpose” for making his entry onto the Forum. But, are not all the Forum entries singular in purpose, which is, according to Anonymous, to “damage” (except for Slate’s entries) Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. and Saint Jude Retreats?

In the end OTBT agrees with Slate writing:
Slate, I tentatively accept some of your reasoning. The BRI paper cited was from 1998. And while many scientologist regulary use the phrase "I'm not a Scientologist but..." you don't seem to be using this fallacious argument. Your open request to call and visit BRI and judge for ourselves is definitely a good sign.

Your reasonings posted above appear to be consistent and logical, as far as state of mind of BRI in 1998.

However, I also think BRI brought this linking to Scientology and Narconon upon themselves, by repeatedly citing Narconon.

< pause, browsing BRI web site >

Ok, after spending a bit of time browsing around BRI website, I see stuff that tends to make me think the BRI is not connected in any way to Scientology. BRI foolishly (in my opinion) cites Narconon old studies.”

In the end, two honest men: Steven Slate, the protector of truth, and OTBT, the analytical skeptic, are the only individual’s willing to search out a possibility beyond mere suspicion and slander.

When all is said and done, there is really only one person that knows the definitive truth about this debacle: that is the one who wrote the report for Baldwin Research Institute, Inc.  What was he thinking at the time? What was the purpose of the report?  And, who wrote the report?

Jerry Brown

I know the answers to all of these questions.  In the tradition of Steven Slate – Hi, my name is Jerry Brown and in 1998 I wrote the report quoted in the “whyweprotest” Forum entitled “baldwin-research-institute-a-scientology-fraud.”  First, I will address who I am so there can be no confusion as to the fact that I am not in any way connected with Scientology and/or Narconon and/or L. Ron Hubbard.

I am Gerald Joseph Brown born in Norwood, New York, on Morgan Street, 11 April 1942.  I was baptized at Saint Andrew’s Roman Catholic Church in Norwood, New York, where I made my First Confession with Father Francis McGuire. Also, at Saint Andrew’s, I received my First Communion.  I was Confirmed Roman Catholic by the Bishop of Ogdensburg, New York at Saint Mary’s Roman Catholic Church in Potsdam, New York. I was a member of, and married in, the Holy Family Roman Catholic Church in Fulton, New York in 1966. Since the day I was born, to this day, I have always been a practicing Roman Catholic.  Never once have I ever considered any other way of life. Today (26 May 2011) and at this writing, I am an active member of Saint Mary’s Church in Amsterdam, New York.

Through the years I have served as a lay lector, Eucharistic Minister and taught First Communion, Confirmation and public school Roman Catholic release-time classes.  And, I have attended and presented programs at Roman Catholic Retreats. Additionally, I have worked in several Catholic Hospitals and served on Diocesan Committees.  I have lived my entire life, 69+ years, as a practicing Roman Catholic. Now, in my autumnal years, I have received the final Roman Catholic Sacrament of extreme unction three times, with at least one more time to go. Being Roman Catholic is not what I am; being Roman Catholic is who I am.

Thus, I cannot and will not lend any credence to “whyweprotest’s” absurd allegations. That being said, I must confess that I do not know much about Scientology, Narconon and L. Ron Hubbard and furthermore, I am not willing to spend any time finding out more.  My knowledge on these subjects is probably that of most ordinary people.

NOT Scientology

With respect to Scientology, I have heard through the news media that the people administering the Church of Scientology have been involved in illegal activities.  As for Narconon, and again by way of public media, I understand that one or more Narconon facilities have been raided by police for illegal activities. On the subject of L. Ron Hubbard, I know he was a science fiction writer. Years ago (probably in the 1960’s) when Hubbard gained some popularity with his book, Dianetics, I, as many did at that time, looked at the book. My reading technique is to read a few paragraphs from no more than ten randomly selected pages.  This technique was developed so as to not waste my time reading drivel. Based on this technique, I never read L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics.  I opted not to read his book. My cursory analysis was that L. Ron Hubbard was a wingnut who wrote nonsense under a delusion of adequacy. From that day to this, I have never felt the need to revisit my initial conclusion.

