Debbie Nathan Sybil Exposed - Video - open for comments here.

This video was presented at the Spring 2012 series, Miscarriages of Justice and Wrongful Convictions on April 3



Please feel free to comment for the open public here - the comments section at youtube has been disabled and all comments removed - so go ahead and comment here.

Debbie Nathan does not make common sense and does not know what she is talking about. It was difficult to listen to her for almost an hour but watching the assistant was hilarious!

She makes generalizations about Sybil from conjecture. She makes assumptions to fit her own needs. (She says "so she probably" Shirley feels") I find it extremely annoying that she pushes Emily around to just push the ENTER button when any normal person could do on their own. She is obviously on a power trip. She has definitely got an agenda.

Someone stated that when the book and movie came out back in the 70's Debbie thought she was MPD. Then, she denied it and now is on a mission to make it completely disappear. Then, someone else said that maybe Debbie does have DID and was programmed/trained to become a journalist so she could do what she is doing now. We all know that FMS top people are abusers and are on a mission to hide SRA and other intense types of abuse.

Kay

The woman is off her rocker. SRA is very real, whether it occurred pre-70's, 70's, 80's, 90's or today...... We know because it happened to us.
no amount of her ignorance is going to change what happened to us, or
the fact that we have DID. I (the core) talked with her and she tried
to convince me I was not a multiple..... in our opinion she is one fry
short of a happy meal.

We find it disturbing that so many times she stated her opinion as fact, as she did in her book. In this video she says that Dr. Wilbur signed her name using only a first initial because she wanted people to think she was a male doctor. Oh really? Did Dr. Wilbur tell Ms. Nathan this? No, because they never met. Ms. Nathan goes on to show photographs of Shirley Mason (Sybil) as a child, and photographs of Shirley's mother to somehow convince everyone that Shirley was not an abuse victim. Going as far as to say that Shirley's mother was skinny and a small woman. If 'family pictures' was indicative of what went on when the doors were closed, then most of us would never take them. When she wraps things up (not too soon, I might add) she says that Sybil was used as Shirley's name because they had to hide the fact that her story was not true. WOW. Makes a lot more sense that Shirley would be in hiding, not because they lied, but because they had the courage to expose the truth.

And we lost track of how many 'uhms' Ms. Nathan said. It was distracting. And her poor assistant. We hope she gets paid well to put up with that. That's all we've got to say.

How can you discredit someone around not being without providing credible yourself. All of the counter points made during her seminar can not be proved or disproved.

@Old Soul wrote:How can you discredit someone around not being without providing credible yourself. All of the counter points made during her seminar can not be proved or disproved.

Hi Old Soul. :) I'm a little confused by what you are trying to say. Can you please explain a little more? Are you in agreement with Debbie Nathan? It's okay if you are, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just confused about what you were trying to say. Thanks!

no matter what we no like her , she be just like the women in the groups always saying one thing and doing another.

Debbie Nathan is not credible for many reasons - for one, she uses sources in her book that backs her personal opinions about DID, she leaves out important sources that she should have to back her opinions, etc. etc. Her past books, public appearances, and affiliations have shown that she has one agenda - to disprove DID as a valid diagnosis, protect those accused of child abuse, and discredit anyone who treats or researches DID.

She, herself, has is in no way qualified to speak about anything concerning psychology. She is a journalist and openly admits that she has no education in the area of psychology - or anything but journalism, for that matter.

That said, watching her assistant is so distracting that I didn't hear most of what she had to say -

I kindled her book because of her recent comeback. I read part of the introduction and it was very interesting, but the way she discredits everything and talks down on all three people involved really upset me. Maybe Sybil was not a true story (I don't have an opinion either way) But the people she is talking about sound totally opposite from the counterparts I read in the book. I do not think her book (Debbie's) is exactly factual. I also watched this video and she is so defensive about everything, kind of like she is hiding something. And the assistant, what a goof. lol

Yeah, that assistant was distracting ok. Nathan has so little credibility i'm surprised she was able to get her book published.

If she thinks Sybil made things up she obviously doesn't know what she's talking about. Glad I didn't buy the book and borrowed it from the library.

"I" Ummmmmmmm.....

Pure Story Telling

First, I am furious that an educational environment would invite Nathan to speak about any psychological disorder.

Was there anything true between Nathan's repetition of - I and Ummmmm and the expectation of student Emily to push the return button for her. I had to laugh when Emily whispered to Nathan that all she had to do was push the button. Instead Nathan (until the end) insisted student Emily keep in the frame, so she could do this simple task for Nathan.

As for the content, Nathan treated history as if back then, all the knowledge of today existed and then in turn wanted today's knowledge to retreat back a dark hole.

Bottom line is that Nathan is a journalist rather than a health care professional who is trying to tell experts in trauma research what they should think.

Her explanation of dissociation is not that of pathological dissociation. In a new study (2012), researchers Nijenhuis ER, and van der Hart O. define dissociation: "Dissociation in trauma entails a division of an individual’s personality, that is, of the dynamic, biopsychosocial system as a whole that determines his or her characteristic mental and behavioral actions."

There is simply no comparison between Nathan's journalistic sensationalism and true dissociative identity disorder.

DID will be in the soon to be released DSM5 because there is no doubt in the minds of real researchers that DID is true and valid diagnosis.

One more point - if the story of Sybil was so wrong - why did C. Wilbur get so much so right when compared to what we know about DID today.

Well, that is a great point. She certainly learned a lot about DID from working with Shirley. Things that weren't available through reading back then. And, she used her knowledge to further treatment and research.

I think she is self centered, opinionated and on an ego trip. She also seems to have a problem with us DID people being very intelligent. She states so as if that was ludicrous. She really does not have a clue and is highly insulting to any one who believes differently.