• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dr Phil promotes "Satanic Ritual Abuse" conspiracy theory

Last edited:
Dismember said:
Yes, I received this reply:

The Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) recently completed an investigation into the practices of Judy Byington. After a thorough review of the websites and interviews it was ascertained that Ms. Byington is not violating any of the provisions of Utah Code Title 58. Therefore unless more detailed and complete information that is patient/client specific that Ms. Byingotn is engaged in the practice of mental health therapy is provided, this case will remain closed.

We do appreciate you notifying us of your concerns and although the case is closed, your information was forwarded to the investigator and we will continue to monitor the situation.
Click to expand...

I had already contacted them prior to receiving the information about Judy's $25 Skype sessions, but I did provide the link to the Nov. 17th webinar, and the link to the interview from August where Judy says she had a "session" with Jenny this summer.
Click to expand...

Well, damn. But at least they're open to new evidence. Thanks for the update, and your reporting to them. :thumbsup:
 
Orphia Nay said:
Interesting idea.

With Byington, we need a date, time, place and client.

I'm not sure we have/had that in our complaints.

Would that be available under the FOIA?
Click to expand...

I may ask Doug if his original complaint had that. He is also well-versed on FOIA stuff. Me? I'm just throwing ideas out. I think he is off for a few days, but I'll check it out when I catch up with him.
 
Orphia,

Here is my translation of the last part of the abstract:

“Clinical Psychologists saw more cases that they identified as SRA than Hypnotherapists did, and were more ready to believe them. Hypnotherapists saw more cases that they identified as childhood sexual abuse and possible false memory syndrome. People who believe in SRA and MPD/DID are less likely to believe that false memories are possible.”

Let me break that down for you.

Clinical psychologists were more ready to believe that what they were seeing was caused by SRA.

Hypnotherapists were more likely to believe that what they were seeing was caused by childood sexual abuse and false memory syndrome (although the abstract did not give a cause for the FMS).

If someone believes in SRA and MPD/DID that person is more likely to disparage the idea of false memories. This seems logical to me. If Fred believes SRA really happens, Fred isn't going to question consider that a memory of SRA could be false, could be induced by a therapist; that is, could be iatrogenic. Sam, however, who doesn't believe in SRA as a widespread cult, will be much readier to ascribe the patient's condition to "normal" (pardon the phrase) childhood sexual abuse.

Other points to keep in mind here, in the absence of having the full text* of the article: It is not clear how either the clinical therapists or the hypnotherapists were chosen. Were they sought out or self-selected? In either case, who was chosen and who was rejected (not by name but by characteristics)?

We know the survey was done over the Internet, but that's a medium, not a methodology. For instance, the researchers could have asked the psychologists and hypnotherapists to judge transcripts or case reports, or they could have asked the psychologists and hypnotherapists to provide redacted information from their own practices. If the latter, was the information accurate? It is probably the case that a peer review would have asked what I am asking and more. But we don't know.

We don't know how many psychologists and hypnotherapists there were; we don't know their therapeutic orientations, etc. And we have not seen the statistics.

However, this article is recent, and it is in what appears to be a reputable journal, one that has been in existence for about 20 years. There are five authors listed, usually a sign of a self-correcting authorship. Furthermore, the abstract doesn't indicate a bias for or against SRA or FMS.

I hope this answers you satisfactorily.



*I can probably get that text, but it might not be needed for our understanding of the abstract. I would not be able to post it online, however, because of copyright restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Cheers, Altus.

Thanks, xterra, yes, I see what you're saying.

I think they stated the numbers surveyed: "Chartered Clinical Psychologists (n=183) and Hypnotherapists (n=119)".

But yeah, we don't know how many of those believe in DID or SRA. Plus the rest of what you said.
 
