Post-Cult Therapy: Buyer Beware

International Cultic Studies Association is an organization that educates people on the subject of cults. I want to begin by clarifying that overall, this is an organization that I support that has many positive features, including an honest effort to make a scholarly study of cults and I applaud and support their outreach to former members of cults. There are few places where such people can turn.

However, that being said, I do have a criticism and area of disagreement that I am going to describe in this posting, which contains my opinions on the matter in question. In their effort to be open to all points of views, they may be leaving people thinking that every therapist on their referral list is someone who comes highly recommended. In other words, people might assume that by virtue of being on that list, the person can automatically be trusted. On their website, they have a list of mental health professionals who offer help to people who have left cults and feel they are having problems and issues to resolve. [Although a representative from ICSA read this blog and informed me this was not a "referral list" and was meant to be only a listing of people who have written books or spoken at their conferences (and I have edited this article accordingly) the fact remains that when people's names are listed on a particular website, it implies that the organization approves of what they do. Otherwise, it would seem to me that it would be irresponsible to list people with their contact info and have them speaking at conferences and selling their books. It is interesting to note that the list does not include current cult members who have spoken at conferences, so obviously there is some limitation on this list] Many of these people are indeed very good at what they do and have helped people. What some people may not realize, however, is that some are offering highly questionable interventions, such as neurolinguistic programming (NLP) for which unsupported claims are being made and ICSA does not appear to have a problem with that, as long as they are up front in their bios about it. Their philosophy seems to be, let the consumer make an informed choice and while I too am very much in favor of informed choices, the problem is that when an NLP therapist is listed, it implies that ICSA approves of NLP and has no problem with it. For instance, one therapist, Arthur Buchman, runs an NLP company and promotes something he calls "The Instant Optimist". At the upcoming ICSA conference in the New York City area, he will be presenting: The Instant Optimist: Positive Psychology Meets Cult Recovery. He fails to mention in the abstract that his "Instant Optimist" is part of his NLP company, although he does list it in his bio.

Mr. Buchman makes claims on his website where first of all, he presents what in my opinion is a very unbalanced picture of the research on optimists without going into the growing body of research that contradicts the research on the benefits of optimism, that was only correlational to begin with. It is a highly controversial area, but one would never know this to read his abstract. What this means is that just because two things co-occur, for example optimism and living longer, does not mean that being optimistic causes a person to live longer. Correlation is not causality. One common example used in research classes that gets the point across is that there is a correlation between the sale of ice cream and crime, but that does not mean that eating ice cream causes crime. A third variable, the season (summer), was responsible for both.

He then proceeds to leap to the unwarranted conclusion that to get these benefits, one should do his "instant optimist" techniques. Mr. Buchman provides no references to any randomized controlled trials supporting the benefits of his NLP-based techniques. Instead, in his ICSA abstract, he refers to the approaches of Martin Seligman and not only makes claims for those that go far above and beyond what the studies actually showed but then he makes the highly unwarranted leap that his "instant" NLP techniques will provide benefits of giving you a "permanently positive attitude". Whether that is even desirable is highly questionable. Many cult members also seem to have a permanently positive attitude. Even in the face of all the abuse they have to endure, the ones who stay in long-term are ever optimistic that things will get better while the more pessimistic people have long since faced reality, left the abusive situation and are much happier as a result. The real issue here is being realistic, rather than creating the false dichotomy of optimism=good; pessimism=bad.

The lesson to be learned here is buyer beware. In the past, associations that provide referrals to people were very careful about who they referred to but now, it seems that anything goes in the name of so-called diversity. I say "so-called" because I am all for diversity when it comes to not discriminating against someone on the basis of race, creed, age, civil status, sexual orientation, and the like. However, when it comes to treatments being offered we need to discriminate, meaning that when a person's wellbeing is at stake, we need to be selective in what we endorse. I made my disagreement clear to members of ICSA. However, Mr. Buchman chose to brush off my concerns with a metaphor, implying that I was still in the cult mindset for daring to question the basis for his quick fix claims.

Mr. Buchman also bills himself as an "American Psychologist" even though he does not hold a PhD in psychology, a requirement to be called a psychologist in the United States. Mr. Buchman has an MA in psychology, which is sufficient for him to be licensed in Denmark as a psychologist, the country where he practices and he is originally from the United States. The problem is, calling himself an "American Psychologist" is ambiguous. It has two possible meanings and could lead people to believe that he is considered a psychologist in the United States, when in fact he does not meet the prerequisites to be considered such, lacking a PhD. Again, when feedback was given to him about his, he did not respond in any way other than to use a metaphor that implied his critics were behaving as cultists.

My point in posting this is to caution people to be careful when choosing a mental health professional, even one who is listed on a website such as ICSA's. If you are interviewing a potential therapist, question them about the claims he or she makes and if the person starts telling you a story and giving you metaphors rather than answering your question directly, this is an NLP technique that is being used. If a therapist evades addressing questions and concerns, that is a major red flag, regardless of what websites they are listed on or where they present. I would run as fast and as far away from such a person as possible.

Also, beware of any therapist who posts so-called post cult syndrome symptom checklists. The symptoms on such checklists could be caused by many factors other than a cult involvement. This will be the topic of a future posting.

My Original Response to Steve Hassan

For the record, just so we can have this completely out in the open, here is my initial original response to Steve Hassan about a statement he made on CNN. This has been portrayed by Dennis Erlich as a vicious, nasty response that compelled Steve Hassan, instead of addressing the issue directly with me, to bring Dennis Erlich onto the list, who then proceeded to attack me (Dennis' nastiness was not just my perception, it was also the perception of the list serv owner and moderator, Cathleen Mann). I am posting this so people can read it and decide for themselves how horrible they think it is. Or was it, perhaps, just an expression of a disagreement and challenge? You decide.

To: freedomofmind@yahoogroups.com
From: Monica Pignotti
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:10:12 +0000
Subject: [freedomofmind] Re: CNN Transcript

I located the CNN transcript, and I really have to challenge the
following statement:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/05/ijvm.01.html

"STEVE HASSAN, COUNSELOR/SCIENTOLOGY EXPERT: Well, Scientology basically believes that all medical problems whatsoever can be handled by their techniques, through their auditing policies and such. So they very much dissuade members from seeking out medical attention, getting any medication."

That is simply not true. The second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Scientology does not dissuade members from seeking out medical attention or getting "any medication".

[Note that Erlich has taken this statement completely out of context, changed the punctuation and continues to deliberately misrepresent what I actually wrote -- the quotes around "any medication" are very important because here, it is clear I am quoting Hassan's statement. It would have an entirely different meaning without the quotes. Erlich has taken this quote out of context and he is so obsessed with this that he has now put it below his signature on his postings.]

Mainly what they disallow is psychiatric medication and in some cases anti-seizure medication because some of those meds are also psychiatric drugs (e.g. Depakote) but even that has varied depending on different Scientologists and orgs. It was true in the case of Tory Christman but it is not true in all cases. Jett Travolta took Depakote for years, something that would have been impossible if the above statement were true, given that the Travoltas have been active, highly committed Scientologists for years. We may never know what actually happened and I find it troubling that people are engaging in so much unfounded speculation.

They do not bar regular medical care at all. Even though it is true that they believe that most illness is psychosomatic and can be eliminated with auditing, they do not ban medical treatment. In fact, when I was on the Apollo under L. Ron Hubbard, I was given antibiotics when I got sick, and I directly witnessed several others there receiving medication and people were even freely given Dramamine if they experienced sea sickness, if they asked for it. There is a restriction on getting auditing if these drugs are taken, but no one gets in trouble for taking them and people are not generally stopped from taking medical drugs, other than psychiatric drugs.

While it is true that some Scientologists because of their beliefs that auditing could cure them of a medical ailment delayed getting treatment for conditions such as cancer, Scientology does not have any policy against getting treatment for cancer or other serious medical conditions. This is a different issue that involves the substandard living conditions in the SO. Scientology is not like Christian Scientists who explicitly ban medical treatment, but that is the false impression that some are giving here. This, again, is very easy for Scientologists to refute and then critics lose credibility and are not taken seriously about anything.

The idea that Scientology bans or even dissuades people from all medical care and medication is a myth that is easily refuted and will unfortunately destroy the credibility of people who want to expose real concerns about Scientology.

Monica

This is what I posted prior to that, in response to Steve's notice of his appearance on CNN where he had commented on the death of Jett Travolta. These were some general comments I had on the issue, before I read Steve's transcript. As I noted in the beginning, they were not directed at Steve Hassan.

