Disclaimer: The purpose of this Blog
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do bad things, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” – Albert Einstein
This blog expresses my (Monica Pignotti) opinions and analysis based upon evidence and facts, as I understand them. See my other blog, Monica Pignotti: The Truth for rebuttals to the internet smear and disinformation campaign about me initiated by people who are obviously upset by my evaluation of certain mental health practices. Go here to read a Statement of Support from social work, psychology and other mental health professionals.
The intent and purpose of this blog is to provide the readers with information and points of view that they might not otherwise be provided with by proponents of the therapies I am discussing who may sincerely believe they are helping people. It is not the purpose of this blog to give any specific advice on specific professionals and it is not the purpose of this blog to dissuade anyone from seeing any particular professional or to recommend any particular professional and my positive or negative views ought not to be interpreted in that manner. My purpose is to provide the reader with accurate information so that the reader can make more informed choices, should they or anyone in their family need help from a mental health professional, but the choices are yours and yours alone to make. The opinions I express on this blog are solely my own and ought not to be interpreted as advice. I would urge people to consult a wide variety of sources of information before consulting any mental health professional. The decision you make is yours and yours alone.
Please note that contrary to misinformation that has been posted about me where I am falsely accused of being a “paid shill”, I am not paid, nor have I ever been paid for any positive reviews I give with regard to any mental health professional on this or any other blog or internet forum, or anywhere else and such positive reviews are not intended to be specific recommendations for any specific reader. I have no business relationship whatsoever with any mental health professional and I provide information, simply as an expression of my constitutional rights to express my opinions and as a public service.
Straw man argument alert!
To correct misinformation about me that is on the internet, nothing that I do or write about here had any basis whatsoever in Scientology. I am a very strong critic of Scientology, a group I left and completely repudiated over 35 years ago, 20 years before I ever became a mental health professional in 1996. Scientology has nothing whatsoever to do with the work and writing I presently do. One person whose intervention I expressed concerns over used the straw man argument that I use Scientology as the basis for my credentials. Obviously I do not. Scientology was a mistake I made as a teenager and after spending only two and a half years of my adult life in it, have long since repudiated. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my professional credentials. My credentials include an MSW, a PhD from a Research One university and extensive training, publications and experience in evaluating mental health interventions. This makes me very well qualified to critique certain therapies for lack of evidence to support them and raise questions about them.
And in response to the argument I have to have internationally adopted children with serious behavior problems to critique interventions aimed at this population, no, I do not have to have raised an adopted child to know it is not a good idea for parents to use prone restraint on their children at home, any more than I would have to have a sleep problem to know that it is not a good idea to ingest the surgical anesthetic propofol at home and if an MD told me it was okay, I would challenge that, just as I challenge the use of prone restraint on a child at home, even if self proclaimed experts chastise me for challenging them.
Additionally, nothing in this blog is intended to be legal advice in any way, shape or form. I am simply expressing my opinions on certain cases. As a human being, I make no claims of being infallible. If any reader believes that I have made any factually incorrect statements, I welcome feedback and correction, as long as adequate evidence is provided.
Castlewood Treatment Center: A Second Lawsuit is Filed.
This just in today. A second lawsuit has just been filed by a 26 year old woman, also from Minnesota, against Castlewood Treatment Center and Mark Schwartz. Click here for details.
The lawsuit against the eating disorders treatment center is very similar to the first one, filed by ex-Castlewood patient Lisa Nasseff. After Lisa Nasseff spoke out publicly about the center in an interview that is now available online, Castlewood and Schwartz are seeking a gag order that would forbid any parties from speaking publicly during this case. Decision by the court on whether to grant the gag order is pending. The second lawsuit, filed by Leslie Thompson, alleges being led at Castlewood to believing she has multiple personalities, as well as repressed memories of satanic ritual abuse. We now know that Lisa Nasseff is not alone in her allegations. The report states that there are others who willing to be witnesses who corroborate these women but for most, the statute of limitations had expired and so they were unable to sue.
New Review on DID and Dissociative Disorders
A new review of DID and Dissociative Disorders has just been published in the APS journal, Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Lynn, S.J., Lilienfeld, S.O., Merckelbach, H., Giesbrecht, T., & van der Kloet, D. (2012). Dissociation and Dissociative Disorders: Challenging Conventional Wisdom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21,48-53.
Abstract
Conventional wisdom holds that dissociation is a coping mechanism triggered by exposure to intense stressors. Drawing on recent research from multiple laboratories, we challenge this prevailing posttraumatic model of dissociation and dissociative disorders. Proponents of this model hold that dissociation and dissociative disorders are associated with (a) intense objective stressors (e.g., childhood trauma), (b) serious cognitive deficits that impede processing of emotionally laden information, and (c) an avoidant information-processing style characterized by a tendency to forget painful memories. We review findings that contradict these widely accepted assumptions and argue that a sociocognitive model better accounts for the extant data. We further propose a perspective on dissociation based on a recently established link between a labile sleep-wake cycle and memory errors, cognitive failures, problems in attentional control, and difficulties in distinguishing fantasy from reality. We conclude that this perspective may help to reconcile the posttraumatic and sociocognitive models of dissociation and dissociative disorders.
The authors compare and contrast two models associated with DID: the Posttraumatic Model and the Sociocognitive Model. Proponents of the Posttraumatic Model have claimed that DID is associated with very high rates of childhood trauma, especially sexual abuse. However, as the authors of this review point out, the studies that show these “high rates” lack objective corroboration of the abuse and instead rely mainly on uncorroborated self reports. Assessing a person for DID and then asking them if they remember having been abused in childhood is what is known as a retrospective study, a study that relies on participants’ memories of past experiences. In contrast, prospective studies, which follow people after the fact of having undergone documented childhood trauma have failed to substantiate the notion that childhood trauma leads to DID. Other problems with this model are researchers’ failure to control for overlapping conditions such as eating, anxiety and personality disorders, which are not necessarily unique to people with dissociative disorders. It also may be that people with dissociative disorders who also have childhood abuse issues are more likely to seek treatment, thus the studies reporting high rates that took their subjects from a clinical population are the result of selection and referral bias. Additionally, in studies that have controlled for perception of family pathology, the correlation between abuse and psychopathology has greatly lessened or disappeared entirely. The authors point out that this could mean that the “association is due to global familial maladjustment rather than the abuse itself.”
