Inviting versus Effecting Change

Here are some thoughts I have had on Steve Hassan’s Strategic Interaction (SIA) approach. This was taken from another list serv I just posted to, so I have edited it somewhat so I don’t include the other person’s postings in it. Here is what I wrote:

The chapter on Exit Counseling in the book Recovery from Cults written by the Giambalvos, Kevin Garvey and Michael Langone is more than 15 years old, but many of the issues they bring up are still relevant today. They make the distinction between “inviting” vs. “effecting” change. Their model “invites” change whereas Hassan’s model (in his own words that they quoted and criticized) “effects” change.It comes down to how much we think the precondition for the exit counseling to work (the cult member being ready, able and willing to critically evaluate the cult) can and/or should be intentionally influenced by the exit counselor or the family. This also applies to mental health professionals who might very well end up with an active cult member coming to see them. It wouldn’t happen with a Scientologist, but there are other cults that don’t necessarily forbid therapy. The real question is can or should we try to change a person’s readiness to hear what we have to say? If so, what methods is it ethical to use and where should we draw the line? These are difficult questions.

Since that chapter was written, as we’re all aware, Steve Hassan has published a second book, Releasing the Bonds that appears to take this even further and is much more specific on what he sees can be done, often via family members, to influence the person, both before and during an intervention, if an intervention is done. The book is all about how family members and counselors can effect change (whether he uses that word or not, that’s what is being described). He proposes many different ways of doing this, some more questionable than others. The person being intervened on in this way who is an active cult member, of course, has no idea that the family, friends, and others in the person’s life (the “team”) are working with a counselor on a very specific plan to get him out of the cult so there is a complete lack of informed consent on the person’s part. What it comes down to is the belief that the team knows better what is best for the person than the cult member does. The rationale for this is that the cult member has taken on a “cult” personality, but that the real person, deep down really does want out, but again, this is not such an easy rationale to swallow since it is presumptuous to assume that, and what it comes down to is that the team knows better than the person does what the “real person” wants. Does the fact that the family members are doing this rather than the counselor directly resolve the ethical dilemma? I really don’t think so since it is the counselor that is directing things and thus does have a responsibility for what goes on.

The whole theory of dissociation into separate personalities is questionable to begin with and the social psychology concept of role identity is the more parsimonious (simpler -- see Occam’s Razor principle that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually best) explanation. Whether we’re in a cult or not, we all take on different roles in our life and we might seem like very different people in those roles. For example, someone who is both a CEO and a father might look like a very different person in the tough, demanding CEO role than he might be as a gentle, caring father. Is this dissociation? No, it is a normal function of social role identity. However, by Hassan’s model (and others as well), the cult experience is medicalized and the person is basically given a diagnosis of a dissociative “disorder” by virtue of the fact he/she is in a group that is considered a cult. That kind of diagnosis is difficult enough under normal circumstances where the person can be directly interviewed, but it is even more problematic in the case of a cult member who usually is not being directly interviewed/examined by the SIA counselor who is working with the team members instead.

The assumption here is that because the person is in a cult, he/she automatically has this so-called “cult” personality, so the usual structured interview that is considered the “gold standard” for diagnosing this disorder is not done and cannot be done. The DD diagnosis is a big generalization and assumption to be making, based on a theory and second-hand reports of the person’s behavior. This is especially problematic since even the “gold standard” and the diagnosis itself has been called into question by some highly respected psychologists, even if everything is done properly. When it is done Hassan’s way with his assumptions, it becomes even more problematic. The implicit premise here is that because the person is involved in a cult, the person is mentally incompetent to make good decisions for him/herself and thus the team must decide what is best, and that means covert tactics to lead the person into “change and growth”, and of course the assumption is that positive change and growth leads to leaving the cult. Even though Hassan insists that is not the goal, let’s get real, it is what the family members want or they would not have paid Hassan all that money for consultation. According to Hassan, the “cult personality” has taken over and is in control, limiting the person’s free will.

Getting back to the SIA approach and the techniques used, these can vary from simple things like having family members talk about other cults or parallel experiences to the cult to more controversial tactics such as using techniques Hassan learned in the Moonies to match their thinking, feeling, doing or believing personality style (see p. 289 – it is not explicitly mentioned on that page that this is a Moonie technique, but there is a footnote that leads to p. 355 where he explains he first learned this in the Moonies). So again, we have the question of whether it works and is it ethical. It appears to work for some people, although the Moonies have a very high failure rate since the overwhelming majority of people they attempt to recruit do turn them down (see Barker’s study – even though there are people who disagree with her, few would dispute that cult recruiters have a high failure rate, especially at that initial stage). Still, one could argue that the team members know the person much better than a recruiter stranger would and thus might have more of a chance of success. But then, that raises the question of whether it is ethical to do the same thing cultists are doing to influence the person without his/her consent?

