Mark Schwartz, accused of malpractice, removed from Castlewood clinic staff

I have been informed that The Examiner.com who published the article below received complaints about someone the author, Mr. Mesner, named in the article below. While the complaints are without merit and Mr. Mesner followed journalistic integrity, I have redacted the name of the person and the organization cited.

If you are outraged by the actions of The Examiner pulling Mr. Mesner’s article, contact David Horan @ dhoran@examiner.com

What continues to occur from people who do not like opinions expressed on this blog and others, is that bogus complaints are levied against us threatening legal action if we do not comply with their demand to take their name(s) off our blogs.

When people write articles and form organizations they do not have a right to threaten legal action when cited properly – yet that is what happened to Mr. Mesner and me.  Authors of blogs, websites, and publications are considered “public figures” and have no right to file complaints when journalists cite their work and quote their words properly – which Mr. Mesner and I do.

There is, of course, no copyright or other infringement nonetheless these complaints pour in. I have to admit the action works and they get what they want even though people like me and Mr. Mesner publish with journalistic integrity and abide by journalist ethics.

It’s You, readers, who suffer. Journalists cannot offer you complete information and you should be outraged.

These actions are pure highjacking of freedom of information. The individual Mr. Mesner named in the article below filed a bogus lawsuit against Mr. Mesner and choose not to show in court. The point only seems to have been to silence Mr. Mesner and cause him financial harm.

Although under duress I redact the article below, I choose to take the easy route even though it impinges on my freedom of speech and your freedom of information. I am working on many projects bigger and more important and tangling with people who file bogus complaints and who encourage silencing of information must take a back-seat so I can keep focused on my work.

Below is the article published by The Examiner.com with the name of said person and the organization they operate – redacted. This action is done under duress until such time as those making bogus complaints and filing bogus lawsuits can be stopped from doing so and held accountable for their deplorable behavior.

Seems those supporting the existence of multiple personalities and Dissociative Identity Disorder hate the truth and do not want the public to know what happens behind closed doors.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guest re-blog     By:

May 25, 2013    www.Examiner.com

The bizarre nature of the lawsuits created a minor, short-lived sensation among the national press at the times of their filings. The first, dated November 21, 2011 — Lisa Nasseff vs. Castlewood Treatment Center, LLC. — alleged to gross malpractice suffered while undergoing “treatment” at the St. Louis eating disorders clinic. To quote directly from the suit:

Advertisement

“defendant carelessly and negligently hypnotized plaintiff at a time when she was under the influence of various psychotropic medications and said hypnotic treatment directly caused or contributed to cause the creation, reinforcement, or increase in plaintiff’s mind, of false memories including the following:

a) Plaintiff suffered physical and sexual abuse;
b) Plaintiff suffered multiple rapes;
c) Plaintiff suffered satanic ritual abuse;
d) Plaintiff was caused to believe she was a member of a satanic cult and that she was involved in or perpetrated various criminal and horrific acts of abuse;
e) Plaintiff was caused to believe that she had multiple personalities at one time totaling twenty separate personalities.”

By November 09, 2012, four total lawsuits had been filed, all of a similar nature, all of which are still yet to go to trial. The allegations claim that among the false memories cultivated under the influence of Castlewood’s systematic narcosis “therapy” are disturbed, traumatizing delusions of ritual murder. No doubt, such “memories”, even when recognized as delusions, must exact a severe emotional toll, nor could the intentional cultivation of such delusions be considered anything but malpractice.

(The four lawsuits represent only some patients who now recognize their “memories” of abuse as false. Numerous families — some having started an online support network under the name of Castlewood Victims Unite — claim that they may have forever lost their daughters to false memories of Ritual Abuse that have caused them to withdraw from contact, and reason, entirely.)

But how could such delusions be cultivated in the course of treatment for eating disorders, and for what purpose? According to the allegations, it seems, the theory at Castlewood is (or was) that eating disorders signify outer manifestations of inner repressed traumas of abuse.

“Repressed”, of course, is to say that the patient does not consciously remember the traumatic event(s). Treatments based on these assumptions always seem to rely on bringing these presumed traumas out into conscious scrutiny. This, we are told, is the only way to neutralize them… the only way to end the outer symptoms these hidden traumas are believed to cause.

