Womb twin survivors - a memory of the womb?

[tishayton]

I'm new here, so sorry in advance if I am doing this wrong. I am working as a therapist with people (womb twin survivors) who say they have some kind of cellular memory of a twin lost before birth. Some have proof of their lost twin and others don't - or cant get hold of it because their mother has died or wont say etc. I have been talking to experts, but I want to find out how skeptical people (who are coming to this "cold" with presumably little or no previous knowledge) are about the whole idea of some kind of pre-birth memory. So that is why Im posting here.

I was very skeptical at first myself, but the evidence in favour is beginning to mount up. What advice do you all have about how I ought to carry out the research? Thanks.

[Professor Yaffle]

Could you post links to this evidence that is building up, I am not aware of any of it.

[as you are new, you won't be able to post complete links, so break them (eg by putting spaces in or something) and I will fix them for you.]

[ponderingturtle]

Been argued here before, see

link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74837)

That seems to be by the woman who invented the condition.

[Cainkane1]

Been argued here before, see

link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74837)

That seems to be by the woman who invented the condition.
Didn't Carl sagan in his book "Dragons in Eden" make a reference to a child perhaps of his when asked to tell his earliest memory said I remember it being "dark and warm and then red and cold" As I recall Carl went on to say that this was probably some childs fantasy or something to that effect??

[tishayton]

Could you post links to this evidence that is building up, I am not aware of any of it.

[as you are new, you won't be able to post complete links, so break them (eg by putting spaces in or something) and I will fix them for you.]
Try wombtwinsurvivors dot com for a start, also vanishing twin dot com, and there are a couple of yahoo forums each with hundreds of members also the twinless twins organisation, many of them lost twins at birth or before. The wikipedia vanising twin page is good too thats got references.

[Professor Yaffle]

I was more wondering what evidence in particular you found convincing?

[ponderingturtle]

Didn't Carl sagan in his book "Dragons in Eden" make a reference to a child perhaps of his when asked to tell his earliest memory said I remember it being "dark and warm and then red and cold" As I recall Carl went on to say that this was probably some childs fantasy or something to that effect??

It is almost assuredly a false memory. It is not like those are hard to make.

[Rolfe]

Not the same, but some relevance. There are two boys (young men now I suppose) in London, who are separated conjoined twins. Each boy kept one leg, and has a prosthetic leg on the other side.

As children, they refused utterly to have separate rooms, and were frequently found in the same bed - lying together in the position they had been in before the surgery. They also had a neat trick of taking off their prosthetic legs and riding a bicycle - again arranged as they were before separation, each by with the appropriate foot on a pedal.

The odd thing is, they were surgically separated in very early infancy, long before you'd imagine they would be able to remember being together.

I've no idea is this is really relevant, but I always found it intriguing.

Rolfe.

[jwalker1960]

I think this is just another case of false dilemma or selective thinking. You are making assumptions without considering all the other possible causes.

It has been made clear through it is highly unlikely that memories from the womb came be real.

"Long-term memory requires elaborative encoding in the inner part of the temporal lobes. If the left inferior prefrontal lobe is damaged or undeveloped, there will be grave difficulty with elaborative encoding. This area of the brain is undeveloped in very young children (under the age of three). Hence, it is very unlikely that any story of having a memory of life in the cradle or in the womb is accurate." - The Skeptic's Dictionary

[commandlinegamer]

There are therapies which claim patients have remembered things before birth, Primal Therapy, is one I can think of offhand. The major obstacle I see is ensuring that therapists are absolutely not making suggestions to the patient. I found this article, on people who retracted previous alleged memories:

http://www.fmsfonline.org/retract1.html

[JJM]

... The odd thing is, they were surgically separated in very early infancy, long before you'd imagine they would be able to remember being together.

I've no idea is this is really relevant, but I always found it intriguing.

Rolfe.Elizabeth Loftus is a key researcher in this field; you can find some of her writing in Skeptic magazine. Basically, you don't form memories till after you turn three.