So, why, in 1998 did I go to the trouble of securing permission from Narconon to use their published copyright study results in a paper that I was writing? And, why did I choose to write about Narconon’s study results?

In 1992 Saint Jude Retreats was the only program claiming that an educational program for helping people with drug and alcohol problems was superior to drug and alcohol treatment.  Then in 1998, as I was preparing one of our many responses to the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, I came across Narconon’s study information.  I knew at the time that Narconon was embroiled in controversy.  Nevertheless, Narconon claimed to employ an educational strategy and Narconon’s data claimed to have non-Narconon authenticity.  I submitted Narconon’s data as a non-affiliated, third party’s assessment of an educational methodology.  NYS OASAS did not reject Narconon’s data.

Years later, I serendipitously came upon information that the Narconon data that I used was flawed. By this time it was far and away too late to issue a correction to NYS OASAS. Also and at that time, I thought I should delete all references to Narconon from the research paper, so as not to be painted with Narconon’s flawed brush.  Deleting the Narconon information went on my “one of these days” list simply because it was not a priority at the time. After that, one of these days never came and I forgot about making the deletions.  It wasn’t until the “whyweprotest” Forum appeared that I remembered the Narconon information still existed in our archives.  Subsequently, all references to Narconon and its studies have been removed from our archives and websites.

Sometimes expediency becomes the hobgoblin of an otherwise organized mind. Point of fact is that my use of Narconon’s study information was a mistake.  Still it seems grossly unfair of “whyweprotest” to pounce on 13 year old data without reading the rest of Baldwin Research Institute’s website and Saint Jude Retreat’s websites of which there are more than 400 pages of data and general information explaining in detail who and what the St. Jude Program is. Consider that OTBT from “whyweprotest” spent but a few brief minutes on Baldwin Research Institute’s website and concluded:

“Ok, after spending a bit of time browsing around BRI website, I see stuff that tends to make me think the BRI is not connected in any way to Scientology.” 

Clearly the originator of “whyweprotest” could have done the same thing and would have come to the same conclusion: “BRI is not connected in any way to Scientology.”

More about Jerry Brown

First and foremost, I am a researcher. However, my association with, and understanding of, alcohol and drug problems goes well beyond research driven by intellectual curiosity and cultural suppositions. At this writing, I am 69 years old, but my experience caring for people with drug and alcohol problems dates back to 1958.

At that time, I worked for my uncle, who was an RN, and for a doctor friend who, as an adjunct to his family practice, detoxified drunks.  I was a 16 year old orderly studying for my nursing state boards.  My job in this trio was to stay with our clients 24/7 in a private setting (sometimes in a hospital room, sometimes in a private residence and sometimes in a remotely located cottage.)  Thus, began a lifelong dedication to helping people with alcohol and drug problems.

At 16 years old, I didn’t drink or drug.  Still, I was personally aware of the heartache, chaos and destruction attendant with drinking and drugging.  Since my earliest memories, my parents, their siblings and their friends used copious amounts of alcohol and drugs. As I got older, in my late teens, and to maintain the cultural norm, all my friends used drugs and alcohol excessively, as did my siblings and me.  We became like our parents and many of our children became like us; they drank and used drugs.  And, so it went.

At 37 years old I stopped using drugs and alcohol.  At that time, I was still quite successful with my career at General Electric Company.  I was a systems analyst and had done extensive research in computer graphics mathematics for which I was published multiple times, internationally. In the ensuing ten years, my attention to computer graphics waned, while my interests in the, obviously, flawed drug and alcohol recovery processes were overtaking my every waking moments.  Finally, at 48 years old, I abandoned my computer graphics research career to begin my second career: researching solutions for drug and alcohol problems.  I had come full circle from where I started at 16 years old; except at 48 years old, I was prepared to understand what had happened, what was happening, then, and what was demanded of the future.

As I began my research in the early 1980’s, I was surprised to learn that there were already many researchers studying the drug and alcohol problem.  As is the case with most scientific endeavors, these researchers ranged from the highly credible, to unoriginal, to outright frauds. 

