CSICOP & the False Memory Syndrome Foundation

[Sokolova]

Since there's another thread dealing with the apparent bid in the media to normalise pedophilia I thought people might be interested in this email I was sent a few months ago (copy of a copy). Here it is.....<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Re. the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and CSICOP.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>CSICOP unquestioningly endorses the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>FMSF</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Indeed several of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CSICOP</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->'s members are also members or supporters of this group, including <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Paul Kurtz,</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>James Randi </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Martin Gardner</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Nothing wrong with that you might say. But when we look a litle closer we find that Kurtz (one time chairman of CSICOP) runs a publishing concern called <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Prometheus Books</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, which publishes books on 'human sexuality', including one with the title '<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>CHILDREN'S SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS WITH ADULTS</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->'. Is this book critical of such encounters? Well, I don't think so. According to one review:<br> <br>"<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>It is not sexual contacts per se that pose problems for children, the authors argue, but rather the cultural prejudices by which most members of society judge such acts. "The damaging effects on children of intimate but non-penetrative contacts with adults," note the authors in a section on "cultural relativity,. . . . are clearly psychological rather than physical and to a considerable extent dependent upon how such situations are viewed in the society in which the child has been brought up.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->" <br> <br>And here's a quote from the book:<br> <br>"<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>There is a considerable amount of evidence that some boys are quite happy in relationships with adult homosexual men so long as the affair does not come to light and cause scandal or police action. . . . The great majority [of boys in a 1987 'study'] came from apparently normal homes, but were pleased to have additional attention and patronage from a devoted adult and willingly went along with his sexual requirements.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->" <br> <br>Given this it might not seem too surprising that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Prometheus Books'</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> principal editor is a person called <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Vern Bullough</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, who is also a board member of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Paidika</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> a Dutch paedophilia magazine.<br> <br>So, we have the ex-chairman of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CSICOP </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->who is also a member of the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>False Memory Syndrome Foundation</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> (which claims to defend people against false accusations of sexual abuse), and who at the same time also publishes books and associates professionally with people, that openly advocate, or at least refuse to condemn, sex between children and adults.<br> <br>At very least this represents an obvious conflict of interest. Yet does <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CSICOP</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> seem concerned about this? On the contrary, several other of its members are also members of the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>FMSF</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, and they seem to do their best to conceal - not condemn - Kurtz's association with pro-paedophilia movements (see the 'discussion' of the matter in the <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk6.html"> 'Skeptic's Dictionary' </a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> which tries to conceal the book's endorsement of paedophila by claiming it is merely a 'scientific' analysis: a good example of the way some of these pseudo-skeptics abuse the word 'science' and use it as a shield to defend their own unacknowledged and sometimes very strange agenda).<br> <br>If you Google for '<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>false memory syndrome foundation</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->' and/or <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CSICOP</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> you can find more material, but you need to dig beneath the presentation and look for names and dig out the links. No one at CSICOP or the FMSF is openly saying 'yes we have no problem with paedophilia'. <br> <br><br>(there's a reasonable analysis of CSICOP <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm"> here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->)<br> <br>So, right now and until I see further evidence, I feel there's a big questionmark over <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>CSICOP </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->and the various gents who belong to it.<br> <br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[marykmusic]

Read Alex Constantine, Jim Marrs, and many other authors who debunk the False Memory Syndrome Foundation for what it is: a way to keep victims from being believed.<br><br>How can I be surprised at any affiliations and philosophies they espouse? --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Want to throw this link in again. This is a collection of studies showing that exactly the thing the FMSF doesn't believe in, partial amnesia of traumatic events which then resurface later in life, happens and is actually normal. These studies show that such memories are usually NOT recovered from hypnosis or even therapy, but most often by some sensory input, such as a tv show. They also show that such memories are on a par with continuous memories when it comes to accuracy. <br><br>The studies approach the question in different ways. One might use old hospital records of sexual abuse victims, find those victims, and assess their memory of those events. What do you know? Sometimes people don't remember them at all. Sometimes they do and sometimes they report having forgotten about it for a time. <br><br>Some studies found people with recovered memories and did some detective work to find evidence and did so. They even elicited a family member confession or two. <br><br>There's a LOT of information here...essential for therapists and anyone going through "recovered memories."<br><br>The studies do not delve into RA or abduction type memories at all, but it's a good resource.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/">www.jimhopper.com/memory/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

The False Memory Syndrome and all those connected to it would make another good data dump. <p></p><i></i>

[Sokolova]

I think the 'CSICOP' aspect of the equation is in many ways more important than the FMSF. <br><br>The FMSF has an obvious agenda, but why does CSICOP have such close ties to it? And why have 'recovered memories' been added to the skeptics' list of 'fakery'? Why do so many members of the extreme skeptical network seem to have links to pro-pedophilia organisations? <br><br>Ellie <p></p><i></i>

[Sweejak]

Rick Ross, Waco ... google results<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://tinyurl.com/d9evf">tinyurl.com/d9evf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>