Talk:Valerie Sinason

widely accepted

As there was no citation to support the "wide acceptance" of the idea that the developmentally disabled are typically the product of sexual abuse, I changed the line to merely note that this is a position posited by Sinason. Also, I included what Sianson is most well-known for: her support of a debunked position regarding recovered memories of satanic ritual abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akuma khan (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a medical professional, I would disagree with the statement that there is wide acceptance of the idea that these people have been sexually abused. There is not. And the statement has no citation in the article. Whether the abuse exists I do not know, but widely accepted it is not. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a highly biased article. There is no mention that Sinason is a qualified psychoanalyst, a qualified attachment-based psychoanalytic psychotherapist, a PhD, a published poet, and a widely published clinician. She is one of the leading clinicians of her generation. Her work with mental disability is not cited in which she has followed in her father's footsteps in working with people who have been cast off by society. As for the history of sexual abuse in mental handicap, it should be obvious by not that the most vulnerable people in our society consigned to institutions designed originally to protect them are in fact places where staffs have been given a licence to abuse their charges. One can include priests in the Catholic church in this category as well as the nuns. The newspapers routinely report these cases. As for satanic ritual abuse the Guardian 9 March 2011 re[ported the conviction of a ritual abuse cult leader with the headline "Paedophile cult leader convicted for 'satanic' rape campaign" and with a lead sentence: "A man has been found guilty of leading a "satanic" sex cult from his home in a small Welsh town." What is not widely recognised is that satanic ritual abuse is simply a form of torture designed to frighten children who have fallen victims to a certain kind of paedophile cult. There is no mention of the fact that there has been widespread denial of the fact of child abuse per se under the cover of attacks on so-called recovered memory. Similarly, the attacks on the reality of satanic ritual abuse serve as a cover for the reality that children are being tortured by organised rings in this particular way. See the report of a recent London conference of clinicians and survivors for an alternative view to the one expressed above and in the article about Sinason herself where there are many uncited claims such as "debunked position regarding recovered memories of satanic ritual abuse" which is simply false, it's not debunked, as in the above mentioned legal conviction or in the article itself with the unsupported claim that "satanic ritual abuse is now considered a moral panic" without stating that this is an argument not a proven fact. Epstein, O., Schwartz, J. & Wingfield, R. eds.(2011), Rituall Abuse and Mind Control:The Manipulation of Attachment Needs. London: Karnac. Dirac137 (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Few people would argue that child abuse is a serious problem. And there's no doubt that Sinason has made a worthy contribution in certain areas. However she has repeatedly, and quite publicly, made a fool of herself by making ludicrous and baseless claims. MatthewTStone (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One can't simply assert that Sinason's work on satanic abuse is ludicrous and baseless. It has to be argued with the usual respect for evidence and argument. For example the existence of satanic ritual abuse (torture of children) has been ridiculed in Private Eye being akin to claiming the existence of alien abduction. But what are we being asked to believe? In the case of alien abduction we are asked to believe that space ships land on earth ab duct innocent citizens, take them away and then bring them back. In the case of satanic ritual abuse we are asked to believe that pathological individuals can form rings groups for the purpose of torturing children using satanic ceremonial costumes and rituals. Is it so hard to believe that paedophilia can take this form? And what about the recent conviction in Wales cited above?(Guardian, March9) And what about the effort to discredit survivors' reports of child abuse by claiming it is false memory syndrome? this is the very same attack used to discredit the reports from survivors of ritual abuse torturers? This is not a time for superficial denial of this massive crime. If one does not believe it is occurring then evidence and argument mucs be offered. The abusive use of ridicule is not responsible enough. Epstein, O., Schwartz, J. & Wingfield, R. eds.(2011), Rituall Abuse and Mind Control:The Manipulation of Attachment Needs. London: Karnac.Dirac137 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the Guardian[1], the Kidwelly case certainly appears to be a serious one. But it seems to be a sex and prostitution-motivated cult with some 'pseudo-satanic' elements overlaid...more details than the Guardian is supplying would be useful. Regarding Sinason, some examples of how she has made a fool of herself would be specifically: by presenting the results of her own application of regression hypnotherapy on her clients as 'clinical evidence' of the widespread practice of SRA in the UK; by convincing the Health Editor of the Independent that she had evidence from the internet of a man eating a baby, when it turned out to be a performance artist who had created a 'baby' by putting a plastic doll's head onto the carcass of a roast duck, see Snopes[2], and the Independent having to publish a retraction; and by continuing to represent her report as funded by the DOH, when in reality it was a non peer-reviewed pilot study that the DOH in the end never saw fit to publish [3]. Part of what makes Sinason notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry is her approach of making wild claims in a very public way. She is a contributor to the Karnac-published book, and it will be fascinating to see what she is claiming. To quote from some extracts published at 'Dramatis Personae' [4]: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, almost everyone we saw said he or she was a survivor of Satanist abuse. Satanism, like Pagan and other belief systems, is totally legal now, and we have the first serving Satanist naval officers as well as Pagan police officers. Only a small number of members of any particular religion actively abuse. However, later referrals included Luciferians, those from Paganism, Wicca, Voodoo, Black Witchcraft, Black Dianetics, Gnostic Luciferianism, Illuminati, Military Mind Control, MKUltra, and Bluebird. Gradually, too, we saw victims of abuse within mainstream religions; abuse by mullahs, priests, vicars, and rabbis. It took me a year to talk about ritual abuse, and when I handed the manuscript of Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse to Edwina Welham at Routledge, I slept properly and no longer feared being killed, as I had done. I also felt enormous gratitude to my agent, Sara Menguc, for being willing to handle such topic when she had hoped for me to write a book on family problems that affected everyone, based on my Guardian column!" MatthewTStone (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it is clear that this exchange could degenerate into who is going to have the last word.

