Sometimes the folks who say that hypnosis is or isn't dangerous have vested interests to promote.  While I certainly try to be as informative as possible, anyone reading my Life of Brian blog https://briandavidphillips.net/ should have a clue that I'm a hypnotist and therefore have an inherent bias in my reporting.

Some folks who report so-called dangers of hypnosis are well-meaning, albeit misinformed, individuals.  Others have an agenda of their own hidden below the text.

Not too long ago, a post was made on the Hypnosis Technique Exchange (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HypnosisTechniqueExchange) that asked about an article that seemed to come from a "scientific" trust regarding "dangers" of hypnosis.  Immediately, folks familiar with the trust posted the link to Scientology and the spurious nature of some of the conclusions.  This led the original poster to criticize folks for making general statements indicting Scientology, a religion he is unfamiliar with.  This is a fair statement, one should hit the points of the piece rather than the religion, but a discussion did develop that was interesting and helpful.

There is a strong link from this "trust" to Scientology.  Some folks responding made comments about Hubbards conclusions.  L. Ron Hubbard founded the religion of Scientology (the religion of Xenu and alien prisoners cast to Earth as disparate souls). Hubbard studied hypnosis and adapted many induction processes into the clearing processes he employs in the practice of scientology while telling converts not to use hypnosis. He is certainly not the first hypnotist to start a religion based upon hypnotic processes while steering converts away from hypnosis proper.

As to the statements about hypnosis in the article, it's obviously dated material. Hubbard's work in hypnosis was over sixty years or so ago. The generalized statements discount the use of uncovering processes or other forms of hypnotic suggestion. Certainly, way back when, there were folks who would give direct suggestion to repress a symptom but I would suggest that today there are many more beneficial processes and even folks who use direct suggestion alone tend not to "repress" symptoms.

The article is suspect because of the source used (dated and not reputable) as well as the inaccuracy of the statements. This foundation may have a fancy name but it does not come off as very legitimate, particularly if a Hubbard quote is an example of the research rigor.  There are plenty of legitimate research articles out there on hypnosis in very very well-respected scientific journals that show a very different picture of hypnosis.

Certainly, being a scientologist does not mean that one's ideas should immediately be discounted (I now Scientologists who are very good people with very critical minds), but Hubbard is not the best source to discuss hypnosis or medical issues and even if he were, he shuffled off this mortal coil (or, as the Scientologists say, discarded his body in order to live in another galaxy) or just plain died of a heart attack in 1986 and so even if he were writing on any relevant subject even at his death, it would be very out of date material (he abandoned any research into hypnosis long before his death, so that seems very unlikely).