Also, when looking at these two models for exit counseling (the Giambalvo’s and their colleagues educational vs. Hassan’s mental health) we’re talking about whether it is a good idea to medicalize the cult issue. Hassan (and some others) operate on the assumption that cult members have a mental disorder induced by the cult. Is that a helpful assumption? That (the issue of medicalization of cult issues – both during and post cult) is going to be one of the issues my co-author and I plan to discuss in the presentation we have planned for the Denver ICSA conference.

Response from an Anti-Scientologist

On my other blog, I just received an irate response from an anti-Scientologist. I repost it here because it is a good example of some of the fallacies engaged in. I'm not suggesting that all anti-Scientologists are this way but I have seen more than one instance where this sort of attitude is displayed by over-zealous anti-Scientology activists, eager to pounce at the first sign anyone in Scientology has died. She writes:

The only thing you are apparently professional about, Ms. Pignotti, is lying. There are plenty of documented cases that illustrate how the scientology cult works to withhold medical care from its parishioners. Here are just a few examples: http://www.tampabay.com/news/article976561.ece
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cultxpt
Why you continue to alter the facts about scientology is beyond me. When real people die, such as Lisa McPherson, Kyle Brennan and Jett Travolta, these are not "anecdotal stories", but actual cases of neglect and abuse. In the end when the cult of scientology is exposed and punished for lives damaged, abused and even lost, you will be exposed for what you really are, an ignorant debunker of the truth.

My response:

Ms. Zell appears to have missed my point, which is that generalizations from cases such as Lisa McPherson are not necessarily warranted because we do not have nearly enough information about Jett Travolta's death to jump to the kinds of conclusions she jumps to.
Ms. Zell apparently has the lay use of the word "anecdote" confused with the way the word is used by social scientists. An anecdote, in the way I am using the term, doesn't mean that the incident did not happen. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on "anecdotal evidence" for a better understanding, Elizabeth. There are two definitions of the term and I am using the second one:
"(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence."
Ms. Zell and other overly-zealous anti-Scientologists are deducing unwarranted conclusions in this manner.
What happened to Lisa McPherson is not necessarily comparable to what happened to Jett Travolta. Her posting is a prime example of how anti-cult activists quickly jump to unwarranted conclusions in the face of very little evidence. I have not denied that there are any "documented cases". My point is that what happened with Lisa McPherson is a completely different situation from what happened with Jett Travolta.
On the contrary, Elizabeth, I am not "altering facts". I am awaiting facts, noting what facts we simply do not have and may never have and refraining from jumping to unfounded conclusions, something you apparently, in your zeal for a cause, are incapable of doing.

Observe how Ms. Zell has already made up her mind what the truth is about Jett Travolta, thus I am a "liar" from her perspective. At the end of the day, I agree with Harvard Psychology Professor Richard McNally who wrote that the best form of advocacy is to discover the facts about an issue, rather than attempting to turn an "ought" into an "is". We do not know the facts about what happened with Jett Travolta.

"Symptom Lists can be Powerful Things"

As one self-proclaimed cult expert's website states, "symptom lists can be powerful things". Indeed they can, although not in the sense that particular website author means it. Symptom checklists such as the one presented on that website are notorious for leading people into believing they have syndromes that lack good research support. A well-known example of this were the checklists published that supposedly indicated people had repressed memories of sexual abuse, which were laundry lists of symptoms that just about anybody could be experiencing for a variety of reasons. For example, people with weight problems were told that this meant they had repressed memories of sexual abuse, ignoring the many other reasons a person might have a weight problem. People who had such symptoms were then subjected to years and years of therapy that may have ended up doing them more harm than good.

Something similar is occurring with the alleged "post-cult syndrome" where a wide variety of symptoms that could have a number of possible causes are attributed to an ex-cult member's past cult experience. There is no solid evidence for such a "syndrome" and I would highly recommend that the therapy consumer beware of websites claiming such and posting lists of symptoms, repeatedly offering an icon for people to click on, claiming that help starts by contacting the therapist.