Oh, what an absolute crock. I commented on how SRA conspiracy theorist Pamela Noblitt's review contained nothing about Jenny and underscored the fact that this whole mess was Judy's doings.

http://tinyurl.com/ctzvfpy

Here is the orginal review:

"By Pamela Noblitt "rabuster"
This review is from: Twenty-Two Faces (Kindle Edition) This book is a sincere, first person account of survival from the most sadistic and painful (emotional, psychological, and physical) circumstances. It is her truth and unfortunately not an uncommon one. Children are regular targets of abuse because of the disproportionate power their abusers have over them. Why should her story be so difficult to accept and understand given the chronicles of child abuse that have occurred individually and institutionally over the years. We are all now aware of the abuses within the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, and the YMCA among others. And consider these legitimate cases of exploitation and abuse were not discovered and prosecuted until the victims grew to adulthood. Why is it hard to believe that children are abused in other venues? How can we expect children to rise up against their perpetrators? Would they even be believed? Even an adult revealing her truth retrospectively faces enormous obstacles: facing her own history, trying to remember events chronologically when she was a child at the time of victimization, trying to separate reality from deceptions practiced by the perpetrators, and experiencing significant life problems along the way. Ms. Byington's memoir is her account of her experiences. It is unapologetic and heartfelt. The reader should approach this book with an open mind and with deep gratitude for the author's courageous effort to bring to light a dark and frightening experience of chronic abuse delivered by the hands of adults in positions of trust and authority. Ms. Byington's story is worth learning and her voice deserves to be heard."
Click to expand...

Took Judy all day to flag Noblitt down for a revision, but here it is:

By Pamela Noblitt "rabuster"
This review is from: Twenty-Two Faces (Kindle Edition)
Clearly I was unclear in my appreciation for this book. Let me now clarify. I was identifying most with the story of how Ms. Byington developed her understanding of her client's allegations and rose to the occasion professionally and ethically. I have read many survivor accounts but fewer by clinicians who are attempting to understand the problems and develop effective treatment strategies. So my interest was more in Ms. Byington's professional journey and the profound effect "Jenny's" case had on her development as a therapist. Thus I see this book as a memoir of Ms. Byington's professional development.

This book is a sincere, first person account of survival from the most sadistic and painful (emotional, psychological, and physical) circumstances. It is her truth and unfortunately not an uncommon one. Children are regular targets of abuse because of the disproportionate power their abusers have over them. Why should her story be so difficult to accept and understand given the chronicles of child abuse that have occurred individually and institutionally over the years. We are all now aware of the abuses within the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, and the YMCA among others. And consider these legitimate cases of exploitation and abuse were not discovered and prosecuted until the victims grew to adulthood. Why is it hard to believe that children are abused in other venues? How can we expect children to rise up against their perpetrators? Would they even be believed? Even an adult revealing her truth retrospectively faces enormous obstacles: facing her own history, trying to remember events chronologically when she was a child at the time of victimization, trying to separate reality from deceptions practiced by the perpetrators, and experiencing significant life problems along the way. Ms. Byington's memoir is her account of her experiences. It is unapologetic and heartfelt. The reader should approach this book with an open mind and with deep gratitude for the author's courageous effort to bring to light a dark and frightening experience of chronic abuse delivered by the hands of adults in positions of trust and authority. Ms. Byington's story is worth learning and her voice deserves to be heard.

This matter really isn't open to debate. Each of us is free to voice our own opinions without accusation or being accused of anything more or less than free expression. I am unsure why there is such a need for some readers to so critically attack my opinions or anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Now I have to go back and address Byington's other posts to me. Keeping the girl on her toes.
 
Last edited:
New 5-star review with a "discussion" so predictable it might as well be scripted, but watch for the M. Night Shyamalan ending in the first comment:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RW0F6Y...95GQ78O&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=#wasThisHelpful

Doc W says: said:
Thank you for the heads-up Judy. It's a shame that you have "ghosts" that appear to follow your online presence. This is curious. This book was an tantalizing read. So that I better understand what is going on, are you saying that these ghosts are Satan worshipers, atheists and they attempt to release rapists and murders from legal confinement? I happen to be an atheist myself, but I find the other behavior confusing.
Click to expand...


Doc W says: said:
Okay, this makes more sense Judy. What you describe sounds like a group with an agenda to protect and your book must not agree with their agenda. These types of characters can be exceedingly difficult to deal with. It sounds like a cult of ghosts with an agenda.
Click to expand...


Doc W says: said:
I looked up the name Douglas Misicko and found a hornets nest of crap associated to this name. It's incomprehensible that these people are attacking your publication so.
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/douglas-misicko-alias-douglas-mesner-defamation-case/
Click to expand...
 
Dismember said:
Originally Posted by Doc W says:
Thank you for the heads-up Judy. It's a shame that you have "ghosts" that appear to follow your online presence. This is curious. This book was an tantalizing read. So that I better understand what is going on, are you saying that these ghosts are Satan worshipers, atheists and they attempt to release rapists and murders from legal confinement? I happen to be an atheist myself, but I find the other behavior confusing.
Click to expand...

