Dr. Marlene Winell

[blackpudd1n]

I have some concerns regarding Dr. Winell, and have decided to finally air them.

 

I understand that what I am writing will quite likely be contentious, so I encourage all of you who are able to to do your own research.

 

Dr. Winell coined the term "Religious Trauma Syndrome", or RTS. She claims that most therapists have not heard of RTS, don't know how to treat it effectively, and that she is trying to raise awareness of RTS.

 

On the surface, there may not be a problem with any of that. Except that I have been researching Dr. Winell using the databases available to me, as I am now enrolled at a research university, and thus far all I have managed to turn up is a comparative book review on two books by the same name, Leaving the Fold, one of which was written by Dr. Winell, as most of you are aware, and an old newspaper article giving a poor review of an art exhibition she ran.

 

This is highly unusual for someone who claims to be trying to raise awareness of a new syndrome. Where are her publications for peer review? Clearly many therapists cannot treat "RTS" simply because they have never heard of it, due to the lack of publication by Dr. Winell. it is doubly unusual, considering that Dr. Winell is a scholar.

 

Another thing I have been trying to establish is what exactly she was doing at the University of Queensland. As another research university in Australia, I should be able to access any publication arising from her time there easily. But, again, I am turning up... nothing. Even though she claims to have done research at UOQ. I am still trying to track down whether or not she was actually lecturing at UOQ (I may just end up ringing the university to get some answers on this front), though I have discovered that she was directing a play while out here.

 

So the question in my mind is whether Dr. Winell has discovered a nice niche market for herself amongst us ex-christians, and is keeping that little niche market by misleading us regarding her efforts to raise awareness of "RTS".

 

I don't dispute that religion can be traumatic in the slightest; but I do not see the necessity of another label, particularly when religious trauma easily falls under the heading of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and can be effectively dealt with by a secular therapist, as I am testament to.

 

If Dr. Winell is so committed to helping us all, then where are her academic publications to convince her peers of "RTS", so that we may be able to access help from more therapists for this condition?

 

Please, those of you who can conduct your own research, please do. Another forum member has already done so, and also came up with... Nothing.

[Positivist]

Hmmmmm. Astute observation, Pudd. A lack of publications is suspicious if she really is trying to raise awareness about RTS. I presume she is making conference appearances, but I do not know about those either (types of conferences, etc.). I have no idea what's up with the lack of publications. I too have hit the databases and come up with nothing. My only thought is that she is no longer connected to a university (which begs the question 'why?') so perhaps she lacks access to journals and publication, since she is strictly a clinician. Still, I believe clinicians can publish in some journals. But it appears she hasn't.

 

Clinicians like Dr. Winell often end up in academia, or straddling both practice and research, so that their ideas get taken seriously among peers and are disseminated widely (not to mention the immense research and grant opportunities at a research institution). One has to wonder: why she hasn't been affiliated with a university for a while; whether her doctoral degree prepared her for a research (versus a clinical) career; and, why she is not actively conducting (and publishing, and teaching) research in her field.

 

Anyone else have any ideas????

[Deva]

I may sound stupid, but I don't care too much about "academic publications" if she has written works that help people recover from toxic Christianity. I haven't read too much other than her website and possibly her book about "Leaving the Fold" but she seems to understand where we come from, and she's published. That's a plus in her column in my book.

[blackpudd1n]

I may sound stupid, but I don't care too much about "academic publications" if she has written works that help people recover from toxic Christianity. I haven't read too much other than her website and possibly her book about "Leaving the Fold" but she seems to understand where we come from, and she's published. That's a plus in her column in my book.

 

Well, the problem is this: without those academic publications, "RTS" will never be officially recognised. And if it is not officially recognised, then a lot of people are apparently going to go without help, because Winell cannot treat everyone, now can she?

 

She's published only one book though, in mainstream press, 15 years ago. That in and of itself is unusual.