Is it credible to think that the co-founders of Castlewood, Mark Schwartz and his wife Lori Galperin — both internationally recognized experts in eating disorders, and both implicated in the suits — could have been reckless enough to lead vulnerable and medicated patients to cultivate absurd delusions of satanic cult abuse, or is something else going on?

In fact, wherever the idea of “repressed memories” and multiple personalities rears its ugly, debunked head, unhinged “memories” of imagined abuse are never far behind. Throughout the 80s and 90s, internationally recognized experts in trauma and dissociation (such as Richard Kluft and Colin Ross) promoted a deranged conspiracy theory of satanic cult abuse based upon accounts that had been “recovered” by their clients. Multiple investigations debunked the narrative of these accounts entirely, and it became quite clear what was really going on: an irresponsible and unscientific therapeutic practice was being employed to encourage vulnerable mental health consumers to confabulate memories of abuse — and then, in many cases, further encouraged them to insistently believe them. These confabulations, not-so-remarkably, had an enormously high probability of validating the therapist’s assumptions, regardless of how improbable those assumptions may have been.

In parallel to the satanic ritual abuse scare (now known to sociologists as the “Satanic Panic”) the exact same theories of memory retrieval brought us the mythology of alien abduction. Believing they had developed a check-list of probable symptoms of extraterrestrial contact that had subsequently been concealed from memory, “abductologists” used the same techniques employed by multiple personality specialists to draw forth elaborate narratives involving interplanetary visitors.

Interestingly, some professionals of abductology have found, in their probing explorations of their clients’ concealed “memories”, that the extraterrestrials are here to help us — they occasionally intervene in our affairs, but only on our behalf, and with unconditional benevolence and love. This contrasts heavily with narratives revealing a nefarious plot of oddly anal-centric human vivisection and exploitation. Why the discrepancy? I have personally sought out and interviewed a number of the top names in alien abduction research with this very question. In every instance, the answer has been the same: the other guys are doing the therapy wrong. They are interpreting “screen memories” improperly, or they are interpreting fear of the unknown as malice on the part of the extraterrestrials. Both sides assert that if only the other was to “dig deeper”, they would find the truth.

Incidentally, I attended a lecture, just last month, given by one Richard Schwartz, former member of Castlewood’s clinical staff, and creator of a therapy model, used at the Castlewood treatment center, called Internal Family Systems (IFS). IFS asserts that we all have multiple personalities, called “parts”, and by understanding and reconciling these parts, we may find inner peace. Some parts are destructive (suicidal, self-undermining, irrational, etc.) and it is the therapist’s job to find those parts and understand what distresses them individually.

During a Question & Answer segment of Dr. Schwartz’s presentation, I raised my hand:

Q: I worry about the distinction between getting people to recognize naturally occurring “parts” and being blamed [as a therapist] for causing people to contextualize themselves into parts to the point where you’re blamed for [creating] destructive parts. And I know there’s an eating disorders clinic that was using IFS and has lawsuits against it now. I was wondering if they could have done things differently [in their utilization of IFS therapy], or if that’s just a professional hazard?

Dick Schwartz: You know… that one’s a tough one, because what I’ve done — early in my career what I’ve done… The lawsuit’s around false memories — that whole movement’s come back some. Early in my career I had a client who went through all these cult memories. You know, I was really into it. Did some investigating, checked things out. And then, one session, we found a part that was generating all this to keep my interest because I had seen (some interest in her[?]) I’m very, very careful to never lead people toward any kind of… never presume what’s going to come out as they do their own witnessing. Even in ways — when something scary comes out — something like that — [I] say, well, we can’t really know whether this is true or not, but it is what the part needs to show so we’re going to go with it for now and later you can evaluate it, whether it’s true or not. So, it’s not just IFS, but any therapy that goes deep with people will come upon that phenomenon… and not everybody is careful in… those… realms…

Just as with alien abduction, one can always “dig deeper” in the context of IFS so as to re-narrate the entire tale. How do licensed professionals fall for this rubbish? The lecture I attended was delivered to a full-house of professional, credulous rubes in the mental health profession.