There is no good evidence that most people who have been in cults need specialized "post cult" therapy which has become a cottage industry for certain ex-cult members. First of all, such symptoms can be the product of suggestion. As someone who walked out of Scientology, I never had some of the symptoms such as "floating" because I walked out on my own and didn't go anywhere near any anti-cult organization for 12 years and thus never knew I was supposed to "float". Later when I participated in research and took the Dissociative Experiences Scale, I scored very low on it meaning I do not have dissociative symptoms (although even a high score on the DES does not necessarily mean the person has a clinical problem with dissociation). Granted, this is an anecdote, but so are the reported experiences of people who claim to be suffering from this "syndrome". There are anecdotes of people who have suffered greatly and anecdotes of people who have done just fine without therapy and have not had such symptoms. However, the studies done have all too often focused on the people who were exposed to descriptions of post cult "syndrome" and were seeking help -- a very biased sample that did not include people who did not know about the "syndrome".

The claims therapists make about so many people having these symptoms are based mainly on people who seek out their help for their cult experience. How about the many people who did not seek therapy, who felt no need to do so and are doing just fine? We don't hear about those people because therapists never see them. The problem now is that people who are walking out of groups on their own and surfing the web could be influenced by the websites suggesting all these symptoms and I am concerned that these checklists could become self-fulfilling prophecies, just as the checklists for repressed memories of sexual abuse were for so many people in the 1990s.

The other possibility is that people could be actually experiencing those symptoms for reasons that have nothing to do with the cult experience. The average age of onset for a number of disorders is late teens, early 20s, which is the same time many people get involved in cults (although of course there are others who get involved at a much older age). If the person's cult experience coincides with the onset of symptoms, we cannot say that the cult caused it. The person may have developed the symptoms anyway. The only way for people to know is to be assessed by a skilled mental professional who bases his or her practice on actual evidence rather than being mainly focused on unsubstantiated "syndromes". Also beware of people claiming their practice is "evidence-based" who then refer to studies that are published by organizations with a vested interest in the form of therapy, rather than an independent peer-reviewed journal (the blooming cottage industry of "e-therapy" appears to be doing this, hyping benefits that have yet to be independently established by researchers who have nothing to gain financially).

Debunking Hypnosis Myths

Certain anti-cultists buy into some long-debunked myths about hypnosis. Compare this recent posting to this Scientific American article that debunks some of these myths, especially the myth that there is some kind of "trance" state people can be put in where they can be "mind controlled".

Arnie Lerma claims:

Dianetics used MANY covert Hypnosis techniques including The Confusion technique - links on Lermanet.com Exposing the CON index page
And advanced technique for deep trance induction that merely requires that you cause another person to repetitively imagine something (anything) that IS NOT REALLY THERE.

The state of being in a hypnotic trance may also be characterized as extreme relaxation, it is very pleasant, 'floaty' and pain-free... in TR0 we were TRICKED into going into a hypnotic trance while we practiced for hours staying awake and looking alert... what Hubbard told us was "anaten" and "somatics" are all the items listed as the symptoms and/or milestone markers for deepness of trance state.. Ill post the list in a few days...

Consider while reading this the promises AND if they were JUST promises why were they repeated so many times.. Consider Hubbard's choice and use of the word "CLEAR" as a noun, as a future condition promised AND consider its' COMMAND value to the subconscious.....!!

All this is debunked in the recent Scientific American article. A large body of literature on hypnosis has been unable to document any kind of special "trance" state and there is no evidence that hypnosis has this sort of power over people and their so-called "subconscious".

However, instead of looking at current data, Lerma chooses to refer to an outdated 1956 handbook by a science fiction writer, A E Van Vogt that makes all kinds of arbitrary, unsupported assertions, stating them as if they were facts that Lerma appears to uncritically swallow whole. Sounds like someone needs to come up to present time and look at current research. It doesn't require hypnosis or any kind of special "trance" state for the placebo effect to have an impact on someone. In fact, what the much more recent actual research (as opposed to the proclamations of a sci fi writer) have shown is that people respond just as well to suggestions outside of hypnosis as they do under hypnosis. Of course, one trick of the pseudoscientists is to expand the definition of hypnosis so it includes just about everything in life, to it can then be invoked any time they want to show someone was under undue influence of hypnosis.

Although I never brought into some of the more extreme versions Lerma appears to buy into, I once bought into the theory that people are put into a "trance" state during Scientology's TR-0 that makes them more suggestible to whatever else goes on. This was before I became aware of the large body of literature on hypnosis that thankfully, one of the researchers on hypnosis cited in the Scientific American Article, Steven Jay Lynn, made me aware of. I had the opportunity to have a chat with Lynn on this topic and I later read, wrote and published a review of his excellent book on the empirical evidence on hypnosis, entitled Essentials of Clinical Hypnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach. I highly recommend people read this book, along with the Scientific American article to get a more accurate picture of what hypnosis can do and not do.

