People often discount the experiences of OEA survivors as “unbelievable” or “delusional” because they are unable to sit with their own discomfort. They find it impossible to imagine a world where such horrible things could happen to people without anyone knowing, so they immediately dismiss survivors’ stories as fiction. Perpetrators often exploit this cognitive bias by taking measures to make OEA even harder for non-survivors to conceptualize, such as wearing strange costumes while abusing victims.
It’s important for non-survivors to put aside their biases and do their own empirical research on OEA. There are hundreds of officially documented OEA cases, and there are even professional guides to help clinicians distinguish between patients experiencing schizophrenia and OEA survivors (Lacter & Lehman 2008). Clinicians have also found that the most effective treatment for OEA survivors is not antipsychotics, but rather trauma therapy (Miller 2012). Thus, treating survivors as though they are experiencing psychosis does not actually help them heal.
People often argue that OEA survivors had their memories implanted by therapists, creating “false memories” of abuse. The false memory argument is one that has been discredited repeatedly over the years, and it has caused enormous amounts of damage to survivors and clinicians alike (Salter & Blizard 2022; Cheit 2014). Recent research has shown that people are not as susceptible to false memories as previously thought; in one study, 85% of people were able to identify when an implanted “memory” wasn’t theirs (Brewin & Andrews 2017).
This argument also fails to consider OEA survivors who identified their abuse outside of therapy, such as those who cannot afford psychiatric treatment (Bottoms et al. 1996).
Unfortunately, this myth has some truth to it. A lot of popular OEA sources actually contain enormous amounts of unreliable information. Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler–two older, popular authors whose works are featured heavily on the dubious Deprogramwiki–both spread antisemitic, conspiratorial views in their works. Svali and Unwelcome Ozian, both survivors with a long-standing presence in OEA spaces, are also known for spreading antisemitism and misinformation to other survivors.
In an attempt to create better resources, younger OEA survivors have begun posting stories of their own experiences on social media. While lived experience narratives are important in trauma spaces, these materials often retraumatize both creators and viewers. Non-inquisitive viewers regard survivor anecdotes uncritically, not accounting for a creator’s unique perspectives or biases, and they generalize aspects of one creator's experience to all survivors of OEA. As a result, misinformation spreads rampantly within OEA communities.
Still, it is not impossible to avoid misinformation. You have the power to think critically and view resources impartially. You can decide to not accept anecdotes as evidence and request that people sharing information about OEA cite credible references. You can send peer-reviewed articles and academic books to people spreading misinformation and give them the opportunity to educate themselves.
The Satanic Panic is often used to discredit RA survivors. However, this argument overlooks the fact that many false accusations of RA in the 1980s stemmed from the immense pressure on social workers— who are not trained in forensic investigations—to interrogate children and gather evidence (Katchen 2008). In the socio-cultural climate of the 80s, many were attributing the new, individualistic behaviors of young people to Satanism. Untrained social workers let their biases cloud their questioning methods; once guidelines were established that counselors were not legally obligated to act in the capacity of police investigators, there was a sharp decline in falsified reports.
True cases of RA, with data collected and verified by trained historians and criminal invesitgators, have been reported throughout history in many different cultures (Birkhoff et al. 2013; Madu 2001; Bottoms et al. 1996). A number of these cases were reported before the 1980s, and even now, over 40 years later, credible cases of RA are still being reported (End Ritual Abuse; Traumadissociation). The Satanic Panic was an issue of clashing values and unclear clinical guidelines, not survivors fabricating stories. In fact, now that psychologists have better guidelines on how to treat patients who report RA, the research into RA has become increasingly more empirical since the 1980s.
While it’s true that certain evangelical groups have weaponized RA to discredit other religions, RA believers often have their own religious and spiritual beliefs. In fact, one study found that religious and spiritual beliefs had no relation to whether clinicians believed their clients' accounts of RA (Schmuttermaier & Veno 1999).
The term “mind control” has been popularized and misrepresented by fictional media. “Mind control” is something far different in pop culture than in academic OEA spaces. As such, many have begun to move away from using “mind control” to describe experiences of indoctrination and manipulation through torture, choosing instead to label it "programming" (Salter 2019). So what you might understand to be “mind control” from movies isn’t real, but extreme mental conditioning and programming have been studied clinically for decades.
HC-DID, or highly complex Dissociative Identity Disorder, is not a diagnostic label that can be assigned to other people. This term was made by MayMay, another antisemitic and unreliable source in the OEA community. Used by survivors with DID, the term "HC-DID" implies that OEA survivors are further along the dissociative continuum than others with DID or C-DID. This can create a quasi-competitive attitude in dissociative communities, which many survivors are uncomfortable with. While OEA survivors can choose to label their experiences as they please, it's important to remember that HC-DID is not a legitimate diagnosis.
It’s also important to note that not all programmed OEA survivors will develop DID. There are multiple dissociative disorders that can result from programming and OEA, such as OSDD, UDD, DP/DR, and more (Nobakht & Dale 2017). Survivors can even develop C-PTSD or personality disorders, which often list dissociative symptoms in their diagnostic criteria. The belief that all programming results in DID is misguided, especially considering the fact that the only disorder that specifically mentions dissociation due to indoctrination in its diagnostic criteria is OSDD (American Psychiatric Association 2022).
Some people see the term “programming” and assume that MC programs are like computer programs: rigid and unchanging. But the mind is designed to adapt and learn new information every day. Due to this neuroplasticity, programs are not permanent and can be unlearned through therapy (Miller 2012).
While trafficking and gang-perpetrated OA have received the most media attention, there are many different types of OA, all of which have been researched and verified by clinicians. This includes institutional OA (Gallagher 2000), technology-facilitated OA (Salter & Sokolov 2024), familial network OA (Raphael 2020), and more. To learn more about the different types of OA, Dr. Michael Salter has created a website where he discusses them in detail: organisedabuse.com
In the past, multiple government officials have admitted to perpetrating OA on citizens. Consider the US’s MKUltra (Noblitt & Noblitt 2014), the UK’s sex trafficking scandals (McCabe & Manian 2010), Sierra Leone's training and deployment of child soldiers (Schwartz 2021), and more. While it is important to acknowledge that certain conspiracy groups are making unsubstantiated claims about government-sanctioned OA (Jensen & Kane 2021), that conversation does not need to happen every time an OA survivor tries to speak up about their experiences.