In 2009 I attended a “Ritual Abuse/Mind-Control conference” held annually in Connecticut by an organization known as XXXXXX. The conference is organized by a licensed Mental Health professional, XXXXXX, from XXXXXXXXX. A vendor booth at the conference was selling electromagnetic-beam blocking hats, and one of the speakers casually lectured us about mind-control and “demonic harmonics”, which “involves using musical tones and quantum physics to open up portals into the spiritual realms.” XXXXXX claims to have recovered memories that XXXXXX was a brainwashed assassin for the satanic cult conspiracy within the Illuminati-controlled CIA. Theories of repressed trauma are used to support the notion that if this type of lunacy can be “recalled”, so too must it all be true. (I wrote a report about this conference which XXXXXX has subsequently been attempting to litigate against on grounds of “defamation”, though, interestingly, none of the factual claims in the report are contested in the suit at all.)

The International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) hosts professional conferences where the debunked diagnosis of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) (now referred to in the American Psychiatric Association’s [APA] Diagnostic & Statistical Manual [DSM] as Dissociative Identity Disorder) is discussed and elaborated upon. Their last conference found a regular speaker from the annual xxxxx conferences co-delivering a lecture on “Ritual Abuse”, a slightly euphemistic term for the conspiracy theory of satanic cult abuse.

The task force chair of the 4th edition of the DSM, Dr. Allen Frances, has recently admitted to the Wall Street Journal that MPD/DID is “complete bunk”, yet the diagnosis remains in the current 5th edition, rolled-out only last week, of the revised DSM. This refusal to acknowledge the harmful realities regarding some of their imaginary disorders surely played a role in the National Institute of Mental Health’s (NIMH) decision, announced early this month, to abandon the DSM altogether, along with a statement recognizing that “patients with mental disorders deserve better.”

Indeed they do. The APA must bear responsibility for enabling the quackery endorsed by the ISSTD, who must bear some responsibility for lending any credibility to the delusional assertions of XXXXXX

…And Richard Schwartz’s IFS must bear some responsibility for the allegations against Castlewood… and Castlewood must bear responsibility for Mark Schwartz and Lori Galperin.

New evidence suggests that Castlewood is trying to distance themselves from that responsibility as much as possible. Both Mark Schwartz and Lori Galperin were recently removed entirely from the Castlewood staff shortly after depositions were taken regarding the malpractice suits. Whether they were allowed to abruptly resign, or were outright fired is unclear at this time.

If the accusations against Schwartz and his wife prove true, let us hope they never practice again… But let us also understand, the problem is far bigger than the both of them, and it is a long way from being resolved.

More on Castlewood, by journalist Ed Cara, can be read here: http://www.dysgenics.com/author/ed/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related topics

  • Castlewood Victims Unite (Facebook)
  • Dissociative Identity Disorder
  • eating disorder treatment
  • false memory
  • repression
  • repressed memories
  • parts therapy
  • IFS
  • Internal Family Systems
  • memory recall
  • false accusations of sexual abuse
  • Multiple Personality Disorder
  • multiple personalities
  • Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
  • DSM-5
  • International Society for the Study of Trauma & Dissociation (ISST-D)
  • False Memory Syndrome Action Network (Facebook)
 Last edit 04-11-15.
Advertisements
Leave a comment

32 Comments

  1. keith

     /  06/02/2013

    Jeanette said: “if someone thinks something negative – emotions will follow.”

    Yes they will if there is a negative damaged perception in the past to be triggered. If not, then only truth based emotions will follow, not lie based emotions.

    The primary truth based emotions are Anger, Sadness, Pain, Hurt, and Confusion.

    Like

    Reply
    • Jeannette Bartha

       /  06/08/2013

      Keith I do not agree what a person needs to have a past fraught with terror in order to have negative emotions and react to them. If that were true, Hollywood filmmakers would be out of work today.

      Where do you get the notion that there are “primary based emotions”? Do you make this stuff up? Get it from God, the bible, where? Do you read scientific journals at all?

      Like

      Reply
  2. keith

     /  05/29/2013

    Hi Jeanette,

    I still owe you an answer to your question, “what would I do if someone came to me?”, was that it, I cant remember fully?

    I would like to make two points. Firstly, as a therapist, it is not uncommon for people to “spin you a yarn”, and as in the example above, parts/littles are very intelligent and motivated to do this for various reasons. One role of littles is to protect the person from remembering traumatic stuff, the real traumatic stuff, so spinning a yarn is the perfect strategy, any tall tale will do, as long as we don’t go to the don’t go there places. This also shows up in two other strategies, a) “tell them what they want to hear, so they will leave me alone”, b) “play to their interests to keep getting the craved attention, friendship, human contact”.