In contrast, the authors describe the Sociocognitive Model of DID:
This model holds that DID results from inadvertent therapist cueing (e.g., suggestive questioning regarding the existence of possible alters, hypnosis for memory recovery, sodium amytal), media influences (e.g., television and film portrayals of DID), and sociocultural expectations regarding the presumed clinical features of DID. In aggregate, the sociocognitive model posits that these influences can lead predisposed individuals to become convinced that indwelling entities—alters—account for their dramatic mood swings, identity changes, impulsive actions, and other puzzling behaviors (see below). Over time, especially when abetted by suggestive therapeutic procedures, efforts to recover memories, and a propensity to fantasize, they may come to attribute distinctive memories and personality traits to one or more imaginary alters. (Lynn et al., p. 49).
The authors then review a number of research findings that are consistent with the Sociocognitive Model. For example, the number of DID diagnoses and the number of alters diagnosed greatly increased after the book and TV movie, Sybil was released and popularized during the 1970s. Therapy techniques involved in DID therapy can often be suggestive, asking leading questions and naming alters, that reinforce and reifies the alters. Also, the vast majority of DID diagnoses are found among a small minority of therapists who identify themselves as having expertise in treating DID. Of course, DID therapists, in turn, argue that the diagnosis was missed by previous therapists who were not adequately trained but when the disorder is on such shaky grounds in the first place, this appears to be a circular argument. If DID were a naturally arising condition, it ought to be immediately obvious to therapists who have no such bias.
This review also includes some very recent findings on the association (in both clinical and nonclinical samples) of sleep, memory problems and dissociation. They note:
This link, they contend, is evident across a range of sleep-related phenomena, including waking dreams, nightmares, and hypnagogic (occurring while falling asleep) and hypnopompic (occurring while awakening) hallucinations.
Lynn and his colleagues cited studies that showed that when healthy volunteers are deprived of sleep under experimental conditions, they exhibit dissociative symptoms. This is especially interesting in light of what people who study destructive cults have noted regarding dissociative symptoms displayed by people who are members of such groups, commonly attributed to brainwashing and mind control. Given that sleep deprivation is common in many such groups, the dissociative symptoms might be better explained by sleep deprivation and this would be well worth further study.
Most interesting is that the authors cite a growing body of literature showing that when people with dissociative disorders are treated for sleep problems by learning good sleep hygiene, their dissociative problems markedly improved. In one such study of 266 participants, 24% met the clinical cut-off for dissociative disorders prior to treatment, whereas after treatment (sleep hygiene) at follow up, the percentage dropped to 12%. The authors point out that these studies were missed in meta-analyses conducted by DID proponents such as Bethany Brand and her colleagues who instead, included only eight studies that revolved around treating trauma. The findings of the sleep hygiene intervention fly in the face of those who believe that it is necessary to treat trauma to help people with DID and other dissociative disorders.
Lynn and his colleagues do not entirely rule out trauma playing a role in dissociative disorders, but they do urge people to consider other factors that have come to light through research findings. They conclude their review by noting:
The data we have summarized have received only scant attention in the clinical literature. Nevertheless, they have the potential to reshape the conceptualization and operationalization of dissociative disorders in the upcoming edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMV, publication scheduled in 2013). In particular, they suggest that sleep disturbances, as well as sociocultural and psychotherapeutic influences, merit greater attention in the conceptualization and perhaps classification of dissociative disorders (Lynn et al., in press). From this perspective, the hypothesis that dissociative disorders can be triggered by (a) a labile sleep cycle that impairs cognitive functioning, combined with (b) highly suggestive psychotherapeutic techniques, warrants empirical investigation. More broadly, the data reviewed point to fruitful directions for our thinking and research regarding dissociation and dissociative disorders in years to come. (p. 51)
While I understand that some readers might see this as harsh, when someone is making the kinds of claims and charging the kind of fees this person does, it is important that mental health consumers have an alternate source of information and discussion about his work and claims, since his Wikipedia page appears to be sanitized with criticism kept to a very bare minimum. Again, I remind readers that the statements on this blog are an expression of my opinions regarding the individuals under discussion. For further details see the Wikipedia talk page for Steve Hassan and the talk page for biographies of living persons where this was discussed and ultimately, the material censored.
When I added some validly referenced criticism of Steve Hassan from his Wikipedia entry, one of the Wikipedia editors (who denies he has any association with Hassan) has repeatedly attempted to delete it. Here is what Steve Hassan’s followers apparently do not want you to read:
Criticism from Other Cult Experts
Cult experts David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo, Kevin Garvy and Michael Langone, PhD have criticized Steve Hassan’s approach to exit counseling in a chapter entitled “Exit Counseling: A Practical Overview” from an edited volume “[26]. These authors stated that Hassan’s four core beliefs are “vague and rather standard fare for counseling approaches within the field of humanistic psychology. As with many humanistic counseling approaches, Hassan runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework’s foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client.” (p. 175). The authors gave Hassan an opportunity to respond. Hassan’s response was that the critique “exaggerates the manipulativeness of his approach” and offered clarification that he tries to “minimize the danger by taking a step-by-step approach to help the cultist ‘grow’”. Clark et al.’s reply is “Despite these clarifications of Hassan’s approach, we still have several concerns.” Their concerns were first, that Hassan did not clearly communicate this sensitivity in his writings, second, that other professionals who rely on Hassan’s writings might not be sensitive enough to the potential of his approach to become manipulative, third, that Hassan’s approach “even when practiced in its most pure form, strategic intervention therapy is still overtly intrusive” (p. 176). Their fourth objection is that “subordinating exit counseling to a family counseling structure is usually not necessary for a successful exit counseling.” Their central criticism is that Hassan’s approach is said to “effect” change without the cult-involved person’s prior approval and is hence, manipulative, whereas in contrast, Clark et al’s informational approach “invites” change. To date, no research exists that demonstrates the superiority of either method of exit counseling.
^Recovery from Cults, Michael Langone (ed), 1993, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, ISBN 0-393-70164-6, p. 173-177
In a future article, I plan on posting an in-depth discussion of the material in this chapter. Contrary to the assertions and rationalizations of the individual who deleted this material, it is not a trivial matter. This is a controversy that has been central to people who do this type of work. I have attended a number of meetings of the exit counselors association at conferences where this has been discussed, where opinion was overwhelming against his work. Note that I am not trying to make an argument from majority here, only to point out that the Wikipedian’s arguments that people who criticize Hassan are in the minority is incorrect, as anyone who has been this scene for more than a few years can verify. A number of people who were his strong supporters in the past, have now defected from his camp, so to speak. I am far from being the only one who has come to realize the serious problems with his work. The problem is that much of this material is from conference proceedings that are not available on the internet and unfortunately some people seem to believe that everything on the internet is true and anything not on the internet is not true. What a sad state of affairs. I am hoping to remedy this soon by publishing some articles that will bring this and other controversies within the anticult community to light.