 

And Positivist herself raised another good question: why is she no-longer connected to the university? Is it at all possible that she has no publications because this is just something that she knows herself isn't an actual diagnosis, and she is merely exploiting us as ex-c's, and our desire to trust one of our own?

[blackpudd1n]

I just got off the phone from the University of Queensland. So far, no-one's heard of Winell. I have been given the email of the librarian at UofQ to ask to do a more intensive search of UofQ records. She is away this week (it's Friday now), but will be back next week. All the people I spoke to, though, agreed that it doesn't sound good that she was apparently at UofQ but didn't publish any papers. They are a research university. It's what they do.

 

So the questions, for me at least, persist.

[Galien]

I may sound stupid, but I don't care too much about "academic publications" if she has written works that help people recover from toxic Christianity. I haven't read too much other than her website and possibly her book about "Leaving the Fold" but she seems to understand where we come from, and she's published. That's a plus in her column in my book.

 

I'm with Deva. Plus I don't think secular shrinks give a flying fuck about RTS. If they haven't been through it themselves, particularly the fear attached to it, I don't think they have a prayer of understanding it. I don't have a great deal of respect for academia, just more talking heads feathering their own career nests. I read Winnell's book when it first came out. I had just been tossed out of a cult and it was one of the few things that helped get me through the subsequent breakdown. When this happened to me googling spiritual abuse netted me about 80 citations on the web. I had no one to turn to really.

 

If she is organising a nice niche for herself, so what? At least someone gives a shit.

[Overcame Faith]

It is true that the way a professional convinces her colleagues of a new condition is to publish in peer reviewed journals. That requires a lot of research and convincing, documented cases and then it will be hashed around by the professional community. It may be that she is preparing that paper now. In fact, it could take her ten years to have enough data to make a convincing argument. Therefore, I don't find that she has not published convincing of anything other than that she has yet to publish something. No professional would even attempt to publish a half-baked paper because it would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.

 

I think the question is not whether she has yet published, but whether she is gathering data in preparation for publication. I know of no way to find out that other than to ask her directly.

[Llwellyn]

I'm not a psychiatrist, but I am somewhat familiar with emotional-behavioral diagnoses.

 

Obviously, Religious Trauma Syndrome is not a recognized psychological disorder. It cannot be found in the DSM-IV-TR (fourth edition, text revision). Nor do I think that the APA will ever recognize it as a disorder than can be diagnosed. In fact, I don't believe that it should ever be included in the DSM -- the symptoms that Dr. Winell describes are too easily recognizable as features of various disorders that already are in the DSM: particularly 309.81 Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and 300.02 Generalized Anxiety Disorder. People who have clinical effects from religion are suffering from a special case of some anxiety disorder.

 

There are many reasons why RTS will never be in the DSM. It is not the practice within the profession to describe a disorder based on its specific and idiosyncratic source, but rather its generalized symptoms. That is why the APA will never recognize a "rape trauma syndrome" for people who have been distressed by violent rape, or "combat trauma syndrome" for people who have lived through war. Even though there are powerful interest groups that put pressure on the APA at every convention. It is NOT because the APA doubts that war and rape are traumatizing -- some of the most severe cases of PTSD and Anxiety disorders come from these sources. It's just that the APA already has a way of describing their suffering, and the description doesn't reference the particularized source of the trauma.

 

There is also the bit about insurance payments for treatment, and drug trial programs. Researchers see that Religious Trauma Syndrome can be diagnosed and treated as an anxiety disorder. Doctors who have experience treating anxiety disorder have the tools to treat Religious Trauma Syndrome as well. Medications that have been tested to treat PTSD can be used for people who have Religious Trauma Syndrome. To throw a lot of special cases into the DSM would not assist the ill or the industry to treat them.