    This should be expected it is par for the course, so all this focus on memories, false or otherwise is missing the major point, which is, focus on the emotions! The question is, are the emotions genuine, can they be faked? In my experience I believe that emotions are a reliable indicator of what the person themselves is believing. Working primarily with the emotions and perceptions, this is where the help is needed, any memories are secondary in importance.

    If the memory is not true, then it will be difficult to analyse to find the perceptions which are the source of the emotions, and healing is unlikely to occur.

    So my first point, all this arguing about memories is getting us nowhere, we should be arguing about whether emotions are genuine can be faked etc.

    My second point is that when healing occurs, with a specific emotion being resolved to peace, as a result of a measurable change in perception, this is an indicator that the person is likely to be telling the truth, the analysis is correct, and the specific intervention which occurred to being about that change was exactly what was needed.

    I have a friend who has received a couple of healings for deep emotions, yet we both know that the “memories” which were shared in the process of bringing up this pain are not genuine; they may possibly have been a result of dreams. Nevertheless we do know that the emotions were genuine, and it is not possible for a damaged perception of self (I am useless, its my fault etc) to be corrected if it was not actually damaged in the first place.

    I have another “friend” who is a habitual liar, and the same emotions consistently come up whatever the fib. They only get healed of something when they are being honest.

    Like

    Reply
    • Keith — You say, “all this focus on memories, false or otherwise is missing the major point, which is, focus on the emotions! The question is, are the emotions genuine, can they be faked?” Well, this certainly IS changing the question to the point that I don’t even think we are on the same topic anymore. Emotions certainly can be evoked through false memories, or even storytelling. What does this tell us? You say, “In my experience I believe that emotions are a reliable indicator of what the person themselves is believing.” No, Keith, emotions are a reliable indicator of what someone is FEELING. How can you get something as basic as that wrong? And you seem to be suggesting that reality can and should take a backseat to emotion, but the legitimacy of the memory should be of utmost concern to a therapist. If you don’t understand this, you have no business in the profession at all. You don’t want to sit around and cultivate delusions of horror merely because you getting an emotional reaction from a client! If a client holds delusions of Satanic Ritual Abuse or alien abduction, they should not be encouraged. If they hold to any beliefs that are disconfirmed by evidence, it does nobody any good to shield them from reality.
      But then, I have no idea how you transition from one point to the other here: You say,
      “If the memory is not true, then it will be difficult to analyse to find the perceptions which are the source of the emotions, and healing is unlikely to occur.”
      But then you go on to say that whether it’s true or false doesn’t matter. Is this because whether or not healing is to occur doesn’t matter either??:
      “So my first point, all this arguing about memories is getting us nowhere, we should be arguing about whether emotions are genuine can be faked etc.”
      Again, genuine emotions are manifested by people watching Lord of the Rings — doesn’t mean they even may have come from Middle Earth.
      And then, this rubbish about “littles” and deceptive “parts”. What’s really going on is that you are weening a client from any personal responsibility in anything whatsoever. If they are caught in a lie, a part did it. If the narrative doesn’t fit, an undermining “part” said it.
      I really have a hard time understanding your bizarre contortions of reason in this post, but it suggests you are ripe for Mental Health help, not practice.

      Like

      Reply
      • Jeannette Bartha

         /  05/30/2013

        Doug, it doesn’t seem that you know Keith’s background. (Keith, correct me if I make a mistake). He resided in the UK. Secondly, his background is not in psychology or psychiatry. He is not a credentialed psychotherapist nor an educated one. He holds God to be the source from which he operates.

        I appreciated that Keith comes here to discuss issues. He and I don’t usually agree but we argue just the same.

        When I was reading your post, I was reminded of being in a movie theater where writers and film makers manipulate our emotions the entire time. So, using Keith’s theory about emotions being genuine, yes mine are genuine in a movie theater, but whatever I experience is totally related to the film. It’s unlikely those emotions would have been evoked had I not been in the theater.

        This is confusing.