In the meantime, I have to ask, why the attempt at information control of validly cited, published criticism of Mr. Steven Alan Hassan?
The final outcome is that after a discussion with the moderator, that because I am known to have had disagreements with Steve Hassan, I am not allowed to contribute to the Wikipedia article on him since it constitutes a “conflict of interest”. Unfortunately the moderator gave credence to anonymous, completely undocumented and false allegations that came up on Google searches on my name that alleged with no basis whatsoever that I was trying to get Hassan’s license revoked. This is not true. The same anonymous posters lied that I had sexual relations with Hassan, also completely false and not just in the Clintonesque sense. Nevertheless, the upshot is that because of this false material that came up on Google, I am no longer allowed to post material to Steve Hassan’s Wikipedia Bio. It is too bad that the moderator apparently believes everything he reads on the internet.
That being said, Steve Hassan and his supporters can rest assured that this will not stop me from posting elsewhere about his work, including the criticism from other cult experts. That, they will not be able to censor. I find it interesting that Wikipedia stops critics from posting in biographies of living persons but not ardent supporters. Although this particular Wikipedia editor denies connections with Hassan, I know from my past direct experience with Hassan that he has enlisted his supporters to update his Wikipedia article and deal with negative information. To me, that looks like a recipe for a puff piece rather than an objective encyclopedia. This caution might be due to fear of lawsuits, although if Steve Hassan ever did decide to sue anyone, he can rest assured he would be thoroughly deposed during the discovery phase and as a plaintiff he would not be able to evade such a deposition. This means he would be required to produce full documentation on his fee structure, which aside from the fees for his first session, he no longer posts on his website and he would also be questioned in detail about the largely unsubstantiated claims he makes about the superiority of his method of counseling.
It is interesting that the Wikipedia editors denigrated the critique of Hassan’s work, saying it was just a “my theory is better than yours” type of critique when the authors never claimed that and unlike Steve Hassan, were honest enough to state that there was no research one way or the other. On the contrary, it is Steve Hassan who has repeatedly claimed, with no empirical basis whatsoever, that his approach is superior to all others. For example, on his website, promoting his book, it states:
Releasing the bonds reveals a much more refined method to help family and friends, called the Strategic Interaction Approach. This non-coercive, completely legal approach is far better than deprogramming, and even exit counseling.
There is no valid research evidence to support this baseless, bald assertion in this promotional piece for Steve Hassan’s second book (published by Freedom of Mind Press — essentially self-published).
The crowning irony is that Steve Hassan’s work is supposed to represent freedom of mind and freedom to engage in criticism, but apparently this only applies to the groups he considers “cults” rather than his own work. It appears that Steve Hassan has become what he is fighting and criticism of his work is not acceptable. Thankfully, however, free speech still exists on the internet.
Facilitated Communication Rears Its Pseudoscientific Head Once Again: When will they ever learn?
Last Friday’s 20/20 featured a 2007 case involving an autistic teen in Michigan, Aislinn Wendrow, who was subjected to a thoroughly discredited intervention, Facilitated Communication which resulted in bogus charges of sexual abuse against her father and even though he was eventually cleared of all charges, irreparable damage to this vulnerable child and her family has been done.
This is a heartbreaking reminder of why what those of us do who are exposing pseudoscience and potentially harmful therapies, is so vital. It is cases such as this that make me all the more determined to continue what I am doing, regardless of push back and resistance from certain mental health professionals who are doing everything they can to silence the voices of those who dare to blow the whistle.
For those unfamiliar with Facilitated Communication (FC), what it is and its background, an earlier Frontline documentary is available online, which gives the background on FC and shows how it was completely discredited by double-blind controlled studies which provided irrefutable evidence that it was the facilitator, not the autistic person, who was doing the typing. Not only did FC result in bogus charges of sexual abuse being filed, but more commonly, it gave parents false hopes that their child was actually communicating with them when in fact, they were not.
Whether intentional or not, I cannot imagine a crueler hoax, to lead a parent to believe that their child is communicating with them when really it is the doings of some stranger who was guiding their hands. It appears that most FC proponents are not intentionally perpetrating a hoax and they really believe in what they are doing, but nevertheless, it is highly irresponsible to be using a method that has been so thoroughly discredited.
It was bad enough when FC was being used in the 1990s when it was untested rather than discredited but now that double blind controlled studies have been done, anyone who uses it now, in my opinion is committing a gross deviation from any proper standard of care I can think of. What happened with FC in the 1990s is an illustration of why it is so important to thoroughly test interventions before they are released to the public because without such testing we have no idea whether the intervention will help, do nothing or harm. When FC first came out, positive anecdotes and success stories abounded and it was said to be a miracle that gave autistic children, for the very first time, a voice. Sadly, it was nothing of the sort.
While it is no surprise that true believers in pseudoscientific practices will explain away any studies that falsify their claims (that is a hallmark indicator of a pseudoscience) and conduct poorly designed studies of their own, what is shocking to me is that in the year 2007, more than 15 years after the practice was so thoroughly discredited, police and prosecutors accepted it so uncritically. Additionally, the school paid to have an FC facilitator accompany the child to classes and apparently the school never questioned its validity. The father spent 80 days in jail and the parents had both of their children removed from the home and placed in foster care, based solely on the results of a Facilitated Communication session where accusations of abuse were typed out. Additionally, her brother was subjected to a grueling interrogation by police where they did everything they could to try to pressure him into saying the charges were true. It took some doing to get those charges dropped and the children returned to their loving home with their parents.
Thankfully, the “facilitator” Cynthia Scarsella, according to the 20/20 report, currently makes her living as a clerk at a clothing store in a mall. She refused to talk to reporters. Let’s hope Ms. Scarsella is never allowed to go near another child again in the role of any kind of a therapist or “facilitator”. However she was ever given any credibility in a court of law, remains a mystery.
