Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

If she’s a billionaire, why write a book about it? Deal with it privately.

To help others who have been abused.

Well, in her case that would mean encouraging others to try these drugs that her spouse is invested in, in order to dredge up memories of things that may or may not have happened? That’s not helpful to anyone except the investors.

Anonymous wrote:I read the book and the NYT article. The book was well-written (and the NYT states she had a ghostwriter) but I don't believe that she recovered memories that had been completely buried and were brought up by MDMA use. It is exactly like recovered memory through hypnosis thst happened in the 1980s: something completely forgotten with no corroboration from others brought back to full awareness of it. I think it is the same old story in new packaging.

The book downplayed how rich and connected she is. I had not heard of her or her husband but she's friends with Goop and that level of influence/wealth. Easier to get book deals and interviews (and hire ghostwriters) in that world. But also she and her husband are investing in microdosing and want to profit from it. I think she and he (he used it before her) think it's a valuable tool. Do others? It's trendy right now.

I haven't read the book but this whole thing is making me less interested in macrodosing psychedelics for therapeutic purposes. I have battled depression and anxiety for decades. I have childhood trauma but I know some of my memories are suppressed (not totally hidden, just fuzzy and it can be hard for me to remember details especially of traumatic incidents). My family is aware of the trauma but worked hard to cover it up and pretend it was normal. My siblings and I have all dealt with this in different ways, with one sibling deciding none of it was a big deal at all, one deciding to cut our parents off completely and views it as unforgivable abuse. I've considered using MDMA to try and make sense of it all.

But this story doesn't make it sound like a useful solution. It seems like microdosing could make it worse by confusing me further, potentially making me think I'd recovered a memory that was invented or borrowed, and just generally cause even more conflict in my family than already exists. I'm going to stick with traditional therapy, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

You are using normal people logic and not billionaire logic.

These people are endless voids of avarice and entitlement. Of course she believes that her “experience” was so profound and important that she should write a book about it.

True

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

If she’s a billionaire, why write a book about it? Deal with it privately.

To help others who have been abused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

You are using normal people logic and not billionaire logic.

These people are endless voids of avarice and entitlement. Of course she believes that her “experience” was so profound and important that she should write a book about it.

You mean pay someone else to write a book about it

Anonymous wrote:I had assumed that by now Oprah would have been better about sniffing out a fake story.

Oprah's whole career is based on fraud

I read the book and the NYT article. The book was well-written (and the NYT states she had a ghostwriter) but I don't believe that she recovered memories that had been completely buried and were brought up by MDMA use. It is exactly like recovered memory through hypnosis thst happened in the 1980s: something completely forgotten with no corroboration from others brought back to full awareness of it. I think it is the same old story in new packaging.

The book downplayed how rich and connected she is. I had not heard of her or her husband but she's friends with Goop and that level of influence/wealth. Easier to get book deals and interviews (and hire ghostwriters) in that world. But also she and her husband are investing in microdosing and want to profit from it. I think she and he (he used it before her) think it's a valuable tool. Do others? It's trendy right now.

This entire situation is astounding to me. I am from Texas and knew Amy from when I was younger. She and her family are in my Texas circles in various ways. Since this book came out it has been a huge subject of conversation. She has always been very nice. Everyone likes her. But something never sat right about the story for many I know who have read it. I never read it because it felt weird and TMI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

You are using normal people logic and not billionaire logic.

These people are endless voids of avarice and entitlement. Of course she believes that her “experience” was so profound and important that she should write a book about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

I haven't read the book, but I did read the NY Times article. My guess is that she really believes she was assaulted.

Yeah I think grift is the wrong lens to see this through. She believes she was assaulted. Her foundation for that belief is nonsense, recovered memories from using drugs isn't real, but I doubt she's consciously lying.

DP. There’s a huge leap between believing something happened to writing and publicizing a book about it. She didn’t need to do that.

Of course. I'm not defending writing this book. I don't think I would have made that choice, even if I believed as she believes. I was just offering an opinion on what it seems to me that she thinks is going on.

She went to the police with her accusations and did not disclose to the detective that she had no conscious memories of these incidents until she used a psychedelic drug in therapy more than 3 decades later. Allegedly, this is what her attorney advised her to do. The detective had no reason to doubt her, but terminated the investigation because the statute of limitations had run out. When her book came out, the detective assumed other victims would come forward and he’d have another chance to investigate, but no one else has come forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

I haven't read the book, but I did read the NY Times article. My guess is that she really believes she was assaulted.

Yeah I think grift is the wrong lens to see this through. She believes she was assaulted. Her foundation for that belief is nonsense, recovered memories from using drugs isn't real, but I doubt she's consciously lying.

DP. There’s a huge leap between believing something happened to writing and publicizing a book about it. She didn’t need to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she name the teacher in the book?

No, but she named him in the book proposal. The NY Times did not name him.

She described him enough (including a personal tragedy of his) in the book that people in his community knew who she was talking about and now they no longer see him around town.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

I haven't read the book, but I did read the NY Times article. My guess is that she really believes she was assaulted.

Yeah I think grift is the wrong lens to see this through. She believes she was assaulted. Her foundation for that belief is nonsense, recovered memories from using drugs isn't real, but I doubt she's consciously lying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nutshell, can you describe the book and why it’s controversial? Your subject title intrigued me.

I'm not OP but I did read the book. In a nutshull, the author took psychadelics in therapy and through that experience claims to have uncovered long-repressed memories of her being SAed when she was in high school.

I think it was middle school, but was it true. That's what I don't get.

And she's a billionaire why make it up.

I guess I'm confused is it a grift or what is the expose about.

I haven't read the book, but I did read the NY Times article. My guess is that she really believes she was assaulted.