 

Plenty of interest groups lobby every year for the APA to recognize Rape Trauma Syndrome. They fail. So, too will all efforts to place Religious Trauma Syndrome in the DSM. Dr. Winell must realize this. All of that said, there is certainly a place for Dr. Winell to draw attention to the negative effects of religion and how religion can cause very real and hurtful emotional disorders. Just as there are clinicians who work to draw attention to the psychological effects of rape, so too should there be at least one clinician who will write and speak about Religious Trauma Syndrome. When you demand answers for why Dr. Winell doesn't lobby the APA, and why she doesn't publish articles about it in the Archives of General Psychiatry, you are asking for way too much. That would be wasted effort on her part because it would achieve nothing. It is much more useful for her to write articles for a blog, run seminars where she meets with sufferers, and to come onto this forum and talk to us.

[blackpudd1n]

It is true that the way a professional convinces her colleagues of a new condition is to publish in peer reviewed journals. That requires a lot of research and convincing, documented cases and then it will be hashed around by the professional community. It may be that she is preparing that paper now. In fact, it could take her ten years to have enough data to make a convincing argument. Therefore, I don't find that she has not published convincing of anything other than that she has yet to publish something. No professional would even attempt to publish a half-baked paper because it would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.

 

I think the question is not whether she has yet published, but whether she is gathering data in preparation for publication. I know of no way to find out that other than to ask her directly.

 

This may be so. But it has been 15 years since her book was published, for starters.

 

I have managed to find one solitary paper, from 1983 regarding goal-setting.

 

It is not uncommon, either, for scholars to do some research, publish some results, then do further research, and publish more results as they go. Or do pilot studies and the like while conducting further research.

 

And I'm still chasing down her actual connection to UofQ.

[blackpudd1n]

Plenty of interest groups lobby every year for the APA to recognize Rape Trauma Syndrome. They fail. So, too will all efforts to place Religious Trauma Syndrome in the DSM. Dr. Winell must realize this. All of that said, there is certainly a place for Dr. Winell to draw attention to the negative effects of religion and how religion can cause very real and hurtful emotional disorders. Just as there are clinicians who work to draw attention to the psychological effects of rape, so too should there be at least one clinician who will write and speak about Religious Trauma Syndrome. When you demand answers for why Dr. Winell doesn't lobby the APA, and why she doesn't publish articles about it in the Archives of General Psychiatry, you are asking for way too much. That would be wasted effort on her part because it would achieve nothing. It is much more useful for her to write articles for a blog, run seminars where she meets with sufferers, and to come onto this forum and talk to us.

 

You don't find this alarming, from here: http://journeyfree.org/rts/

 

Mistaken Identity

Religious Trauma Syndrome mimics the symptoms of many other disorders –

• post-traumatic stress disorder
  
• clinical depression
  
• anxiety disorders
  
• bipolar disorder
  
• obsessive compulsive disorder
  
• borderline personality disorder
  
• eating disorders
  
• social disorders
  
• marital and sexual dysfunctions
  
• suicide
  
• drug and alcohol abuse
  
• extreme antisocial behavior, including homicide
  

Claiming that RTS could be mistaken for something as potentially severe as bipolar disorder?? You don't find THAT alarming??

[Positivist]

It is true that the way a professional convinces her colleagues of a new condition is to publish in peer reviewed journals. That requires a lot of research and convincing, documented cases and then it will be hashed around by the professional community. It may be that she is preparing that paper now. In fact, it could take her ten years to have enough data to make a convincing argument.

----

No professional would even attempt to publish a half-baked paper because it would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.

If I were her, I'd be publishing even preliminary clinical findings or an expository article. Academic journals often like and accept novel, shit-stirring ideas. It is a red flag that she hasn't got any of those ideas on paper yet.

 

I agree that her book was immensely helpful for lay people.

[blackpudd1n]

Just wanted to add, that I have found one publication- from 1983, regarding goal-setting, nothing to do with religion. And from her time at Penn-State.

[London]

If I understand correctly she is not a medical doctor, hence it's gonna be real hard to get a new disorder recognized.

 

I know that the DSM has been trying to get a religious diagnosis for over 15 years. It was completely abandoned once, I believe in DSM-IV there was an Axis 1. I am not aware if there is one still in the -TR.