This case serves as a heartbreaking reminder of the kind of damage that can be done through the use of untested or in this case, thoroughly discredited interventions. This practice ought to have ended in the 1990s when similar false accusations were made and the practice was falsified via double blind studies. When will they ever learn?
Blog Statistics for 2011: Thanks to all my readers and Happy New Year!
I just got my blog statistics for 2011. WordPress reported:
The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 18,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 7 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
I thank all my readers for reading this blog, which I hope you have found educational and beneficial and thank you for caring about its topic. This has been a productive year for me with several new publications and other blessings for which I am grateful.
For those who have asked about my upcoming book on pseudoscience, thank you for your interest! This is a peer reviewed book and these kinds of publications take time to produce, but my co-author (Bruce Thyer) and I have made excellent progress on it during 2011 and are planning on submitting our final draft in early 2012, meaning that it is indeed possible, depending on our publisher, that the book could be published by the end of 2012. I will keep you all posted.
My best wishes to all for a Happy and Prosperous 2012!
Brown Recovered Memory Project: Questionable Criteria
Since it is common for recovered memory proponents to raise the straw man issue and falsely accuse anyone who challenges them as being in favor of sexual abuse or protecting child abusers, that is not the case, so let me be perfectly clear from the outset. Child sexual abuse is horrible and devastating to victims. People who come forward with false accusations based on being subjected to suggestive therapy techniques (and no, these are not limited to hypnosis) do a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse and most victims do have continuous memories that they wish they could forget, but cannot. Some who experienced acts of abuse that did not involve penetration or physical pain, as the research of Richard J. McNally and Elke Gerarets and Susan Clancy has shown, were too young to understand what happened to them at the time of the abuse and did not experience it as a trauma at the time. Many of these people did not think about the abuse for a period of time, not because they repressed it, but because they didn’t understand what it meant. As adults, when these people came to realize the horror of what was done to them, it is then that they experienced devastating emotional aftereffects.
That does not, however, preclude the fact that there are a number of cases where false memories of abuse were recovered in therapy, where the therapist used hypnosis or other suggestive techniques. Note that denial of the use of hypnosis does not preclude recovery of false memories, as there are many other techniques that do not use formal hypnotic induction, yet are suggestive (e.g. guided visualization, the authority and certainty of the therapist that the person must have been abused and forgotten about it, group influence and many others).
The Brown University Recovered Memory Project claims to have 110 cases of recovered memory of trauma. However, there are some serious problems with their criteria that need to be considered. The problems fall into two categories 1) The criteria for corroboration and 2) There do not appear to be any criteria for what constitutes repression or traumatic amnesia, as opposed to other reasons for not remembering (e.g. the events in question happened at a very early age, physical brain damage, ordinary forgetting).
First, let’s look at their inclusion criteria and possible problems. They state that at least one of these criteria being met is a basis for inclusion.
a. confession, guilty plea, or self-incriminatory statement
This is highly problematic. It is well known and solidly substantiated that interrogation techniques can produce false confessions. Guilty pleas can be part of plea bargains and do not necessarily mean that the person is actually guilty. If someone is faced with a life prison sentence, they might well be motivated to pleading guilty as part of a plea bargain to a lesser crime that would still involve abuse, so they can have a lighter sentence, if they don’t want to risk a guilty verdict that could produce a life sentence. “Self-incriminatory statement” is vague. How is this defined? There is no indication. People can say all kinds of things under pressure, even when innocent, that may sound “self-incriminatory”. Just look at the case of Amanda Knox, who was pressured into a false confession and later acquitted.
b. testimony from other victims (or from an eyewitness to the abuse), or corroborative documentary evidence that is vitally relevant to the charges at issue
Again, this is vague. What is meant by “corroborative documentary evidence” and testimonies from other victims may or may not be evidence. What if the alleged victims were all treated by the same therapist or by the same facility? There have been cases where a number of patients in a particular treatment facility recovered highly improbable recovered memories of Satanic Ritual abuse. Such cases would fit Brown’s criteria, since they would have multiple “witnesses”.
c. corroboration of significant circumstantial evidence
Again, this is very vague. What is meant by “significant circumstantial evidence”?
Nevertheless, some of the cases presented do appear to have compelling corroborative evidence, but there is another problem that has not been addressed. What are the criteria for establishing a memory was “repressed” or that there was actually amnesia induced by the trauma, rather than ordinary forgetting?
For example, in the study by sociologist Linda Williams and her colleagues is a famous study frequently cited and cited in this project as well as support for corroborated recovered memories. The study interviewed 129 women between the ages of 18 and 31 about sexual abuse that was documented to have occurred 17 years earlier by hospital records and found that 38% (46 women) interviewed did not remember the particular incident of abuse that had been documented. Although 33 of the women remembered other incidents of abuse, 16 women reported they had no memories whatsoever of any abuse. However, of the 129 women, 42 had experienced the abuse from ages 0 to 6 years old and 25 of those were in the group that could not remember the event. Their failure to remember is better explained by the fact that they were too young at the time of the abuse to remember. It is normal not to remember an event, traumatic or not, that happened in early childhood or infancy. Also, not all of the hospital documentation was based on physical evidence. Although 60% did have such evidence, 40% did not. Some were based on disclosures by young children of events that happened at earlier ages, which even Williams acknowledged that they “may be attributable to information they received later in life.” So is this study solid documentation that repression exists? Hardly.
As Richard J. McNally pointed out, for traumatic amnesia to exist, it would have to mean that the person failed to remember an event, when presented with cues. It is not uncommon for the person not to think about a trauma for a period of time, but that doesn’t necessarily qualify as repression. For example, someone might have been sexually abused as a child, not thought about it for a period of time and then suddenly had memories come flooding back when the victim herself gave birth to a child. In that case, having a child of ones own was the cue to the memories coming back. Or visiting an old childhood location could bring back memories. Or someone was abused by a priest, didn’t think about it for a period of time, but the memories came back when they heard on the news that someone else had been abused by the same priest. If the memories were truly repressed, the person would be unable to remember, even when presented with such cues. This can even happen with non-traumatic events. I don’t see that this was ruled out in the cases that are presented.
Other possibilities not ruled out in cases presented as evidence for repression in the Brown archives and also in the very frequently cited book, Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law (Brown, Scheflin and Hammond, 1998, Norton) would include:
- Some children or even adults, when interviewed, may remember the abuse but just be too uncomfortable to talk about it.