Among the highly credible were the Rand Study authors, Martha Sanchez-Craig and Mark and Linda Sobell.  While I may not agree with all of their conclusions, they have my respect and gratitude.  Why? Simply because these were, and in some cases are, true researchers; that is, they actually conducted organized studies and reported on their work.  And, even though their detractors may have reasonable criticisms, such criticisms certainly do not change the fact that the work was, indeed, done and documented.  Without researchers such as these, mankind’s advances would be relegated to guesses and random chance.

As for the unoriginal group of researchers, these are the researchers that haven’t actually conducted research, but rather read papers published by researchers who actually did research. For these there are legions. Many are willing to write about research others have done, and then call it research.

Then, there are the outright frauds.  Most noteworthy of these are William Wilson of Alcoholics Anonymous, Marty Mann of the National Council on Alcoholism and Dr. E.M. Jellinek of Yale University. Wilson claims in his book entitled Alcoholics Anonymous: “Here are the steps we took which are suggested as a program of recovery.” [Alcoholics Anonymous, Third Edition, 1976, pg. 59.]Bill Wilson, so the story goes, stopped drinking alcohol prior to June 1935, which is the supposed founding date of the organization known as Alcoholics Anonymous.  Thus, Bill Wilson’s assertion in 1939 that “Here are the steps we (including Bill Wilson) took which are suggested as a program of recovery,” quite simply cannot be true, because in 1935 the steps he lists in the book, Alcoholics Anonymous, did not exist. Nor did the organization known as Alcoholics Anonymous exist in 1935. According to Wilson, the pre-Alcoholics Anonymous members had six steps to sobriety, but even these six steps cannot be verified because there are few references to these six steps which apparently were written by Wilson, well after the pre- Alcoholics Anonymous members had become sober.  The pre-Alcoholics Anonymous members became sober in a fundamentalist Christian organization known as the Oxford Group, not in Alcoholics Anonymous which did not exist until four years later.

Marty Mann of the National Council on Alcoholism and Dr. E.M. Jellinek of Yale University conspired to perpetrate a national hoax, “the disease of alcoholism,” which was naively accepted by the American medical establishment.  The "recovery" community's adoption of the disease concept began with an early AA member, Marty Mann. Her efforts, combined with a fraudulent scientist named E.M. Jellinek, began national acceptance of the disease concept. It was Jellinek's self-proclaimed "scientific" study that opened the door for the medical community’s support. E.M. Jellinek's study was funded by the efforts of Marty Mann and R. Brinkley Smithers. And, like so many other circumstances involving Jellinek and Mann, the study was bogus. The surveys Jellinek based his conclusions on were from a handpicked group of alcoholics that fit Jellinek's preconceived theory. There were 158 questionnaire respondents, 60 of which were not included, apparently because these sixty subjects did not fit with Jellinek’s and Mann’s preconceived conclusion. Jellinek's conclusion was based on less than 100 handpicked alcoholics chosen by Marty Mann. Following the study Jellinek published his findings in a book “The Disease Concept of Alcoholism." Later, E.M. Jellinek was asked by Yale University to refute his own findings. He complied. E.M. Jellinek's The Disease Concept of Alcoholism did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

As for the research I have conducted, most have been observational studies.  For example, in 1988 I began a yearlong study of ten different meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. These meetings ranged in attendance from 7-10 attendees to 30-40 attendees.  At the end of one year only 9.6% of those who came to the meetings during the test period were still in attendance at the end of the test period.  In 1990 I completed and published (1991) a study of 38 self-proclaimed alcoholics1. Since these early studies, many more observational studies have been completed. (See

There were also annual success rate studies conducted during the first ten years, and beyond, of the Baldwin Program development (nka The Jude Thaddeus Program.)  These success rate studies had two components: observational and statistical. The observational component was based on firsthand observation of all the guests2 (subjects) that attended the program during the study periods. During the first 9½ years I, along with my fellow researcher, Mark Scheeren, lived on premises with our guests. We were with our guests twenty-four hours a day, 365 days each year.  During that time, nearly 4000 days, we took no vacations and no days off. While such commitment may seem extreme to some or perhaps an exaggeration to others, it is neither.  We were dedicated to finding real solutions for the drug and alcohol dilemma. Every day was filled with new friends and new discoveries that could only come from daily interaction with our guests, the program and the facility. After guests left, we contacted them to do post-program statistical studies.  In these annual post-program studies, we developed statistically accurate success rates.  These success rate studies were not conducted for the purpose of marketing, but were done to determine the efficacy of the program at a point in time, to mark that particular time with a point of reference, and following the completion of each study period, to introduce the next scheduled changes to be measured the following year.