People might want to take me to task for citing someone such as Lerma who is so easy to refute. However, if one looks at the writings of other self proclaimed cult experts such as Steve Hassan, the claims are not much different. In his books, Hassan has cited the writings of famous proponents of hypnosis such as Milton Erikson, who's work, although it has far more acceptance among certain therapists, really has no more scientific validity than Scientology. Again, Lynn's book refutes much of what is claimed by such "cult experts".

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.

New List Serv: Anti-Cult Controversies

I have just begun a new list serv you are all invited to join called Anti-Cult Controversies. To join, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AntiCultControversies

The Cult Mind Control Narrative: Is it Helpful?

My history on this topic is available for all to see on the Internet, as doing a Google search on my name will reveal. I had an extraordinary experience severing my ties with Scientology, which I have written about elsewhere. Twelve years after leaving, I discovered Steve Hassan’s book, Combatting Cult Mind Control (CCMC). Although I had moved on with my life, I still was unable to find a satisfying explanation for what I went through. I was also still searching for a satisfying career in life and at the time was doing some soul-searching as to what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I happened upon Steve Hassan’s book, CCMC, one day in the bookstore and was so fascinated, I could not put it down. It seemed to explain everything I had gone through, 12 years before in Scientology.

I ended up getting in touch with Steve and we worked together on a number of interventions -- nonforcible ones where the person voluntarily agreed to speak with us.Eventually, I ended up going to graduate school and getting my Masters Degree in Social Work in 1996. The year after receiving my MSW, I ended up getting very involved with Thought Field Therapy (TFT) and became one of its top practitioners. I have written about this at length on my blog and in articles I have published in professional journals, so I will not repeat the details here.

In 2004, I ended up realizing that I had made some serious errors in accepting TFT, that resulted in my discontinuing its practice. At that time I phoned Steve Hassan and told him about this. He immediately responded that I had been under Roger Callahan’s “mind control” and that TFT had been hypnotic. He advised me to get intensive post-cult therapy to deal with my experience with TFT, including going to a residential facility called Wellspring to recover. His concern was very genuine and his intentions were good.

However, I decided not to take his advice. I did not go to Wellspring and did not seek therapy but instead chose to educate myself on evidence-based practice and critical thinking about unfounded therapeutic claims. That is one of the best decisions I have ever made. I thought things through very carefully. I also, through introspection, observed that when I thought about my experience through the lens of Steve's narrative of being a victim of Callahan's alleged "mind control" I felt very upset, anxious and confused, even panicky. Had I gone that way, I'm sure I would have displayed all kinds of "post-cult" symptoms. For all I know, I may have been in "post-cult therapy" for years dealing with those suggested "symptoms". That would have been good for the pocket book of someone promoting such therapy, but probably not so good for my emotional well-being. In contrast, when I looked at the situation from an educational perspective of analyzing where I went wrong and what I needed to know more about, I felt much calmer, empowered and on the road to healing from the entire situation because I learned what my errors were and what I might have done differently. I took responsibility for my mistakes rather than playing the victim of "mind control" role. This might not apply to everyone who has gotten involved with a cult, since in some cases there was deception and nothing the person could have done differently, but it was definitely the case with my experience in TFT. Even in those cases where there was deception, though, I think we need to remain open to the possibility that developing good critical thinking skills might prevent being lured in, at least for some people

It was then that I began to doubt universality of Steve’s theories and explanations of “cult mind control” which to me just did not seem to fit my experience with TFT. Note that there is no evidence that hypnosis even has this kind of power over people and even the idea of a "trance" state is highly controversial, let alone the idea that Roger Callahan was doing anything like that. He most certainly was not. TFT is not “hypnotic”. Although I had plenty of criticism for Roger Callahan, I really could not honestly accuse him of “mind control”.

At the same time I had been reading about narratives people put to symptoms and experiences they found puzzling (for example, people who believe they were abducted by aliens or had multiple personalities, as an explanation for symptoms and other troubles they were having in their life). It dawned on me that the “cult mind control” narrative seems to work that way for people who have had experiences in groups such as Scientology that they could not explain. However, using that narrative to explain my experiences with TFT seemed a real stretch, so I rejected it and even stated that I did not consider it a “cult” and that I took full responsibility for my mistakes. While the "mind control" model, especially if it is defined in terms of undue influence does fit some people's experience with some cults, it is far from as universal as is commonly believed in the anti-cult movement.