- Physical brain damage that could be responsible for memory loss not being ruled out (especially the case where traumatic amnesia was claimed for studies on Holocaust survivors or combat veterans, most of whom have vivid memories but some who were said to have amnesia).
- Trauma victim reported forgetting of everyday current things in life, but not the trauma itself, yet this was incorrectly labeled as traumatic amnesia.
- Some of the studies were based on the self-reports of the person who had the trauma saying that he or she had spoken to others and corroborated the abuse, but the investigators did not independently corroborate the events by speaking to the witnesses themselves. They took the person’s word for it.
- Details of the traumatic event were not encoded in the first place. For example, a crime victim was looking at the attackers weapon, rather than his face, and hence is not able to identify the attacker, not because of repression, but because the victim was not looking at the face in the first place.
- Suppression, not repression. There is a big difference. People who suppressed memories (deliberately decided not to think about them) admitted in interviews that if asked, they could have easily remembered. People who repress memories and have traumatic amnesia, would not have the ability to do that.
- And last but not least, people who were too young to understand the significance of sexual abuse that did not involve penetration and was not physically painful and hence, did not encode the memory of abuse as a trauma at the time it happened and did not think about it for a period of time, only to later remember it as an adult when reminded of it and come to the painful realization of the violation that had occurred. This was not repression or traumatic amnesia, but rather, cases of young children who did not understand the significance of what happened to them.
For a very thorough review of all the problems with the studies cited in the book, Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, see Chapter 7 of Richard J. McNally’s, Remembering Trauma. The “corroborated” cases of the Recovered Memory Project suffer from some of the same deficiencies.
The problems with this archive are important to consider, in light of recent discussions and myths about trauma and memory that are being spread by impassioned proponents of recovered memory and DID following the publication of Debbie Nathan’s book, Sybil Exposed and the recent malpractice lawsuit brought against Castlewood Treatment Center and psychologist Mark Schwartz, by a former patient. Although some had thought these myths went away in the 1990s after more research emerged, recent people subjected to such therapy are now coming forward, showing that unfortunately, it is still being practiced and has passionate devotees repeating discredited myths about trauma and memory.
To sum things up, here is an excerpt from an Amicus Brief for Taus v Loftus filed by a number of “nationally and internationally prominent psychiatrists, psychologists and behavioral scientists, Federal grant recipients, private foundation grant recipients, members of professional journal editorial boards, journal reviewers, recipients of national research awards, collectively publishers of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and/or licensed clinical health care practitioners” . Go here to view their names and affiliations (note this is not an argument from authority because they provided extensive scientific evidence to back up their position):
As we examine these issues in greater detail throughout this brief, it is important for the court to remember that it is the consensus opinion of the relevant scientific community that there is no credible,
methodologically sound scientific evidence whatsoever for the theory that trauma survivors truly “repress” and then later “recover” memories of events that were experienced as traumatic at the time. Although a vocal subset of clinicians (therapists) believe in the “repression” hypothesis, research conducted over many years involving thousands of trauma-abuse victims demonstrates and emphasizes the persistence of trauma memories. “Repressed and recovered memory of trauma” is thus best described as a dangerous, piece of psychiatric folklore devoid of convincing scientific evidence.3 In our collective opinion, this unsupported theory has caused incalculable harm to the fields of psychology and psychiatry, damaged tens if not hundreds of thousands of families, severely harmed the credibility of mental health professionals, and also misled the legislative, civil, criminal and family legal systems into many miscarriages of justice. (Taus v Loftus, Amicus Curiae Brief of the National Committee of Scientists for Academic Liberty in support of Defendants and Appellants, Elizabeth Loftus, et al. p. 8 )
ISST-D members have implied, at various times, that those who challenge their views are part of some kind of lunatic fringe group and that they (the ISST-D) are the scientific mainstream. Examination of the names on this list conclusively demonstrates that precisely the opposite appears to be the case. It is also important to recognize that contrary to unfounded assertions by proponents of recovered memory type therapies that this is all just some conspiracy by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), that is not the case with this Amicus. In fact, most were never members of the FMSF and the brief states that:
Prior to the litigation at issue, they were not organized in any formal way, and many, if not most, of them have never met the individual defendants in this case (p. 6).
Steve Hassan Applies his Model to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“Mormons”): Based on “Scientific Research” as he claims or Pseudoscience?
The topic of this article is a discussion and closer look at Steve Hassan’s recent blog article entitled: An Expert Responds to the Cult Controversy Re Mormonism and the unsubstantiated claims he makes about his model being “scientific”. Although Steve Hassan has been described by some of his supporters as a “researcher” this label is inaccurate, as he has not actually conducted any research studies, nor has he published any studies in journals, which is what legitimate researchers do. This can be easily verified by doing a search on PsychInfo or Medline on his name as author. The only material that will come up are non-peer reviewed books. As someone who is actually a researcher and unlike Mr. Hassan, has had direct experience with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the “Mormons”) and who has a strong background in scientific research, here is my response.
Before addressing this topic, in the interest of full disclosure, although I have not been active or practicing since high school, I am still listed on official church records as LDS/Mormon. Even though I am inactive, unless a member explicitly requests to have his or her name removed from the membership records or is excommunicated, that person is still considered LDS and I have no intention of requesting such a removal, nor have I done anything that would have warranted excommunication (contrary to popular belief, people are not excommunicated for doing things like breaking the Word of Wisdom or failure to tithe and even when people are excommunicated they have the opportunity to repent and come back). Even though as people can see from reading my blogs, I am very sensitive to issues of abuse within groups, I have no complaints whatsoever about the way I was treated by anyone in the LDS religion.
In my personal experience with the LDS religion, which couldn’t have been more different from my later experience in Scientology, no one was ever anything less than kind, loving and respectful to me and no one has ever pressured me to come back to church or tried to frighten me about what would happen. Hardly “cult” behavior. On the contrary, very likely, I have my Mormon roots to thank for my resilience in the face of adversity, my perseverance in standing on principle and my ability to keep my focus on gratitude for what I do have (a practice which in recent times in the resilience literature, has even come to have scientific support) as opposed to what I have lost or don’t have.