I will reiterate my main point. There is an aggressive, indeed hysterical denial, of the existence of satanic ritual abuse.This denial parallels in many details the denial of the existence of child abuse full stop as in the the false memory argument of recent years, or indeed Freud's argument that that the sexual abuse he heard about from his women clients was a fantasy. One of the forms that the denial of abuse takes is to kill the messenger. If Valerie Sinason can be discredited than of course everything she says is discredited including her pioneering treatment of the mentally handicapped and other survivors of abuse. Sinason was fooled in the performance artists incident. Politically of course this mistake has hurt and has been exploited by the deniers. But Sinason has never practiced hypnotherapy. She is trained as a psychoanalyst and as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and has always practiced as such through a long career. As for the killing or eating of babies, Sinason has acknowledged that that these acts reported by clients could have been staged performances for the express purpose of terrorising children and to insure their silence. If a child believes that they have killed another child they can easily be silenced from reporting the crime being committed against them. Sinason is not the only clinician working with survivors. The report of the conference published by Karnacs cited above can let readers decide for themselves whether or not they believe that satanic ritual child abuse, the torture of children for the purposes of sexual exploitation or just sheer criminality, is occurring or not. Finally to claim or suggest that Kidwelly case in Wales may not be satanic ritual abuse because it was "mainly" for the purpose of sexual abuse misses the main point. The use of satanic rituals is one way to torture children into submission. Ellen Lacter's in the Karnac book gives the history of torture based mind control beginning with the the MK Ultra experiments carried out in the US in the 1950s (easily accessed on the internet). And rather than rewriting the Wiki entry on Sinason it would be probably best simply to delete it and let this argument be fought out in public. Joseph Schwartz Dirac137 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguing the pros and cons of SRA would probably be more appropriate at the Satanic Ritual Abuse talk page. MatthewTStone (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

yes. I think the satanic ritual abuse section should be deleted from Sinason's bio.Dirac137 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Without her influence on UK society through her relentless promotion of Satanic Abuse mythology, it is debatable whether Sinason would qualify as being notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Sinason herself appears to attempting to use Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle, and even has a web page devoted to linking back to Wikipedia. Furthermore, any colleague of Sinason has a severe conflict of interest in editing this page – and Sinason even openly admits this is taking place. To quote from her website http://valeriesinason.co.uk/wikipedia.html "Please ignore the Wikipedia entry under my name for the time being. I find it extremely useful for many subjects but for some, especially contentious areas that involve forensic issues, as fast as colleagues try to correct and add material it is damaged by other editors who are not following Wikipedia guidelines, e.g. they rely on unchecked newspaper articles and unvalidated or old and biased quotes. It is therefore of interest that whilst my disability work gets a small mention, most space is given to sceptical or downright attacks on the existence of ritual abuse and especially abuse by Satanist pedophiles. The work of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies is obviously missed as that involves academic books and forensic psychotherapy. Forensic psychotherapy covers a wide range of crimes; a single instances of rape which has caused PTSD, all forms of paedophilia, particulary sadistic behaviour by abusers who were victims of abuse in their own childhoods, and forms of organised abuse." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTStone (talk • contribs) 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You've made up your mind. "...relentless promotion of ritual abuse mythology..."??? No evidence will make you even entertain the possibility that paedophile rings could use satanic rituals to terrorise and torture children, especially not believed is the testimony of survivors. In this you follow the ancient practice of attacking psychoanalysis full stop as being mere suggestion. The testimony of colleagues who are treating survivors is dismissed as well. So it's a closed system - no evidence can get in. Like the Jesuit skeptics who refused to look through Galileo's telescope (J. Schwartz, The Creative Moment. HarperCollins, 1992). Your opposition to Sinason so aggressive. I don't think it's fair to put it this kind a aggressive attack in a Wiki article.

 I should think that you're right. The Sinason entry in Wiki should be deleted and debate about satanic ritual abuse, such as it is, carried out in a satanic ritual abuse article. As I keep trying to argue: attacking and vilifying Sinason will not make satanic ritual abuse go away. So let's delete the article on Sinason yes? Do you agree? Dirac137 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Some relevant passages from the retraction by Jeremy Laurance, the Health Editor of The Independent: ...A year ago, Valerie Sinason appeared on Radio 4's Today programme claiming she had "clinical evidence" of babies who had not been registered at birth being involved in ritual abuse. The implication was that the babies had been conceived and raised secretly for use in rituals that sometimes ended in their sacrifice. Most experts poured scorn on these claims and pointed out they could do serious harm by their very outlandishness - by making the whole of child abuse seem less likely and easier to dismiss. But they gained a measure of credence because Ms Sinason had been commissioned by the Department of Health, together with a colleague Dr Robert Hale, to write a report detailing her findings, which was submitted to the department last July. I contacted the health department to ask what had happened to Ms Sinason's report and ask for a comment. What I received, by e-mail, was one of the longest and most carefully worded statements I can remember receiving. The health department said, in summary, that they had received the report by Dr Hale and Ms Sinason, submitted it to peer review and returned it to the authors with reviewers' comments. They had no plans to publish it. They also cited separate research that they had commissioned from Professor Joan La Fontaine of the London School of Economics, who found "no independent material evidence" to support allegations of "Satanic child abuse and devil worship". The coup de grace came in the final paragraph: "In the Government's view, the conclusion of the study they commissioned by Professor La Fontaine ... has not been rendered invalid by Dr Hale and Valerie Sinason's study." In other words, the claims about Satanic abuse are a load of tosh. To my knowledge, this is the first official declaration by a government department to this effect. Professor La Fontaine said: "It is not surprising to me that patients who are having treatment by Valerie Sinason would produce stories that echo such topical issues as the recent trial for receiving internet pornography and the publicity for the film Hannibal. There is good research that shows the "memories" of abuse are produced in and by the therapy." It would be helpful now to everyone, especially those charged with the protection of children, if the debate about whether or not ritual abuse exists were drawn to a close. Allegations of Satanism should be directed where they belong - at the horror films and videos that almost certainly triggered the scare a decade ago, and have fostered it ever since....MatthewTStone (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So that's it then? The same citations over and over again. DHS and La Fontaine? No other evidence can get in? Variations in the the way ritual abuse can be used to terrorise children? The evidence from survivors? The evidence from clinicians who have treated survivors? The book just published by Karnacs of the conference of clinicians and survivors? The conviction of satanic abuse in the KIdwelly case? Just the babies, the babies, the babies. Okay. But this belongs in a debate on SRA. Why does Sinason have to be vilified? And the load of tosh quote is from you. It's your conclusion about the whole of SRA as it has been differently practiced by many paedophile rings. The La Fontaine claim of memories being being produced by therapy is just that old saw of suggestion going back to Freud himself. La Fontaine has no evidence for false memory. There is no evidence for it. Yet you quote her as if it's the gospel truth. False memory produced by suggestion in therapy is a hypothesis put forward by people who find the sexual and physical abuse of children either difficult to accept or because frequently enough they themselves are either perpetrators or victims. Why indeed are you quoting it as God's truth? The reason is that this is closed system. No evidence goes in or out. "SRA is a load of tosh" full stop. Well what about the conviction in Kidwelly, for example. Just explain it away as not "really" being SRA? You can have the last word. I'm out of here. It is fruitless to argue with a fixed belief system. But the entry on SInason should be deleted. It is simple vilification no more no less. Way outside Wiki guidelines. Dirac137 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Before making long comments about things you think violate Wikipedia guidelines you should probably familiarize yourself with what they actually say. It's clear from your comments above that you have a very specific opinion about SRA, which is fine for you personally, but you cannot edit Wikipedia with the purpose of advocating that view. Please see WP:NPOV. Furthermore, we have very specific rules when it comes to fringe beliefs (those outside accepted mainstream scholarship/those at variance with demonstrated facts as cited by multiple reliable sources/etc.). Please see WP:FRINGE. What you are advocating here is either censoring the mainstream view to present only the fringe view (SRA as real) or, failing that, giving both sides equal validity. Neither one is how things work here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reason for Sinason's notability

The SRA debate really does belong at its own page, Satanic Ritual Abuse. This page is about Valerie Sinason, and it might be worth looking at the reason or reasons for her notability. She is described here as a 'poet, writer, psychotherapist and psychoanalyst'. From the edits being made to this article, it is clear that Sinason and her colleagues consider her work in these areas to be notable. However, many people outside Sinason's sphere of influence would beg to differ. In the UK and elsewhere there are many poets, writers, psychotherapists and psychoanalysts who would not be considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. What makes Sinason almost a household name in the UK is her approach over the years of coming forward claiming to have evidence regarding the widespread practice of SRA. Her evidence has been tested by no less than the Department of Health, working with a leading anthropologist, as well as the British police force. Her own report, the Sinason-Hale report was peer-reviewed, and sent back to the authors with comments. Presumably it was expected that Sinason and Hale would make some revisions or address the issues raised in the peer review process, and then re-submit the report. So the question is – did this happen, and if not why not? After all these years, what is the status of the Sinason-Hale report? This was Sinason's big opportunity to make a case. Could it be that her methodology was open to question, or indeed seriously flawed? There may be a clue in this quote from Sinason's submission to the 48th Session of the Commission of The Status of Women at the UN headquarters: "……From 14 years of experience which began in 1990, with the supervision of the treatment of a learning disabled woman in Sweden who turned out to be a survivor of “ritual abuse”, Valeria shares incidence figures. She mentions that insights into ritual abuse come from her various work experiences and is primarily taken from survivors in therapy or from therapeutic telephone calls, or from emails who talk about the offences that have been committed upon them or which they were forced to commit. Of over a sample of 200 persons it was found that “… survivors were tortured throughout childhood and adolescence and many continue to be tortured in adulthood.” Extensive clinical work from various groups also informs that the majority of survivors encountered are from multi-generational abusing families, are multi-cultural and diverse coming from “Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, and Satanist families and communities”. Overall, Valerie states she has had connection with around 250 women, 12 men, and 26 children who have alleged surviving ritual abuse and torture. From the numbers of people the victimized persons mention as taking part in such activities Valerie estimates the figure to be 4000…" Based on this claim, Sinason should have enough hard data in her possession to convince both the UK Police and the Department of Health to launch full scale investigations. She claims to have connection with 250 people, resulting in an extrapolated figure of 4000 people. But she says in this UN quote that some of the evidence comes from 'therapeutic phone calls' and 'emails'. If that's what she considers an acceptable standard of evidence, it is not surprising that crucial organisations and institutions and the UK media have ceased to take her seriously, and she has appeared on the radar of a satirical publication like Private Eye. As Brandon (Brandon et al., 1997) and others have suggested, the beliefs of a therapist can have a significant influence on the beliefs of his or her clients. Valerie Sinason appears to do her work within a kind of bubble of delusion which surrounds her and her 'Clinic for Dissociative Studies'. She has cried wolf just a few times too many, and is notable enough for a Wikipedia article on that basis alone. MatthewTStone (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible source

Ms. Sinason is briefly interviewed in an article in today's Observer, in which she calls herself an 'analytic therapist' and describes some of the alleged details of 'Satanic ritual abuse': [5] This could be used as a source for this article. Robofish (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose changing Sinason's introduction to "Valerie Sinason is a British poet, writer, and discredited psychoanalyst and psychotherapist..." Even on the basis of La Fontaine's report her she can be described as discredited. What about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.102.174 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Dr Sinason's father, Professor Stanley Segal was quite distinguished in his field: perhaps this should be mentioned.

Interview

• [6]
• [7]

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)