        Like

        Reply
    • Keith, the very fact that you have clearly been indoctrinated to believe in and to be looking for “littles” and “parts” (“intelligent,” “yarn-spinning,” or otherwise) makes it abundantly clear you should be seeking help, not claiming to provide it. Your belief system is seriously warped, almost surely by membership in an organization promoting an empirically unsound relationship between trauma and “dissociative identity disorder” (i.e., “MPD” or “parts”). Because your belief system is warped, you actually might not understand that, as good as your intentions might be, you are a perpetrator of harm in what you refer to as your role as a “therapist.” I am grateful Doug pointed out some of the flaws in your reasoning. One can only hope that you might consider seeking professional consultation with a professional who is not a member of ISSTD, who is both intelligent and scientifically well-informed (rather than indoctrinated), and who can help you to become far more aware of the damage resulting from your empirically flawed conceptualiztion of people as constellations of “parts.” The same sort of consultant can undoubtedly help you to clear up your understanding of your own malpractice in encouraging the notion of “parts” and any relationship of “parts” to “traumatic memories.” Please seek help and strive to do no [further] harm.

      Like

      Reply
    • Jeannette Bartha

       /  05/30/2013

      Hi Keith, Good to hear from you.

      I disagree with your statement of the validity of emotions. In my experience, particularly with MPD/DID therapy, is that emotions lie. Thoughts and beliefs generate emotions and if someone thinks something negative – emotions will follow. My intense emotions experienced during treatment were used by me and my psychiatrist to persuade me that new memories were accurate – it begs the question, “If it didn’t happen, why would I be so distraught?” On the surface, the deductions seem quite plausible, but they aren’t.

      We can stop discussing “false” memories, but cannot discontinue discussing the science of memory because it is what remembering abuse is about. Memory – the storage and retrieval. And the bigger question, is reconstructed memory accurate?

      Like

      Reply
  3. karmakaze

     /  05/29/2013

    Regarding the censorship: It’s not at all surprising to me that the cowardly Massachusetts-based psychotherapist (I think he calls himself a “mental health counselor”) who promotes and encourages this malpractice is threatening to sue anyone who reveals the disturbing facts about his organization and his conferences. His lawsuit against Doug Mesner is a sad, pathetic joke and he knows it. This is the kind of behavior I’ve come to expect from He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named and his friends — hysteria, cowardice and bullying.

    The removal of Mark Schwartz and Lori Galperin-Schwartz from Castlewood is a step in the right direction, but it can’t just stop there. If Castlewood Treatment Center really intends to do right by their patients, they’ll do a full house cleaning and rid themselves of all staff members who are wedded to IFS or other scientifically unsound treatments.

    To the Castlewood victims: best of luck to the four plaintiffs, and to the many others who have been harmed by their treatment at CW. And props to you, Jeanette, for your role in keeping this information available to the public.

    Like

    Reply
    • Jeannette Bartha

       /  05/29/2013

      Thank you, Karmakaze for your support.

      The public has a right to know what goes on in “parts therapy” because:

      – insurance premiums, medicare, medicade, NHS, and all public mental-health services pay for it.
      – employers pay for sick-days and higher premiums
      – families are destroyed when false accusations of sexual attacks are made
      – the courts are jammed with frivolous suits
      – children raised in chaotic homes with a parent who thinks they have multiple personalities is devastating

      Can anyone add to the list?

      Like

      Reply
      • Grateful to Jeanette, to Doug, Ed and others who, with personal ethics, fortitude, and journalistic integrity, have persevered in disseminating accurate information to the public about the continuing travesty of “parts (DID/MPD) therapy.” The public has the right to know what is still happening behind closed doors, in the guise of “mental health counseling”/”therapy.” In fact–based on empirical findings, all that is “parts therapy” is malpractice most foul.
        Jeanette, I need to add to your list of reasons why the public has a right to know about the scientifically and ethically unsound (mal)practices being committed in the Mental Health Industry today.

        The public has a right to know what goes on in “parts therapy” because:
        (1) this “therapy” actually constitutes intentional malpractice, given the abundance of empirical evidence against the fundamental tenets of “parts/MPD/DID” and about the iatrogenic/bias effects on their victims by perpetrating counselors’ own distorted beliefs regarding the human psyche
        (2) the severe damage inflicted by “parts therapy” malpractice on the vulnerable victims, themselves–independent of the attendant terrible financial costs and harm to the victims’ families
        (3) people cannot begin to protect themselves from “parts therapy” or to call for positive changes in the mental health industry if they aren’t made aware of the dire consequences of these practices
        (4) I would think that the general public views the goal of the mental health industry as that of providing for healing, rather than the dissolution of suffering people

        To those of you on the front line of this struggle against all the wrongs and evils encompassed in “parts therapy”: please take to heart the gratitude of those who deeply appreciate your efforts, your commitment to improving contemporary “mental health” practices, your bravery in the face of inevitable aggressive backlash from those who are self-righteous, but wrong; defensive and aggressive, while knowingly perpetrating harm. I hope that gratitude will help to strengthen your fortitude and determination.