And that would be Felicity playing off the fact that she accused me of being Debbie Nathan's ghostwriter, obviously not having a clue as to what one was. She was just posting to me about it earlier.

Yeah, the winner of The H.L. Mencken Award for Investigative Journalism and PEN West Award for Journalism has a ghostwriter. You just can't make this stuff up!

I stand corrected! While Felicity and I did have that conversation about me being a ghostwriter earlier this evening, Doc W. is legit. I've seen him elsewhere. He's Doc Wallace. Go to the comment section: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=comments He shows up on the second page complimenting SRA supporter Ellen Lacter, incorrecly calls Steele a Dr., and then sings the praises of the ISSTD to Debbie Nathan.
 
Last edited:
Altus said:
And that would be Felicity playing off the fact that she accused me of being Debbie Nathan's ghostwriter, obviously not having a clue as to what one was. She was just posting to me about it earlier.

Yeah, the winner of The H.L. Mencken Award for Investigative Journalism and PEN West Award for Journalism has a ghostwriter. You just can't make this stuff up!

I stand corrected! While Felicity and I did have that conversation about me being a ghostwriter earlier this evening, Doc W. is legit. I've seen him elsewhere. He's Doc Wallace. Go to the comment section: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=comments He shows up on the second page complimenting SRA supporter Ellen Lacter, incorrecly calls Steele a Dr., and then sings the praises of the ISSTD to Debbie Nathan.
Click to expand...

I did a Google image search of his WSJ profile pic.

Found this: http://65.54.113.26/Author/2774468/anton-zorich

Further searching doesn't reveal any significant association with DID/SRA myths other than a review of "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond" by Paul F. Dell at Amazon.

He appears to be a crazy scientist. :)
 
Orphia Nay said:
He appears to be a crazy scientist. :)
Click to expand...

It's a shame that on both the WSJ site and Amazon, he did not appear to be open to an intellectually honest examination of the facts on DID/SRA. He'd already decided who he believed was "right" and "wrong" and rejected out-of-hand any information that challenged those preconceived notions.

He also pulled his Twenty-Two Faces review already: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member..._pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

That makes "Doc W," "Tylas Raine" (now going by "Hope") and "Stephan" who posted five-star reviews within the past couple weeks and then quickly removed them for no apparent reason.

It's good to see another skeptic, Charles Gaston, weighing in -- is he a member of this forum?
 
Orphia Nay said:
I did a Google image search of his WSJ profile pic.

Found this: http://65.54.113.26/Author/2774468/anton-zorich

Further searching doesn't reveal any significant association with DID/SRA myths other than a review of "Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond" by Paul F. Dell at Amazon.

He appears to be a crazy scientist. :)
Click to expand...

Great find, Orphia!

I was up quite late chatting with him. It was quite a polite and respectful exchange. I was actually a little bummed to see he had pulled his review this morning.

Lesson to self: screen shots, screen shots when chatting with these folk as they contradict, revise, and completely pull comments and reviews.

Here are some highlights:

-His first comment to me was that I was "in desperate need of counseling". This peaked my interest. He's been on various forums using his "Doc" moniker with no reference to what "Doc" meant...a nickname, an MD, a PhD? I've noticed that people with a PhD in Bible Studies will use "Dr." in their therapist roles never clarifying that it does not mean "MD". I certainly never would expect a real therapist to be diagnosing people in passing on the Internet.

-He claims to have an open-mind about factual information. I did get him to take back some of his statements regarding me when I pressed him for evidence. I was hoping to get into the the book, but alas, he disappeared.

-When he left, we were on the verge of discussing the book's supernatural content. I wanted to see how he could rationalize it. He had enough knowledge of the content to indicate he had read the book.

What is interesting here is we are running into folks who perpetuate this myth in various ways: Tylas, Felicity, and now this individual show up with regularity in public forums like the comment section in the WSJ. I find deconstructing their claims on Amazon for future encounters invaluable. Pamela co-authored a book on this subject.

Hmm, is this individual Anton Zorich? What is known? Doc W. also goes by the name of "Doc Wallace" and seemed startled that I knew his "name" despite peppering Internet forums with his moniker and picture. There is a Facebook account with that name and picture as well.