I didn't get to see the CNN piece, but I have to say that I find much of the media coverage on this topic very troubling on a number of different levels, especially some of the unwarranted conclusions some ex-Scientologists and Scientology critics are jumping to way before all the facts are in. We do not know whether Jett was deprived of proper medical care. The information we have thus far is that he did have a history of seizures and was on the drug Depakote until it stopped working and began to cause liver damage. We really don't know if Scientology encouraged them to take this child off of Depakote or if it was a legitimate medical decision. I would strongly urge people to be cautious about jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Scientology has been inconsistent about allowing people to take anticonvulsants. At times they have not allowed it but at other times they have and one fact that we do know is that Jett was once on Depakote while his parents were active Scientologists. We probably will never know exactly why he was taken off of it, but it is true that neurologists do monitor people on that drug for liver damage and if that is occurring they are taken off for valid medical reasons. At this point, again, the most credible position to take is that we just don't know and to expose this grieving family to this kind of attack is in my opinion very cruel.

The other uncalled for assumption that is being made is that Jett had autism. Whether or not he had autism is something we are never going to know because he was never tested for it by a qualified professional. Even though this is the case, I am appalled at the number of completely unqualified people who think they can "diagnose" him on the basis of video tapes, as one Anonymous website and others are claiming. This is on the level of tabloid gossip.

This kind of jumping to conclusions is making people trying to expose the dangers of Scientology look very bad and opportunistic, using this tragedy that we still know very little about to further an agenda. I can tell you that based on the responses I have seen on other list servs, this is really hurting the credibility of ex-Scientologists and critics of Scientology. This kind of zealotry is going to backfire and quite possibly end up getting the CofS sympathy and support rather than criticism. I am not the only one concerned about this. I am on a list serv that has many doctors who are activists who fight health fraud and many there are also appalled at the way some anti-Scientology activists are jumping to completely unwarranted conclusions and making statements that cannot possibly be known as if they were facts.

So there you have it. People can decide for themselves whether I was being mean and nasty, or just thoughtfully challenging authority. After that, thanks to Dennis Erlich's appearance on the list serv, the discussion escalated into an ugly dispute, but that could have been prevented, if only Steve Hassan had addressed me directly, rather than bringing on Dennis. Hassan later admitted to me that his bringing Dennis on was a mistake and he apologized to me for doing that. I accepted his apology, even though now, Dennis is claiming that Steve is denying this. Perhaps he is just sorry that this whole fiasco was made public by Dennis when he brought it onto alt.religion.scientology, something that I had no intention of doing until I had the need to set the record straight after Dennis publicly misportrayed the situation.

What saddens me most is that until this happened, I had thought that Steven Hassan held himself to the same standards of being open to critical questions and discussion that he holds cult leaders he criticizes to, but when I made an effort to engage him in such a discussion, it appears that he was anything but open and instead made appeals to unfounded authority of a former "Flag cramming officer" rather than discuss whether what I wrote was accurate or not. I find this very disappointing and yet another example, in my opinion, of an anti-cult activist becoming what he is fighting.

Steve Hassan's Freedom of Mind List: Some Clarifications

I had really hoped this was a dead issue and that we could put it in the past and move on. However, Dennis Erlich has made this impossible with his continuously bringing the topic up on a public usenet group, completely mischaracterizing my position. He claims that I "slandered" Steve Hassan and harassed him when this was not the case. Steve Hassan himself has never, ever accused me of slander and has never made any threats whatsoever to sue me and he knows good and well there would be no grounds to do so -- that was never even an issue between us. Erlich also made the ludicrous statement that I have a legal agreement with Hassan not to "sliem" [Erlich means slime, he has a habit of purposely misspelling words] him. There is no legal agreement and there are no restrictions on me whatsoever when it comes to my writings about Steve Hassan and I have done nothing whatsoever that would be grounds for a lawsuit. Moreover, Hassan never asked for any such agreement. I have only expressed my opinions and disagreements with Hassan and I have every right to do so.

I had some serious disagreements with him and apparently in the eyes of some, disagreements are considered attacks among some anti-cultists who are still apparently in the us vs. them cult mindset. To set the record straight, I am going to clarify what my position is on the issues and provide an analysis of why I think the situation escalated into a heated dispute.

This whole matter began when Steve Hassan did an interview with CNN where he made the following statement about Scientology:

STEVE HASSAN, COUNSELOR/SCIENTOLOGY EXPERT: Well, Scientology basically believes that all medical problems whatsoever can be handled by their techniques, through their auditing policies and such. So they very much dissuade members from seeking out medical attention, getting any medication.

This statement was not accurate. The reason I challenged it is because when critics make inaccurate statements, they lose credibility on the many valid criticisms that exist. I considered this especially egregious, given the circumstances under which the statement was made, weeks after the tragic death of John Travolta's son, Jett. I felt that many critics of Scientology were using this death to make a point about Scientology when we really had very few facts available and jumping to conclusions was not warranted. This statement on CNN was, in my opinion, an example of what I considered to be a knee-jerk reaction.