        Like

        Reply
        • Jeannette Bartha

           /  05/30/2013

          Yes, gratitude and hope strengthen my ability to move forward and I am thrilled that you recognize that and have taken time to read my blog and make comments.

          You’re right, it isn’t easy to keep going with the wind in my face all the time, but that does not dampen my resolve to do so. The public is ill-informed and people following MPD/DID/parts therapies even more so.

          I don’t agree with you that some practitioners are “knowingly perpetrating harm” because they honestly believe in the treatment they offer. Then again, I’ll wager a bet that next to zero of them use Dissociative Identity Disorder as the first diagnosis on insurance forms so there is some degree of awareness that what they are doing is not OK with society and insurance companies. The decision to be deceitful so they can be monetarily compensated for the hours they spend talking to alter personalities of their clients, I suppose, is an indication of awareness of wrongdoing. I’m equally sure the act reasoned away as a necessary evil to treat people who otherwise would suffer unnecessarily.

          LOL did I just debunk myself?

          Like

          Reply
          • keith

             /  06/02/2013

            Recently I picked up a book on psychology and I thought, should I read this? I asked the question since the people I learned from routinely see rape trauma resolved in a single session. This is the base line now, any practitioner who cannot do that, is not worth listening to, let alone learning from.

            Jeanette, you know I am a Christian, and the therapy approach we use consists of asking Jesus what to do. It is simple, and I have said it before here, DID does exist, Jesus says it exists, He will explain it to those who have it, and He will speak to littles to allay their fears. God says DID exists, I just take notes. You really are swimming against the grain of reality here.

            No suggestion is ever made of DID, and if it is present it emerges, and the therapy approach we use to resolve things is led and instructed by the Lord Jesus and we see success. In particular we have a very analytically detailed insight as to what is going on and how to sort it out. It is not easy, or quick but it is logical and successful at every point on the journey. People are genuinely getting better, and living full and satisfying lives, no thanks to the naysayers.

            Now I do agree that psychiatrists should not be allowed anywhere near anyone with mental health issues of any kind, their mindset is all wrong for it, I shouldn’t generalise but they just aren’t kind enough, few professionals are, let alone those who are trained in the wrong way of thinking. I also notice that those who deny DID aren’t exactly models of kindness or compassion, being far to hard on people who are very damaged and vulnerable indeed.

            Just to give you an example of what is necessary. I provide therapy on call and on demand 24/7 free of charge, in fact I provide the food and accommodation too. I posit that It is unethical to charge for helping someone in need. This evening, within 5 minutes of my friend having a nightmare, we were able to resolve all issues relating to the nightmare, and now they are sleeping, it is 1am.

            Now to the point I was trying to make. Let me try and state it more clearly.

            If someone gets emotionally triggered, that is emotions from the past are triggered then the question is how did they get in there to be triggered in the first place. Were they genuine in the first place.

            I am not saying lets make up a memory or imagine a new scene and if that evokes emotions then we believe the emotions to be more real than reality after all we just made up a scene. I am not talking about fresh emotions here.

            What I am saying is this, if I show myself a harrowing picture or I watch the news, it may evoke some emotional response, but that emotional response will be “truth based”. If I see a child suffering I may feel anger, righteous anger, this is truth based.

            If I show someone an image and it triggers them, and their emotional response is not one of the 5 truth based emotions, then it will be a lie based emotion. They can ONLY feel that lie based emotion IFF they are at some level believing that lie. The (non-intellectual) belief is what generates the emotion. That is the cause and effect. So knowing the emotion is lie based and seeing that the person is not faking it, you can ask what lie is being believed, and progress from there to process that false perception until it is no longer a false perception, once the lie is no longer believed it no longer generates the negative emotion and peace is the result. So in theory no actual memory work is needed. Hence the arguments over memory reliability are missing the point.

            So to an example. If I look at a picture of a spider, my emotional response is nil. It is only a picture and I know the truth both intellectually and experientially. I have experienced both pictures before and spiders too, no past experience has trained my mind with any kind of negative perception about either. So when my mind cross references the image with my past experiences, the look up retrieves nothing of significance.

