Extremely competent C/Ses and auditors can be thrown a curve in the handling of cases by reason of sudden changes in the handling of glandular deficiencies or sudden changes in diets or vitamin intake.
One such case had been running faultlessly for a week rat-a-tat-tat, big wins, gains and completions, and suddenly, for reason unknown, had a sky high TA.
It was found that the pc had had a thyroid deficiency since childhood, and took a regular amount of thyroid several times weekly (medical prescription).
The pc, in the middle of the intensive suddenly stopped taking this extra food supply without informing anybody, and trouble arose immediately.
The situation was rectified, the pc told not to change this pattern, and within hours it handled the TA trouble as well. She had been made to continue taking the pill.
The case had however accumulated a considerable amount of mass which the auditor had to handle with some BPC lists.
The data applying here is:
The thyroid is the "motion gland" of the body.
The tech data is: A person enforcing "no motion" piles up mental mass.
He will also kill the thyroid gland as that causes in some way the body to move.
Originally having had to take the pill, the person’s thyroid was reduced in activity. Thus the pill would have to be continued despite auditing.
Thus a thyroid deficient pc who goes off the pill has “no motion” = mass build up.
This explanation is worded crudely but is itself factual.
This may also be found in sudden cessation of Vitamin E.
The data mentioned in this issue is of vital importance to the C/S.
As an area of handling it is however a medical matter.
NOTE THAT WE NEITHER ADVISE NOR NOT ADVISE GLAND EXTRACTS, AND THAT THYROID IS COMMONLY EASED OFF.
A C/S however must be in the possession of data of physical nature such as the above, and in case of doubt can send the pc to the Examiner for query, or even to a medical doctor for a report about such matters.
This data applies to all levels and, for an OT III or above case, extra handling of that area may have to be done.
It again clearly proves the old rule that if all standard actions have been done, yet the case is not running right, an unknown arbitrary has been introduced, after isolation and handling of which the case will again run well.