 

I think if RTS was recognized it would more likely to be a PTSD Axis 1 or 2, etc, as opposed to a complete disorder of it's own.

[Llwellyn]

If you think that she is not a strong enough academic and doesn't focus her efforts on publishing in peer-reviewed journals, then why don't you try to succeed in the area that she "failed"? If you think she writes articles that are incorrect, then why don't you write articles yourself with the correct info?

 

If you think she is a fraud and never actually went to the University you mentioned, then why don't you first pay her the courtesy of giving her a phone call or writing her an email? If you think she is actually just a greedy person trying to exploit exChristians, then again, why don't you call her up before you make insinuations?

 

If I had to guess, I would say that her career is mostly a labor of love that doesn't offer much in remuneration. Why the stones thrown?

[blackpudd1n]

If you think that she is not a strong enough academic and doesn't focus her efforts on publishing in peer-reviewed journals, then why don't you try to succeed in the area that she "failed"? If you think she writes articles that are incorrect, then why don't you write articles yourself with the correct info?

 

If you think she is a fraud and never actually went to the University you mentioned, then why don't you first pay her the courtesy of giving her a phone call or writing her an email? If you think she is actually just a greedy person trying to exploit exChristians, then again, why don't you call her up before you make insinuations?

 

If I had to guess, I would say that her career is mostly a labor of love that doesn't offer much in remuneration. Why the stones thrown?

 

Why? Because, for starters, telling a person who has been diagnosed with bipolar that RTS, a disorder not even recognised, mimics bipolar is a very dangerous thing to do. I'd love to be told 'oh, you don't have bipolar, you have this other condition that you just require some counselling with me for'. I was dumb enough to fall for that once, back in 2009, and the end result was chucking out my medication, which, I assure you, was not a good idea, and only served to confirm that I did, indeed, have bipolar.

 

Secondly, I have a suspicion that some people who could be helped greatly by a decent psychologist are either putting off or not seeking treatment, because they are convinced that only Winell can help them- again something dangerous. Most psychologists deal with any number of issues every day and help people through those issues even though they have not experienced them themselves. Why should this be any different?

 

I think we should all check into any therapist we think about seeing, which is how all of this started. I was actually interested in Winell, but now, I'm not so sure, and I'd like to do more of a background check before handing over money. Is that such a problem? Or is it only a problem because she is an ex-c, and is protected?

 

Not only that, but I prefer to get some facts straight first before I go asking questions directly, so I can better assess the answers given. That's how I ended up an ex-c, after all. Questioning. Not only that, but if you read my original post, you'll see that I asked all members who were able to to do their own research.

[London]

Here is a link to a good explanation and education of the DSM-IV category. The link is actually course material. It is 115 pages and in PDF form. I did not read all 115 pages but did read enough to know this is legitimate, and quite interesting.

http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/dsm4/dsmrsproblem.pdf

[Positivist]

I don't think anyone here is throwing stones; it's just a question.

 

As for why I don't take up the cause and publish in this area myself? That's easy: wrong degree. I publish other shit. Actually, I wish my degrees were in sociology; lots of cool stuff there. Oh well.

[blackpudd1n]

I don't think anyone here is throwing stones; it's just a question.

 

As for why I don't take up the cause and publish in this area myself? That's easy: wrong degree. I publish other shit. Actually, I wish my degrees were in sociology; lots of cool stuff there. Oh well.

 

Yeah, I forgot to add that the reason why I wasn't publishing was that I'm in the process of getting my degree. Can't wait till I get a chance, though!!

[Positivist]

Religious Trauma Syndrome, DSM,and APA

 

It is much more useful for her to write articles for a blog, run seminars where she meets with sufferers, and to come onto this forum and talk to us.

Points well articulated and well taken, Llwellyn! Good point indeed about the DSM and APA.

[Guest wester]

If Winell's ideas help even one person recognize, understand, and deal with their problems and traumas, then why shouldn't her ideas be accepted as a possible analysis and solution? As a therapist, would you deny that one person effective relief to their problems simply because of a bunch of words in a journal that was published more than likely just to keep a bunch of paychecks flowing? Isn't insisting that each patient, regardless of individual circumstances, follow a proscribed, socially accepted and well-worn path rather dogmatic and stultifying?