            If you show the picture of a spider to someone with a fear of spiders, the mind does a look up in all past memories for experiential knowledge, and their response will be a triggered response. For example it could produce, fear, panic, anxiety, worry, horror, disgust, or terror. There are approximately ten categories of lie based emotions and the emotions I would expect to see are those from the “fear category”.

            All of these are lie based emotions, generated by the perception stored in memories of experiences. So if the emotion is genuinely triggered, it can only be triggered by the look up process whereby the mind compares the present situation with past experiences, and if a negative emotion results, then this must be produced by a negative perception, something is believed (as a result of an experience) which is not true. When the belief/perception changes the emotions produced change. Analysing the experiences/memories themselves is helpful but not essential to see success. Those who lie, tend to lie about the memories, but not about the emotions, or do they?

            What if you show the picture of a spider to someone who doesn’t have a phobia, but is told to pretend that they do. Here is the problem, the pretending process is an intellectual one, they would have to intellectually report feeling fear, but producing the actual physiological symptoms of fear is far more difficult.

            How do actors act emotions on screen to turn on the tears, invariably they draw on their past experiences, they trigger themselves on purpose, using negative experiences and emotional responses stored in their past experiences.

            So if an actor came to me to put on an act pretending to have a fear of spiders and they used a memory of a real fear that they have to do so. So let’s say that the actor has a fear of dogs, which he uses to put on an act of being afraid. We could still process the emotion and the negative perceptions, even though I am being fed false memory. If we succeed in processing and changing the negative perception, he would find his fear of dogs cured!

            Like

          • Jeannette Bartha

             /  06/08/2013

            Hi Keith, I didn’t know that Jesus said Dissociative Identity Disorder exists. Would you please tell me where Jesus said that as quoted in the King James version of the Bible?

            Like

          • Jeannette Bartha

             /  06/08/2013

            Keith, I am at a loss to reply to your post as it seems you adhere to religious and MPD/DID theories in treating people in psychological distress – which I do not.

            Usually, people who report sexual abuse do not also report being “cured” in one session. Perhaps you and your ministry are a conduit for God’s miracles. I can’t say.

            I operate from the scientific side of psychology and psychiatry because I find it more reliable and accurate then wondering if God will intervene in someone’s life.

            There is no way to regulate spiritual belief systems of a practitioner during psychotherapy. Therefore, anyone can call themselves a “practitioner”. You, Keith, are practicing psychotherapy without any training if memory serves me correctly. I continue to hope you are not causing people harm although I cannot see how you can be free of doing so.

            Keith, with all due respect, I see you care deeply for the spiritual welfare of people. I continue to think that the manner in which you go about your ministry is potentially harmful.

            Like

  4. I’m surprised, but I guess even some investigative journalists are afraid of the power of Satan. Thanks for not being weenies, like the Examiner.

    Like

    Reply
    • Jeannette Bartha

       /  05/29/2013

      The public has the right to know what goes on behind the closed doors where “parts” therapy takes place and will continue to do so. I staying with this, I’m not leaving.

      Like

      Reply
  5. Anonymous

     /  05/29/2013

    I have read the vile labels David Shurter (SRA, DID, etc…) has given and continues to give ANYBODY who questions his articles, opinions, or stories. I am wondering why somebody has not slapped a libel suit against Mr. Shurter. It seems to me that being labelled a “pedophile protector” can be pretty damaging.

    With all the news of bullying in recent times, I find it remarkable that some of the worst forms of bullying seem to be coming from psychiatric community. Has this always been common in this field?

    Like

    Reply
    • Jeannette Bartha

       /  05/29/2013

      Yes, Anonymous. I too am a target of David Shurter’s bullying and libel and slander (he has a radio show). lol. Only people with solid credentials and honest work get attacked, so I’m in terrific company. No worries.

      This behavior/phenomenon is rather new to those who partake in discussions of issues presented on this blog and elsewhere where DID is discussed. I don’t know why, but many in the DID community are unable to conduct themselves properly and their behavior brings them shame. Most of the credit, IMO, goes to therapists diagnosing and treating DID. They fail to teach their clients how to act properly and acting out that goes on in treatment bleeds from behind closed doors onto the Internet.

      Having discussions that are steeped in bullying and vile comments is not fun so I’ve left them. My time is precious and my energy is better spent with people who are truly interested in discussing topics.

      Like

      Reply

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s