Go here for a good website (by a Mormon, Jeff Lindsay) that debunks some of the allegations against LDS that are based on ignorance and an intelligent discussion of some of the theological as well as behavioral issues commonly discussed by critics. As Jeff Lindsay points out, unlike cultists, Mormons do not claim to have “all the answers” or a “monopoly on truth”. He writes:
As a member of the Church, I honestly believe that we have something wonderful and divine that can bless the lives of all people who choose to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Please note that we do not have a monopoly on truth. We recognize that there is truth and goodness in virtually all religions, and many things that we can learn from the truths, wisdom, and experiences of those in other faiths. We do not have all the answers!! In fact, one of our basic Articles of Faith teaches us that we believe that there are yet many great things to be revealed – meaning, of course, that there is plenty that we just don’t know and understand yet. We are commanded to keep learning, to seek knowledge out of “the best books” and to learn as much as we can on our own. At the same time, we believe we have been given some precious truths and principles in the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. We believe that the Church is of divine origin, in spite of all the flaws of its human members and human leaders over the years. And we think what we have can be added to the truths you may already know and cherish to bless your life in many ways and bring you close to our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Now to the topic at hand. Steve Hassan has posted an article to his blog entitled An Expert Responds to the Cult Controversy Re Mormonism. Although the definition of what constitutes an “expert” is questionable, since my qualifications to be an expert on cults are as least as strong as his although we have different strengths (he has done more exit counseling interventions and media appearances than I have and is a better, more persuasive salesperson than I am, while I have more research experience and education along with my experience with cult-involved individuals and families. Although I have done fewer interventions than he has, I do have about 15 years of experience, but I understand the limitations on making claims based on such experience. Here is my own opinion on the topic.
Before I begin, I want to note that this article is in no way intended to be a criticism of Margaret Singer, who was indeed a pioneer in the study of cults and thought reform and honestly represented her work as being research on cults as its very earliest stages of development. Although there were times I disagreed with some of the actions she took, Singer can be honorably remembered as a pioneer and later in her life, as an outspoken critic of pseudoscientific and unscientific therapies and therapists. I have no doubt she would be rolling over in her grave to see the kind of “parts” work being offered by some self-proclaimed “cult experts” today and in her book, Crazy Therapies, she was an outspoken critic of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), upon which the work of one “cult expert” is at least partially based. The problem is not with Singer, but with those who are now attempting to overstate claims about her work and then believe they can offer untested models of their own, based on overstated claims.
It is also worth noting that although Steve Hassan invokes her name, there was never any indication that Margaret Singer considered the Mormon religion a cult. On the contrary, she was a adviser and mentor to someone who is a highly active LDS bishop who is also a bona fide expert in scientific mental health practice and never once, did she ever express concerns that this person was involved in a cult. Clearly, she would disagree with Steve Hassan on this topic and I find it disingenuous that he would invoke her name, following her death when she is not able to respond. Thankfully, however, there are people who knew her well who know her views on this topic.
Steve Hassan is now making the claim that:
To help those affected by cults, I built on scientific research conducted by Robert Jay Lifton and Margaret Singer– both pioneers in the field of mind control– to develop what I call the BITE model.
Go here for Steve Hassan’s full description of his BITE model. This claim is questionable on a number of levels. In the first place, even if a model is proposed based on earlier rigorous scientific research, it does not mean that the developer does not himself need to do research to support and validate. Steve Hassan has published no such research. Please note that I am not accusing him of deliberate misrepresentation; it is quite possible that with his Masters in Counseling, not a research-oriented type of degree, he lacks the background in research to know what is involved in testing models for reliability and validity, which takes a great deal of hard work. One does not just write up a model, cite references upon which it is based and then go out and apply it, as Hassan has done. Demonstrating what it is based on, is only the very first step. It must then be subject to expert review panels, revised refined, based on those results and then subjected to testing with large samples by procedures such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, determining whether the dimensions hang together (in this case B, I, T and E) and other tests to see how well it correlates with existing measures and what they are predicted to be related to. Actually, to their credit, Michael Langone and his colleagues have done some factor analysis on a Group Psychological Abuse (GPA) scale and come up with an empirically based definition of cults, which is at least a good start to the kind of empirical validation that is necessary to gain some credibility in the field. Langone’s team came up with the “three Ds” , Debility, Dread and Dependence that characterize cultic groups and published their factor analysis in the Cultic Studies Journal and a more recent article summarizes subsequent development including research conducted by a Carmen Alamendros and her colleagues in Spain. This is the kind of research we need to see more of. Even though this is far more rigorous research than anyone else has done, Langone is honest enough to admit, “The research conducted with the GPA is but the first phase in what ought to be a long-range program of research. ” Yes, exactly.
Back to the BITE model, second, the research Hassan cites is far from rigorous. Margaret Singer, although she did some research early in her career, she, herself states that the conclusions she came to and the six characteristics of cults she came up with did not, come from research. Note that this is not meant as a criticism of Singer, as she was very honest and transparent about her sources. In an article, published in Psychiatric Annals in 1990, she and Richard Ofshe stated:
The analysis presented here is based on observations made since 1972 with over 3,000 people who have been exposed to thought reform programs in three types of closed restrictive groups: certain cults, some therapeutic communities, and certain large-group awareness trainings. At a surface level, these groups seem to be a varied lot. From the descriptions we have secured from people who participated in groups carrying out programs that met criteria for a thought reform program, we have begun to identify types of psychological responses. This work is in progress, and the following is an overview of our results to date.
In other words, her work is based on her clinical observations, which, extensive as they were, do not constitute scientific research and nothing more rigorous has been published since with regard to her model. Although very early in her career, Margaret Singer did publish research (mainly on schizophrenia, not on cults), she was primarily a clinician and her writings were based on her clinical observations. These observations can legitimately be considered as a starting point, but in no way should they be used to claim that a later developed model “based on” them is scientific. In fact, when an APA Task Force was convened on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, chaired by Margaret Singer and the work of Singer, Lifton and the very best evidence available was attempted to be presented as evidence, the Task Force rejected it, the final report stating that:
BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control for its service but is unable to accept the report of the Task Force. In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur.
The reviews were scathing and perhaps unnecessarily harsh. They could have said it in a nicer way, but they did have a point when it came to claims based on insufficient evidence. Singer attempted to sue the APA for “defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy” but the case was dismissed, due to the fact that the US constitution protects the right to free speech on such issues.
So much for Steve Hassan’s claims that his BITE model is based on “scientific research”, but even if it were, it would not absolve him of the responsibility to scientifically test the model itself and unless he does this, it cannot be considered scientific. If he wants to make a more modest claim, as Margaret Singer did for her own model being a work in progress, then fine, but when he over-represents it as he has on his recent blog article, he needs to be challenged.