With that said, the question remains: what, then, qualifies me to conduct drug and alcohol use research.  In the great tradition of researchers, like Gates, Wozniak, Edison, Westinghouse and Galileo, most researchers who changed the world that we live in, had little or no “formal” training. Arguably any one of these researchers, but most certainly, all five of these scientists, together, changed the course of mankind, as only they could have.  Yet, none were formally educated, generally, or in their respective sciences. They were (are,) in fact, autodidacts (i.e. self-taught.) Remarkably, or perhaps not so remarkably, these scientists without undergraduate degrees, without Master Degrees and without Doctorate Degrees, had more of an impact on the world than all formally educated researchers, together.   The point to be made here is simply this and nothing more: Achieving formal educational degrees, does not, and historically, is not, a requisite for being a productive researcher. 

And, like them, I, too, am autodidactic. At nineteen years old I was a Medical Technologist, self-educated in Biology, Hematology, Bacteriology, Immunology, and Clinical Chemistry.  At 21 years old I was teaching Hematology while serving in the United States Air Force.  By 1966, I had changed careers after learning semiconductor theory and computer systems design and at 30 years old, I joined General Electric Company’s world renowned Corporate Research and Development Center as a computer graphics systems researcher and designer. Finally, in 1989, I dedicated the rest of my life to researching solutions for drug and alcohol problems.  At this writing, that was more than 25 years ago.  

As for my qualifications to research solutions for drug and alcohol problems, I lived where few, if any, other researcher in the industry have lived.  I know, first-hand, and through the eyes of a child, the terror of living with parents who used drugs and alcohol, abusively.  As a young adult, I personally know the destructiveness of chronic drug and alcohol use.  As a parent with young children, I saw in my children the terror that I once knew when I was a child. And, as the parent of young adults, I have lived the torment that only a parent with a child caught up in drug and alcohol use can understand.

Additionally, I have conducted research as no other researcher in the industry has ever done.  My research is unique because it is based on observational “first-hand” studies over multiple years.  For example, I attended more than 6,000 meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous during a 22 year period.  The information collected at some of these meetings was codified in the Baldwin Research Study of 1990.   In 1992 I co-founded a social/educational based program for the purpose of studying the results of such a program.  During the first nine and a half years, I (literally) lived in the facility with the guests of the program.  During that time, I recorded my research from “first-hand” observations of the guests and then annually conducted post-program statistical studies.  My point is simply this: There are no researchers in the entire industry who have done what I have done for as long as I have done it.  Thus and with humility, I submit that it is probable that I know more about drug and alcohol problems and more about solutions for these problems, on a first-hand basis, than anyone else, ever.

That is not to say, however, that all I have learned is based on first-hand observations.  Over the years I have read thousands of books, articles, research papers and websites having to do with drug and alcohol use and treatments.  And after all this reading and studying the only conclusion that can be drawn from these sources is no conclusion at all.

So…what is the truth about alcohol and drug use and what is the solution?  A good place to start is with common sense, an element decidedly lacking in the discussion of drug and alcohol use.  That being said, it is difficult, if not impossible, to introduce common sense into the drug and alcohol use debate, inasmuch as the entire debate (and industry) is plagued by gurus spewing platitudes, emotional diatribe, and cultural mythology.  This website will not participate in this vitriolic debate. 

Rather, it is the mission of this website to clarify who Baldwin Research Institute, Inc. and the St. Jude Retreats are, and to officially let the world know that we have absolutely no ties to Narconontm or its programs or offshoots, and that the “whyweprotest” blog site is not structured in a manner that allows for quelling their paranoia, misdirected suspicion and libelous innuendos.