Sanctified Snake Oil

The following passage is from an article entitled "Sanctified Snake Oil": Ideology, Junk Science and Social Work Practice by Susan Sarnoff, published 1999, in the journal Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services. She mentioned nothing whatsoever about cults or "anti-cults in the article, but people can read it and see if it might fit at least some behavior we witness. Quote from p. 397:

THE SNAKE OIL PARADIGM
1. Frame the subject so that it cannot be opposed.
2. Once the issue is defined, stretch the concept as broadly as possible in order to:
a.) Increase the size of the “target” group;
b.) Make the problem appear to be universal;
c.) Make the problem appear to be of crisis proportions.
3. Consider anyone who resists identification with the target group to be “in denial,” in order to:
a.) Define all “sufferers” as in need of “treatment;”
b.) Make treatment seem more effective because many of the treated will not suffer from the problem or will have a mild, easily treatable degree of the problem, and non-improvement can be blamed on denial.
4. Identify “poster children” who “suffer” from the problem but are appealing to the public (e.g., completely innocent and in no way responsible for their circumstances).
5. Use anecdotal evidence (preferably about “poster children”) and single, dramatic cases to publicize the problem.
6. Use biased or “cooked” data — if forced to present any statistical proof of the problem.
7. Confuse goals and processes.
8. Confuse satisfaction with effectiveness.
9. Ignore unintended consequences and never admit that they might emanate from the “solution.”
10. If criticized for any of the above, attack the opponents instead of their positions.
THE SANCTIFICATION PARADIGM MEDIA
1. Write “human interest” stories on single, extreme cases, suggesting that they are “typical” of the problem.
2. Publish statistics without consulting source data or confirming accuracy.
3. Oversimplify complex issues and policies.
4. Publish the results of research studies without discussing the methodology of the research (e.g., samples, controls).
5. “Bury” corrections and retractions in back pages and small print. (Sarnoff, 1997, p. 397)

[there is more about government funding that does not apply to the topic discussed in this blog, as there has been little of that, at least thus far]

There is also a book of the same title. These are points that people who get wrapped up in causes would do well to pay attention to.
Here's another quote from the same article:

Academic Analysis follows where the argument leads, but activism wants only support for a predetermined direction. Academic researchers are intrigued by the structure of arguments whereas activists only want to win them. (J.M. Ellis, 1997, Literature Lost, quoted in the above-article on p. 407)

More food for thought that could explain some of the ongoing differences between academic scholars and anti-cult activists. But the question remains, are anti-cult activists "winning" their arguments in the long run? We also have a statement by Harvard Psychology Professor Richard J. McNally, at the conclusion of his book, Remembering Trauma where he was discussing some of the politics and controversies in the trauma field (p. 285):

Ultimately, the best form of advocacy is a commitment to pursuing the truth about trauma, wherever it may lead us.

That is my motto when it comes to studying the groups known as "cults" or whatever is being advocated for. Reading Professor McNally's book was one of my catalysts for re-thinking this entire issue.