One of the biggest problems with the BITE model is that although it may accurately identify groups of concern, it may also, as I discussed in an earlier article, produce false positives. That is, groups that are not cults might be identified as such.
Steve Hassan’s latest blog article is on the topic of whether the mainstream Mormon religion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should be considered a cult. He offers one ex-Mormon’s application of his BITE model as evidence that it should be. Note that he does not explicitly state in the blog article that he considers it to be a cult. He offers his BITE criteria and asks people to think for themselves (using his BITE article premises, though!). Hassan has, however, made his views quite clear on Mormonism in a 2008 talk he gave at an ex-Mormon conference, still available on YouTube where he makes his views on Mormonism and cults quite explicit. He is quite clear on that video that he does consider the Mormon church to be a cult. He pays lip service to urging people to think for themselves, but then puts forth his own criteria that he has not encouraged people to question but instead, makes the unsubstantiated assertion they are scientific. In other words, the implicit message seems to be, think for yourself using my premises.
That is hardly the kind of scientific rigor he implies it is. In fact, many of the ways in which the ex-Mormon claims it fits could be applied to a number of the major world religions. For example, the pressure to marry within ones religion is hardly unique to Mormonism and there are many Fundamentalist Christians who believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is going to burn in hell. Special garments are common among many major world religions. As for phobia indoctrination, when my mother first read Combatting Cult Mind Control, she felt that this strongly applied to what she had experienced, growing up in the Catholic church and being taught by nuns in Catholic school and how she initially felt when she decided to leave the Catholicism and convert to the Episcopal Church, how difficult a decision that was, having to overcome earlier fears installed about what would happen if one left. Also, when I was giving a presentation on cults, a former Catholic nun in the audience who had left a convent, later came up to me and informed me that at the comment, forbidden books were identified at the convent. Does this make the Catholic Church a cult or does it mean that the model identifies false positives?
This is ironic, given that in Steve Hassan’s own religion, Judiasm, it is well known that there is very strong pressure within Jewish families to marry within the religion (the ex-Mormon listed this as one of the ways in which Mormonism conforms to the BITE model). Most of us know Jewish parents who were devastated if their children married outside the religion and let their adult children and their spouses know it by shunning the spouse and complaining when holidays such as Christmas were celebrated by the interfaith couple and their children. But does that make it a cult? I doubt Hassan would think so, nor do I. It is understandable that people, whether Mormon, Jewish, Fundamentalist Christian or Atheist, would want to seek partners with similar values and actually research shows that like-minded people have a better chance of marital success. Does that mean it conforms to the BITE model or is this a false positive? Note that this is not the tu quoque fallacy, as it is a legitimate requirement that assessment tools not only correctly identify what they were designed to identify, but also that they do not produce false positives. Just as the BITE model was applied to Mormonism it could be similarly applied to many major world religions.
If Steve Hassan would be candid and transparent enough to admit that research on cults is in its infancy and we all still have a great deal to learn, his opinions might be interesting and valuable within that context and I would have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is his portrayal of himself as the leading cult and “mind control” expert and claims without evidence, that his therapy is superior to that of other therapists he considers non “experts” and that his implications that work is “scientific”. When these kinds of grandiose claims are made, they must be viewed with skepticism and caution. But then again, skepticism and caution doesn’t sell very well, especially among people who are looking for quick and certain answers and to give credit where credit is due, he does offer this in nice, neat sound bytes.
As for the Mormon religion, some of the most rigorous critical thinkers I know regarding pseudoscience in mental health practices and evidence-based practice, happen to be Mormons whereas some of the most uncritically accepting individuals I have seen come, unfortunately, from the community of certain (not all, but some) self-proclaimed “cult experts”. Although I have not yet decided who I will support in the 2012 election, I would have no problem supporting a Mormon political candidate, if I agreed with their views in other areas.
Perhaps a more useful way to use these various models of thought reform and “cult” characteristics would be to identify how they are used at times by virtually any organization, have an open and critical discussion of the processes involved, rather than simply slapping a label on organizations one doesn’t like and explaining them away when they exist in organizations one does support.
PS: It is interesting to note, as some else recently pointed out to me, that Steve Hassan’s blog does not have any kind of mechanism that allows people to post comments. This blog does and even though I cannot post comments to his blog, he is welcome to post his comments to mine, should he desire to respond to any of this.
Eating Disorders Residential Treatment Facility and Psychologist Sued by Former Patient
A Missouri eating disorders treatment center, Castlewood and one of its co-directors, psychologist Mark Schwartz, are being sued for malpractice in the Missouri Circuit Court by former patient Lisa Nasseff, who is reported to have been a patient, off and on for a total of 15 months, at the facility from 2007 through 2009 and also received outpatient therapy through 2010. Please note that at this point, everything I am about to describe has the status of an allegation, as the case has not yet been heard and tried. Go here to read the full complaint by Lisa Nasseff against Castlewood and Dr. Schwartz.
The charges are very serious and include the allegations that false memories were implanted of sexual abuse, multiple rapes, Satanic ritual abuse, membership in a Satanic cult where serious crimes were committed, as well as convincing the patient that she had 20 multiple personalities. Lisa Nasseff is being represented by attorney Kenneth Vuylsteke. Nasseff alleges that Dr. Schwartz, as her therapist, hypnotized her and implanted false memories. Dr. Schwartz has spoken to the press and is completely denying the charges. Schwartz, who reported as of the date of that article that he had not retained legal counsel responded, “We don’t use hypnosis” although an introductory video on the website by clinical co-director Lori Galperin, when listing the various specialties of the staff, does mention hypnosis and it is also mentioned in a written description of staff specialties (see #5).
One of the main therapies used in the center is Internal Family Systems (IFS) and the website states that all staff are trained this approach. These cannot be said to be some rogue therapists misusing IFS because the creator of IFS, Richard Schwartz (not sure if he and Mark Schwartz are related), is listed as staff at Castlewood and reportedly trained all the staff in IFS. Internal Family Systems is basically family systems, applied not to actual families, but to internal “parts” within a person. This approach has also been used by Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) therapists although it does not necessarily have to be only for DID. The IFS model is described on the Castlewood website. Several strong claims are made about IFS in the treatment of eating disorders, claiming that it helps the client to get to the root of the problem and find “parts” that may be sabotaging treatment success and hence, provides long-lasting results. However, I have been unable to find references to peer reviewed published outcome research that would support such claims.