I also began to notice how Steve used “cult mind control” and “post-cult syndrome” to explain troubles ex-“cult” members were having in life as well as putting a wide variety of experiences (e.g. my experience with TFT) under the wide umbrella of cult mind control. On his website, he uses a symptom checklist of difficulties ex-cult members may have. I don't mean to single Steve out, as he is not the only one who uses this sort of checklist, which is not unlike the kind of checklists used for repressed memories of sexual abuse, alien abduction, being electronically harassed, and many other claimed explanations for difficulties people have in life. The problem with these kinds of checklists is that the symptoms could have many alternative explanations, yet when someone is caught up in the cult mind control and post-cult syndrome narrative, that person uses it to explain any trouble they are having.

Someone could be away from a “cult” for 30 years, and yet in anti-cult circles, if they exhibit any behavior that anti-cult activists don’t like, it is attribute to their being un-recovered ex-cult members, a label I have had slapped on me whenever I questioned some anti-cult dogma. Recently, one person who had been out of Scientology for 27 years referred to him self as a “recovering ex-cult member.” It seems there is no end to the “recovery’ process for some people and I have to seriously question how healthy that is. I have been called an un-recovered ex-cultist who needs years of intensive therapy by some supporters of Hassan because I dared to challenge some recent statements Steve has made to the press about the death of Jett Travolta.

One point of clarification -- I am not saying that people are never traumatized by their experiences in cults, nor am I saying it is easy to leave cults and adjust to life in the outside world. However, there is a philosophical principle called Occam’s Razor, that the most parsimonious (simplest) explanation for something that fits the facts is usually the correct one.

If people have spent many years in a group that was isolated from society, of course they are going to have culture shock returning to mainstream society, as well as other difficulties, especially if they experienced abuse and trauma. That is very real and I do not mean to minimize anyone’s pain. People in need of therapy after such an experience should by all means seek it out with a competent professional. Rather, my point is that many people leave these groups and begin to attribute every difficulty they are having in life, being told they will need years of therapy to recover, (as Steve Hassan and others have been known to tell people). That is what needs to be challenged and questioned. The studies showing high rates of post-cult symptoms were done with samples of people who had been exposed to anti-cult narratives or people who were having difficulties and sought professional help. Not included in these samples are people who left these groups and did not have such difficulties. Not everyone needs to be in therapy for this. With any kind of trauma, research shows that only a minority go on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and there is no reason for this to be any different with cults. Moreover, not everyone in cults even experienced trauma.

What concerns me is that people leaving these groups are often confused and seeking explanations for what they just went through and the cult mind control narrative can look very inviting. I just have to question if it is helpful in all cases or if for some people, more harm than good is being done. When people are labeled as having “post-cult syndrome” and needing years of therapy, this could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as it has been for people who have had other sorts of narratives imposed on them. As Richard J. McNally and Susan Clancy found in their research, people who believe they were abducted by aliens, manifested the same physiological signs as Vietnam veterans who had been traumatized in combat. They bought into that narrative (explanation for their troubles) and along with that, came all the very measurable physiological symptoms.

My concern is that, although not as exotic as being abducted by aliens, something similar could be happening with people who are being told they have “post-cult syndrome” and need years of expensive therapy to deal with it. Thus, I would say caveat emptor (buyer beware) when looking at websites of people who advertise so-called post-cult therapy. There is no evidence that this kind of therapy is superior to conventional therapy or even that it does no harm. At this point there is no research on it and we just don't know. It may be very helpful for some individuals, but not for others.

I'm not saying everyone should necessarily stay away from this sort of therapy. It may well be helpful for some people. I am not dismissing it out of hand. What I am saying is be wary of therapists who make unsupported claims of superiority and if you are in this sort of therapy with a self-proclaimed "expert" and you don't seem to be benefiting, you might want to reconsider. There are no good studies on this sort of "therapy," so listen to your gut. If you feel worse after week after week of such therapy, pay attention to that. In general, be very skeptical of therapists who tell you that you have to get/feel worse before you get better. All too often, that is nothing more than a line to keep people in endless therapy they will not benefit from. Undoubtedly there are some who say they have benefited and offer testimonials but we don't usually hear from the ones who did not or perhaps felt worse after the therapy. The same principles that apply to any form of therapy without support apply here. If you have had a troubling experience you cannot explain, it is very tempting to latch onto these kinds of explanations but they can sometimes come at a very high price, both literally in terms of dollars spent, and emotionally.