Scientology forbids its members to see psychiatrists or other mental health professionals and forbids psychiatric drugs. However, they do not forbid or even dissuade people from getting all medical attention or taking any medication. In other words, they have a policy against psychiatry, but no policy against being a Scientologist in good standing and seeing a doctor for medical reasons or taking medication for medical reasons. Sometimes, yes, there have been tragic cases such as Roxanne Friend, where people with cancer have believed Scientology would take care of it and did not seek help in time, but the generalization made in the above statement is not warranted.

There are even Sea Org members who report that they did get good medical care. For example, Nancy Many, in her recent honest, excellent, well-written book My Billion Year Contract reported a great deal of harm that came from her experience in Scientology, including being pushed into a state of psychosis by a series of lengthy interrogations. However, she also reported that when she was in the Sea Org in Clearwater and even on the RPF, she saw a doctor once a week while pregnant, at Scientology's expense, gave birth in a hospital and her infant received medical care for a serious problem, again all at Scientology's expense. She reported wanting to leave but one of the the reasons she didn't was that she could not get such medical care on her own if she left. So, she actually stayed because of the good medical care she was getting at Scientology's expense. This in no way excuses all the bad they did and the fact that LRH ordered her onto the RPF while she was 5 months pregnant. My point here is that there is plenty to criticize Scientology about, without making unwarranted generalizations. Nancy Many's book was very honest and I applaud her for that.

The issue with Jett Travolta was even more complicated because he was on and then went off a drug considered a psychiatric drug, but it was prescribed for a physical condition. At the time this was written, it was only a few weeks after his death and very little was known about it. My point in challenging this was that we really needed to get more facts before jumping to any unwarranted, premature conclusions about Scientology's role and I did not feel that experts going onto CNN and making these kinds of statements was helpful. I am going to post my actual response to Steve Hassan in a separate blog entry, so it is here, on the record, showing that it was a legitimate disagreement, not the nasty attack it is being misportrayed to be.

What escalated the situation was that Steve was instantly offended by my response. Instead of having a dialogue with me directly, either off or on the list serv, he contacted Dennis Erlich and had him join the list serv. Dennis came on and attacked me. This is not just my opinion and perception. It is also the opinion and perception of the person who was then the moderator and owner of the Freedomodmind list serv. After Dennis came on, the exchanges became very ugly and Steve Hassan completely retreated. The situation got so out of hand that Cathleen Mann, the moderator and owner, decided to shut down the list serv. Steve Hassan and I did not speak for months, but in October 2009 we sat down with someone and had a discussion in an attempt to work out our differences. We had reached a place where we had come to terms with our differences and both were prepared to put this whole unfortunate incident in the past and move on.

However, Dennis Erlich has made this impossible to do without leaving readers with false impressions of what actually transpired. He is misportraying me as harassing Steve Hassan and "slandering" him when I have done neither. Apparently, he is incapable of distinguishing between a disagreement and challenge of an authority and harassment. Harassment means badgering someone after they have asked not to be contacted. I did not do that. What I did was to post my own opinions on my own blog. At no time did I make any factually false statements and I did not bear him any malice. My intention was to bring up issues that needed to be challenged and discussed regarding certain assumptions that are made in the cult recovery area that in my opinion, needed to be challenged. This, of course, did not make me popular but it was in no way harassment.

Steve had asked me to take the entries down and at the time I did because the matter had become so contentious, I just wanted to put it in the past and move on, although I intended all along to continue discussing these issues. Now, however, I realize that I made a mistake in removing these entries, as it made it falsely appear as if I in some way did not mean what I had written when in fact, I stand by what I wrote. I now realize that it was a mistake on my part to take these entries down. Therefore, I am going to continue to write on this topic and where appropriate, will express my differences with Steve and others. I am not doing this to be mean and vindictive. I am doing this because I have nothing to be ashamed of and therefore will be standing up to Dennis Erlich and his attempts to shame me. My views on this topic are my views and I stand by them.

Some people have asked, who cares? To those people I would respond that you are certainly free not to care and to disregard all of this. No one forces you to read these postings. However, I maintain that this is an issue that is an important one to care about because it involves what happens when someone challenges a person who is a recognized expert. If we are to have a free society it is imperative that freedom to challenge authority be preserved. If we want to engage in a legitimate study of cults and truly want to further our knowledge and have the field progress, openness to criticism is essential. Shouting down of critics creates an ideology, which is the antithesis of a field where knowledge is growing and progress is being made. If the people opposing cults shout down anyone who challenges the party line, then what we will have is just another ideology and closed system, not unlike that of the cults.