On a side note, Steve Hassan has reported in a Psychology Today advertisement that he is trained in and utilizes IFS in his treatment of former cult members and this concerns me greatly, since I have not seen any evidence that it is effective and does no harm. This fits with his own theory that there is a “cult self” that has been created by cult indoctrination. Ironically, the description of IFS, the way parts are identified and located according to how they are felt in the body, bears some similarities to Scientology’s secret upper level called OT III, which also somaticizes “parts” that they call “body thetans”. Needless to say, IFS does not have the accompanying sci fi narrative as to how this came about, but I’ve often wondered if it is Scientology’s “parts work” that has damaged some on this level to the point they have had to be hospitalized or worse. Like IFS, Scientology promises, ironically, “return of full self determinism” by completing that level. Here we have a promise of return to an authentic self, free of influence, when the reality is all too often just the opposite. This may be the ultimate form of betrayal.
What I have learned since, from my study of a large volume of social psychology literature is that no human being is completely free from influence. What we can do is learn about influence techniques and do the best we can to identify them when they occur, learn and practice critical thinking skills and apply them wherever possible, but to think that one is immune and fully self-determined is what makes us most vulnerable. The “authentic self” is an imperfect self and varies from individual to individual. Not all “authentic selves” are likable, charismatic, and good, as the IFS description implies. Although we are all born with the potential to be virtuous, we are not born with virtues, nor do I believe we are we born “evil”. Virtues have to be earned through our actions. My own point of view is that who we are, ultimately is the sum total of all we have done in our lives, some of it chosen and some of it not and subject to change, depending on what we are doing now and will do in the future. Note that I am saying all, not isolated acts or periods in our lives, taken out of context as we have all done things in our lives that we are less than proud of that do not have to be our identity, although smear propagandists would like to portray it that way. When a person admits to mistakes and strives to learn from them, that speaks volumes for who they are. When a person arrogantly refuses to admit mistakes and shows no remorse for causing harm (e.g. Conrad Murray in his most recent documentary) that also speaks volumes and those are the individuals who are indeed a danger to society.
In any case, although it is promoted as being just the opposite, IFS seems to be a convenient way not to take responsibility for ones own actions if someone does something he or she is not proud of (e.g. getting involved in a cult or behaving in a reprehensible manner or simply losing ones temper). According to IFS, it’s the “part” that did it and the real “self” is completely benign, honest, authentic and good. This also bears similarities to Scientology’s conception of the native state of a spiritual being, aka, the thetan. It is highly questionable if IFS is helpful and not harmful for anyone, let alone former cult members. It seems to complicate things unnecessarily. The client originates a feeling connected with a presenting problem and this gets labeled by the therapist as a “part” rather than simply a feeling. I can see how this would be a compelling belief, but the question remains, whether it is helpful or harmful. I raise these concerns, not to make claims, but I raise them as possibilities that need to be investigated. Although it is claimed that the goal is to integrate the parts, labeling and reinforcing them in this manner may result in further fragmentation and since at this point this is clinical lore that hasn’t been subjected to randomized controlled trials, we simply do not know and it should be labeled experimental outlining possible risks to clients, if therapists are determined to use it. There may be people who genuinely befit from such an approach, even if it turns out that others were harmed. No therapy or therapist is 100% harmful all the time for everyone. I point this out because often this becomes a primary form of defense, showing testimonials of people who feel they were helped. Although this may be the case (not necessarily because testimonials are not evidence, even for the individuals who give them since it is possible for a person to believe he or she is better when that actually is not the case and testimonials can easily be faked), it does not in any disprove that others were harmed, as the differences in outcomes are not mutually exclusive and can coexist. The State of California v Conrad Murray in the death of Michael Jackson clearly illustrates this, as I have no doubt that when he practiced standard medicine, he truly did save lives and help the patients who testified for him who appeared to be very honest and credible individuals, yet with Michael Jackson, he was found guilty of egregious violations and he richly deserved every word uttered by Judge Michael Pastor and his ensuing sentence, regardless of who he helped in the past. Whether that is the case with Castlewood, remains to be seen, but thankfully no one has died there, as far as I know but there are allegations of serious damage, at great expense. Since Castlewood uses a wide variety of different modalities (some of them with an evidence-base, such as DBT) and treatment varies by individual, some individuals may well have benefited from their treatment there. Whether some individuals have been harmed, remains to be seen. The evidence presented in this case, if it continues, or if others come forward, will reveal whether this is the case.
Nasseff’s allegations that she was alienated from family members is particularly concerning since family therapy (with an actual family, not an internal “parts” family) is an empirically supported approach to eating disorders. In other words, family support is very important and can be very helpful in recovery. The therapies shown to work for eating disorders are those such as Cognitive-Behavioral therapy that deal with the present and interpersonal therapy is helpful with relationships and systems of support. There is no good evidence that going back into the past and hunting for trauma is helpful, nor is there evidence of a causal relationship between trauma and eating disorders (correlation is not necessarily causation).
Although Mark Schwartz is vigorously denying the allegations in the complaint, according to legal counsel Vuylsteke, there are “several” other former patients who are alleging similar experiences and thus corroborating Nasseff’s allegations and may come forward at some point.
It is also interesting to note that Mark Schwartz has presented at ISST-D conferences, as recently as 2010 and is listed as a therapist in their membership referral database on the ISST-D website. Recently, some other high profile members of ISST-D, such as Dr. Richard Kluft, have maintained that the memories of satanic cults are screen memories for other forms of abuse. However, Nasseff alleges in her complaint that she was threatened by Dr. Schwartz that if she were to come forward and sue him, the crimes she revealed in therapy to have perpetrated as part of the alleged Satanic cult, would have to come out. If this allegation is shown to be true, the it would mean that at least by some therapists, these memories are believed to literally be true. Time will tell as the evidence unfolds, whether or not this is the case. Will ISST-D support and defend Dr. Schwartz, as they have earlier defendants such as Judith Peterson? Again, time will tell.
Although there were a number of very high profile recovered memory lawsuits in the 1990s, this recent lawsuit, if Nasseff’s allegations are proven in a court of law, would show that, as I have long suspected, such therapy has not ceased but has merely gone underground and not publicly discussed and indeed, Dr. Schwartz has denied that he has ever discussed Satanic cults with the plaintiff. It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds and plays out and this is a case I will continue to follow with great interest.