He left after a very civil exchange. Why? Is he Anton or did someone secure a picture of Anton and use it to create an identity? That is an older picture of Anton yet appears to be used exclusively for the "Doc Wallace" identity, mostly in relation to DID discussions.

Why would a math PhD in France who got his PhD in Moscow (his full name appears to be Anton Vladimirovich Zorich http://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=62907) be posting with a Scottish-American surname and commenting on DID forums for what is largely an American diagnosis? Might be worth getting in touch with Anton to see if he can clarify anything for us about this individual. I think I'll do that. If he is Anton, that is interesting. If he is using Anton's photo in an effort to boost his cred in forums, that would be interesting as well. Holding people accountable (including myself) from forum to forum for their inconsistencies and weak evidence for the DID narrative is invaluable. This meme has survived far too long without the support of any science. It's ruined lives. It must end. In the age of the Internet, were people can be held accountable, it just might.
 
Last edited:
Altus said:
Why would a math PhD in France who got his PhD in Moscow (his full name appears to be Anton Vladimirovich Zorich http://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=62907) be posting with a Scottish-American surname and commenting on DID forums for what is largely an American diagnosis?
Click to expand...

Agreed. "Doc Wallace's" "you are in desperate need of counseling" comment is that much more suspect knowing that Anton Zorich is actually a mathematician. It makes as much sense as Judy Byington allegedly getting a book endorsement from Robert Kroon during a time when Kroon was in Switzerland and on his death bed.

Altus, if you do get in touch with him, please let us know if you hear back from him. If it really was him on Amazon, maybe he can persuaded to join here and discuss the subject further? It's encouraging that you were having a productive discussion before he pulled his review and disappeared.
 
Dismember said:
Agreed. "Doc Wallace's" "you are in desperate need of counseling" comment is that much more suspect knowing that Anton Zorich is actually a mathematician. It makes as much sense as Judy Byington allegedly getting a book endorsement from Robert Kroon during a time when Kroon was in Switzerland and on his death bed.

Altus, if you do get in touch with him, please let us know if you hear back from him. If it really was him on Amazon, maybe he can persuaded to join here and discuss the subject further? It's encouraging that you were having a productive discussion before he pulled his review and disappeared.
Click to expand...

I've emailed him. European academic institutions may be on holiday right now, so I don't expect to hear back too quickly. Interesting note...his listed email address is incorrect. I appear to have found the correct one, though.

Well, the adherents of the repeated meme are at it again, voting down comments they don't like en masse. Must have touched a nerve with my Pamela Perskin Noblitt comment. Voted down by 12 of Cassandra's, I mean Felicity's, friends. Silly girl. Those are the first comments I look at on reviews.
http://tinyurl.com/ctzvfpy

Not sure who Charles Gaston is, but his posts are good ones.
 
Judy Byington has a habit of editing her Amazon comments weeks after posting them, and I just ran across this revision. It's pretty much her standard smear tactics, and I saved a copy of it with MAFF (Mozilla Archive Format) in case she edits it again, but do any of you know if the bolded statements could get her into legal trouble? Intentionally spreading computer viruses is a criminal offense, and in some states it's punishable by imprisonment. And of course she's also claiming that her critics "support perpetrators," and she always goes out of her way to mention Doug by his full name. I'd love it if Doug could sue her for every penny she's worth.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1X7RY...ead=Tx4IKS1QLVECLM&store=books#wasThisHelpful

--------------------------
Posted Nov 3, 2012 10:01:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Nov 28, 2012 11:28:09 AM PST


Judy Byington said:
There are obviously those who don't want the truth exposed. Using various alieses, they come from Satans Free Radio and Atheist-leaning websites and blogs to repeat the same falsehoods stated in the one and two star ratings of this website, plus their various other blogs and websites. I am wary of any websites they point to since they have been found to contain viruses.

. . . . . . . . (snipped)

You might get the impression from comments and reviews of Douglas Misicko alias Doug Mesner, alias Crit Think, alias ac2012, alias Karmakazi, alias, alias, alias and his minions that they own this site and thus feel free to denegrate anyone who disagrees with them.

Though, I am mystified as to why since it is so obvious to most where they are coming from. They don't appear to support survivors who were abused as children, but outright claim at times to support perpetrators. The reason? The answer is obvious. Who has so much to lose if ritual abuse is exposed?
----------------------

PS - Altus, "Doc W" has now removed the photo of Anton Zorich from his Amazon profile. Coincidence, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom