Last week I wrote a story about an eating disorders clinic that is currently in the process of being sued for malpractice. According to the lawsuits some patients, under the influence of psychotropic drugs and during the course of hypnotherapy sessions, were instilled with horrific delusions -- false memories -- of Satanic Ritual Abuse. The facility, Castlewood Treatment Center, denies the allegations, calling them “bizarre”. However, as I pointed out in my piece, bizarre as it may be, there is indeed a subculture within the field of dissociative disorders that believes certain psychiatric symptoms to be indicative of repressed torments that have been wiped from conscious recall by a particularly heinous method of trauma-based mind-control. A major proponent of this conspiracy theory is an organization known as S.M.A.R.T. (Stop Mind-control And Ritual abuse Today).

As I wrote in my piece: “In 2009 I attended a “Ritual Abuse/Mind-Control conference” held annually in Connecticut by an organization known as S.M.A.R.T. (Stop Mind-control And Ritual abuse Today). The conference is organized by a licensed Mental Health professional, Neil Brick, from Massachusetts. 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.” Brick himself claims to have recovered memories that he 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.

The article, posted on Examiner.com, was removed by Examiner editors in response to complaints from the aggrieved Neil Brick. I was asked if I couldn’t take out the paragraph that contained mention of Neil Brick, to which I replied:



I need to know why it can't be published as was. I need to know what makes Neil Brick -- a man who puts himself out to the public as an "expert" -- immune from scrutiny. If Neil Brick is claiming there are any factual errors in the piece, I can provide citation or corroboration. If he is claiming that I have made factual errors, and he is in fact lying, I need to to present this information to my own lawyer to demonstrate how Neil Brick is actively slandering my professional ability and harming my reputation. Can I call the legal department directly? This story is a breaking story and it is time-sensitive. It is utterly indefensible to pull the piece if there is NOT, in fact, any dispute regarding the facts presented in the piece.

It is, to my mind, well in the public interest that Neil Brick’s propositions be put to critical scrutiny. This isn’t some simple personal vendetta, meaningless to all surrounding bystanders. At Brick’s S.M.A.R.T. conference I witnessed an old, morbidly obese woman, who referred to herself as Julaine, sit before the attendees — unable to stand for any extended time — and explain that she had suffered some type of negative diabetic reaction earlier that day, and that her rheumatoid arthritis was causing her no small amount of discomfort. She attributed both of these conditions to a conspiracy of evil. Rheumatoid arthritis and Satanic Ritual Abuse, Julaine posited, are “almost partners”.

Clearly, this woman needed real medical attention. To allow her to delude herself — or worse, actively feed her the delusion — that her ill health is a side-effect, and evidence of, satanic conspiracy was beyond irresponsible. Worse, these delusions had apparently encouraged the aged and infirm Julaine to sever ties with the family members who may have been most willing to help her now. This is a consumer advocate issue. The product is mental health care. There is no good reason to censor any factual review toward that end.

Remarkably, Examiner never questioned what the facts were, nor did anybody express doubts regarding the veracity of my work. They were simply uncomfortable with Neil Brick’s incessant “harassment” (as Examiner themselves characterized it), and they yielded to his complaints.

Refusing to allow Examiner to censor the full paragraph in question, the problem was eventually bumped up to Director of Content, Matt Sandy, who bemoaned the inconvenience of it all, stating, “This is an issue that does not appear to be going away. Mr. Brick continues to contact our legal department and various other departments in a harassing manner,” further stating that, “While we don't agree with Mr. Brick's methods, we can't commit any more resources to dealing with this issue.”

Matt asserted that mention of Neil Brick was, in any case, “superfluous”, and he offered an ultimatum: “I have removed the offending paragraph from your article and ask that you remove your comment that mentions Brick by name. If you will not remove the comment then we will have to unpublish the entire article.” I had already compromised as much as I could allow myself by allowing the name “Neil Brick” to be replaced by “[censored]”, explaining in the comments (interfaced through Facebook), that the censored name, in fact, was Neil Brick.

I replied to Director of Content, Matt Sandy:



If you're asserting that the mention of Neil Brick in the article is inappropriate because it is "superfluous", I would be happy to elaborate in the piece on Neil Brick's involvement with the issue. In fact, Brick was just awarded some type of honors from an organization that [a former member of the Castlewood clinical staff] is a board member of, so the overlap -- already obvious -- is far from "superfluous" any way you look at it. As I've mentioned before, if there is any disputes regarding a claim of fact, let me know. I need to know. If Neil Brick is casting aspersions and is slandering me by saying that I am writing non-factual claims, that is material that is valuable to my lawyer (cc'ed here). But that doesn't seem to be the case. What you seem to be telling me is that the sole issue is that Neil Brick is "harassing" Examiner because, though he forwards himself as an "expert" in "mind-control and ritual abuse" and runs annual conferences on this topic, he places himself above any public critical scrutiny, veracity aside. What I don't understand is why Examiner accepts what you yourself describe as harassment, and even yields to its whims. I have explained that I am working as a media liaison for the Castlewood case. For years I have consulted with people who have been victims of Recovered Memory Therapies, false memories of trauma, or victims of false allegations based on those factors. I do my best to offer consolation, advice, and an outlet for these people, many of whom have had their families, and thus their lives ruined, by the delusional theories that Neil Brick insists he be allowed advertise without criticism. With that in mind, I am not terribly concerned with how uncomfortable you may be finding yourself "forced to deal with the fallout" simply because you lack the temerity to tell Brick himself that you, and Examiner, won't accept his harassment. Instead, you send the opposite message: harassment works, and if you don't like the content, just complain loudly enough, and Examiner will yield. You set a disgusting precedent, and it certainly shouldn't escape Castlewood's, nor the ISSTD's attention that simple antagonism does the job. No good journalism can come of such a policy. Nobody working in journalism should even have to argue this with any editor. I am not going to take down my Facebook comment, and if my paragraph isn't replaced, I'll have to post a comment that explains the missing content in detail. If you remove the article, you will also have to remove me from Examiner entirely to keep it from going live again. Do the right thing, Matt. Brick isn't only ruining somebody's morning by making harassing calls, he's also -- in my opinion -- helping to ruin the lives of vulnerable mental health consumers. There is no excuse for censoring this activity

None of this meant anything to Matt Sandy, who seemed far more concerned that any uncomfortable explorations into the territory of actual journalism might cause him altogether too much work.

Matt Sandy wrote to me:



I'm sorry you feel that way, Douglas. I've made our position clear. We're not going to devote any more resources to dealing with this issue. I've removed the article and suspended your acces to the pub tool. If you can assure me that you will remove the comment and refrain from mentioning Neil Brick in any future posts or comments, we can discuss reinstating your access. Otherwise we'll terminate your account and you will be paid out any earnings due in the next payment cycle. [...]

Actually, you've NOT made your position clear, Matt, and I'm wondering how you derive a coherent position from this at all? I would really appreciate some elaboration. Is your position that Examiner is a journalistic outlet or not? If a writer for Examiner writes a piece that proves uncomfortable to another person -- even a public character -- Examiner will pull the piece at first signs of a complaint, with the time and effort by the writers being simply their loss? Is that your position? Is your position that receiving calls from Neil Brick is depleting vital resources at Examiner? Have you ever mustered up the spine to tell him to quit (as you yourself describe it) harassing you? Is it your position that if Castlewood also becomes offended by my coverage of their malpractice case, you will pull any and all articles I write about them to avoid the displeasure you might feel at having to hear a voice of complaint on the phone? And in all of this, the most disgraceful part is that there was never any question as to whether or not what I had written is factual. That should be the ONLY question, Matt. Is it your position that facts are important in journalism or not? I can assure you that I will continue writing about this entire affair, and you and Examiner are part of that story whether you're aiding in the telling of the story, or you're antagonistic to it. Your behavior, Matt, is the height of unprofessionalism, and it runs contrary to any sensible pretensions of journalism, or basic business, whatsoever. You're compromising your very product because you don't know how to handle being "harassed". If that is truly your position, then it shames my name to have, or have had, any part of your organization at all. Look at this for a moment as an adult (and not a frightened child) and recognize how absurd and unreasonable it is to ask me to stop writing about an issue from a consumer advocate point of view (the product being a brand of mental health care) because the salesmen of a bad product object to being exposed. Your position is that you'd rather go through with a de facto termination of a writer than risk hearing a complaint against factual content? You're comfortable with that position?

I replied:Matt replied by stating, “Doug, I don't doubt your cause is noble. I'm not debating the merits of your article,” and concluded by wishing me luck my “future endeavors”.

“We'll close out your account and you'll be paid out any earnings due in the next payment cycle (on or around July 20).”

And that, it turns out, is that....