 

Your criticism seems to hinge on psychological diagnosis being socially validated, and run through the accepted check points of socially approved institutions. However, when the society itself is the problem, then the idea of social checks and balances doesn't seem to matter so much. Ideas accepted by the majority of lunatics and their collective institutions should not in any way confer legitimacy.

 

Because religion is central to any culture, criticism of religion is getting dangerously close to criticism of the foundational pillars of that society and its social experience. Surprise surprise that social institutions therein fail to adequately validate this fundamental criticism of the sick society.

 

And on the idea that publishing further confers legitimacy: let me say that I can set up a publishing house tomorrow with a sheet of ISBN numbers I can buy from Bowker, and some loose leaf papers I can staple together and shove in an envelope bearing my Company name and an ISBN bar code. All I have to do is register my "publishing" company with Books in Print and anybody in the world can order "books" from me which I assemble in my living room and mail from the local post office. Now I'm a "publisher", and I am confering social legitimacy on any documents that I "publish". In reality, it is just a hack triviality that is somehow invested with legitimacy.

 

I don't wish to snipe, but if the point is to help people make it through their problems, then restricting clinical definitions rather than expanding them seems counterintuitive.

[blackpudd1n]

If Winell's ideas help even one person recognize, understand, and deal with their problems and traumas, then why shouldn't her ideas be accepted as a possible analysis and solution? As a therapist, would you deny that one person effective relief to their problems simply because of a bunch of words in a journal that was published more than likely just to keep a bunch of paychecks flowing? Isn't insisting that each patient, regardless of individual circumstances, follow a proscribed, socially accepted and well-worn path rather dogmatic and stultifying?

 

What about the flip side- all the people being potentially harmed by Winell's theory? You don't think it's a rather bold statement to make, that RTS mimics a condition such as bipolar, and put that up on your website, for all the world to see, without any verification of that claim? How is that any different to the churches telling someone with a mental illness that they are demon possessed and just need the demons cast out of them, or that god can heal them?

 

While she may be helping some people, is this not a rather irresposible claim to make, and a potentially dangerous one, and one that should be looked into?

 

Your criticism seems to hinge on psychological diagnosis being socially validated, and run through the accepted check points of socially approved institutions. However, when the society itself is the problem, then the idea of social checks and balances doesn't seem to matter so much. Ideas accepted by the majority of lunatics and their collective institutions should not in any way confer legitimacy.

 

There are checks and balances in place for a damn good reason- remember what happened when the whole "repressed memory" ordeal was not looked into thoroughly, how many lives were ruined? Without those checks and balances, there is the potential for greater harm.

 

Because religion is central to any culture, criticism of religion is getting dangerously close to criticism of the foundational pillars of that society and its social experience. Surprise surprise that social institutions therein fail to adequately validate this fundamental criticism of the sick society.

 

In my experience, psychology works on the principle of if something's affected you, it's affected you, regardless of what it is, so let's work through it. This is not about society, it is about individuals.

 

And on the idea that publishing further confers legitimacy: let me say that I can set up a publishing house tomorrow with a sheet of ISBN numbers I can buy from Bowker, and some loose leaf papers I can staple together and shove in an envelope bearing my Company name and an ISBN bar code. All I have to do is register my "publishing" company with Books in Print and anybody in the world can order "books" from me which I assemble in my living room and mail from the local post office. Now I'm a "publisher", and I am confering social legitimacy on any documents that I "publish". In reality, it is just a hack triviality that is somehow invested with legitimacy.

 

My uncle is a mainstream publisher, and quite well connected. I also have a friend who is a smaller publisher. I am aware of this fact. However, this is not the type of publishing I am referring to. I am referring to research and peer-review publications, specialist journals, etc.

 

I don't wish to snipe, but if the point is to help people make it through their problems, then restricting clinical definitions rather than expanding them seems counterintuitive.

 

Do we really need any more labels than we have already? Particularly when this one fits pretty easily within the scope of trauma reactions?

[Positivist]

Meh, I just think that publishing in academic journals lends a certain legitimacy, which can lead to way more people being helped. Worst case scenario is that no one is taking the idea seriously.

[Llwellyn]

What about the flip side- all the people being potentially harmed by Winell's theory? You don't think it's a rather bold statement to make, that RTS mimics a condition such as bipolar, and put that up on your website, for all the world to see, without any verification of that claim? How is that any different to the churches telling someone with a mental illness that they are demon possessed and just need the demons cast out of them, or that god can heal them? While she may be helping some people, is this not a rather irresposible claim to make, and a potentially dangerous one, and one that should be looked into?

Which is it? Do you want D. Winell to disseminate her ideas in peer reviewed journals as in your first post, or do you think her ideas are harmful and she should keep them to herself? It is not a bold statement that religious trauma syndrome and bipolar disorder look similar -- it's true. She is not saying that they are the same thing or that bipolar disorder is not real. She is not saying that someone who can be diagnosed with bipolar disorder shouldn't get proper treatment.

[Llwellyn]

telling a person who has been diagnosed with bipolar that RTS, a disorder not even recognised, mimics bipolar is a very dangerous thing to do. I'd love to be told 'oh, you don't have bipolar, you have this other condition that you just require some counselling with me for'. I was dumb enough to fall for that once, back in 2009, and the end result was chucking out my medication, which, I assure you, was not a good idea, and only served to confirm that I did, indeed, have bipolar.

Anxiety sometimes looks like something different -- bipolar disorder. This is a commonplace. By pointing this out, she is not to blame when a diagnosed sufferer of bipolar disorder reacts by throwing out their medication. And based on my understanding of bipolar disorder, it usually doesn't take much to trigger medication non-compliance. Noncompliance is actually one of the symptoms of the disease, and is a major clinical problem in people who have bipolar. It is critical to honestly evaluate why they want to stop taking their medication, because then they can tackle these issues directly and without blaming others.

[blackpudd1n]

Which is it? Do you want D. Winell to disseminate her ideas in peer reviewed journals as in your first post, or do you think her ideas are harmful and she should keep them to herself? It is not a bold statement that religious trauma syndrome and bipolar disorder look similar -- it's true. She is not saying that they are the same thing or that bipolar disorder is not real. She is not saying that someone who can be diagnosed with bipolar disorder shouldn't get proper treatment.

 

Yes, I think she should be talking about her ideas among her peers. Definitely.

 

Yes, I do think some of her ideas are potentially harmful, which is why they need to be examined by her peers, thrashed around.

 

So RTS and bipolar look similar, do they? People with RTS go on manic shopping sprees, do they? They react badly to anti-depressants, as well, I suppose? People with RTS engage in reckless behaviour, like taking off in the car late at night at high speed for a drive, with no thought of whether they have even money for fuel? People with RTS experience delusions, as well? Start talking really fast?

 

I never said that she is saying that they are the same thing, nor that bipolar is not real. The danger, from where I'm standing, is putting the idea in a person who has bipolar, and is formally diagnosed's head that there is this other syndrome, called RTS, that mimics bipolar. Questioning the diagnosis. Leading to the question of, "maybe it's not bipolar, maybe it's this, and... OMG, I don't have bipolar, I have this, no more medication for me! Nope, don't you, Mr. Shrink, try and tell me I have bipolar, I have RTS!! See, it says so right here on this website!!"

 

A lot of people with bipolar don't want to believe that they have bipolar. For a long time I was one of those people. 2009, like I said earlier, I fell into the trap of believing a psychologist who suggested that I have borderline personality disorder (which I definitely don't- been ruled out by, oh, 5 professionals since then). When I first stumbled across Winell, same thing, again, except this time I had a psych nurse to talk me through it, and enough insight to remember what happened last time.