Relevant to Rolfe's post, Loftus recounts how a psychologist she knows had vivid memories of his nanny saving his life when he was two. When the guy was in his thirties, the aged nanny wrote to his parents and apologized for making up the story, and she returned the gold watch they had given her in gratitude. It seems he had heard the story so many times when he was finally old-enough to remember the details- he developed a false memory of the non-event.

[Professor Yaffle]

Well you must have some form of long term episodic memory before 3. When my older kid was 2 he would often talk about things he had done several weeks (or even months) before. He wouldn't be able to tell you what he had for lunch earlier in the day, but would suddenly start talking about something he had done months ago. I think the point is that at this age, the memories don't tend to be rehearsed so much, so they are more likely to be forgotten and not make it to the more permanent (ie that will survive to adulthood) long term memory. My son, at the age of 6 now doesn't seem to be able to remember anything before age 3 now.

But anyway, though I doubt whether there is a fixed lower age limit of 3 years, I still think the idea of memories of babyhood and prebirth are nonsense.

[Professor Yaffle]

Not the same, but some relevance. There are two boys (young men now I suppose) in London, who are separated conjoined twins. Each boy kept one leg, and has a prosthetic leg on the other side.

As children, they refused utterly to have separate rooms, and were frequently found in the same bed - lying together in the position they had been in before the surgery. They also had a neat trick of taking off their prosthetic legs and riding a bicycle - again arranged as they were before separation, each by with the appropriate foot on a pedal.

The odd thing is, they were surgically separated in very early infancy, long before you'd imagine they would be able to remember being together.

I've no idea is this is really relevant, but I always found it intriguing.

Rolfe.

I think that would be related more to procedural/implicit memory which seems to work in a different way to explicit/episodic memory that we are talking about here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_memory

[JJM]

Well you must have some form of long term episodic memory before 3. ...Instead of arguing, you could look up what Elizabeth Loftus has to say.

[Roma]

I have been talking to experts, but I want to find out how skeptical people (who are coming to this "cold" with presumably little or no previous knowledge) are about the whole idea of some kind of pre-birth memory.

I can tell you what Dr.Christopher Barden has to say:

President
R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D., L.P.
National Association for Consumer Protection In Mental Health Practices

He wondered why on earth therapists would spend any time on this nonsense.
"If a patient comes into your office and tells you he is Napoleon do you spend the next five years going over strategic war plans and count the number of soldiers and horses ? Hell no, only a quack therapist would do that".

tishayton, are you spending your time as a therapist counting soldiers and horses?

I can tell you that I have no expertise in this area but I hope you are not encouraging mentally fragile people to subject themselves to this quackery or wasting your time on this nonsense.
I suggest you spend more of your time listening to neurologists and less time listening to recovered memory therapists if you really want to know how the brain stores memories.
It is physically impossible for a person to have that type of "twin memory" because the brain is not sufficiently developed before or even long after birth to store such memories. That's just a biological fact.

[Miss_Kitt]

I think Loftus's work in recovered/created memories offers a much more plausible explanation than that somehow people have memores of twin lost at birth or younger. Especially those who didn't even have a twin, but are sure if only they could ask their deceased mother they would discover one.

The experiments that detailed subjects remembering meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyland* demonstrated conclusively that detailed false memories can be generated without excessive 'leading' by the therapist. In the absence of compelling evidence that infant memories are recorded by a different means than is used for older humans, I regard this missing twin thing as humbug.

Just my thoughts, Miss_Kitt

* http://www.rickross.com/reference/false_memories/fsm49.html

[JJM]

Well you must have some form of long term episodic memory before 3. ...

Instead of arguing, you could look up what Elizabeth Loftus has to say.I apologize. Years ago I did read what Loftus wrote and I probably oversimplified it, as you pointed out.

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, my reply was in part based on what I had read about Loftus (and others) have written about memory; ie rehearsal=consolidation etc. My knowledge of memory is very rusty though as I haven't studied it for a good number of years.

[bookitty]

At the website you mentioned, wombtwinsurvivors.com, there is a questionnaire. If I fill it out as I would have in my 20's, it highly suggests that I am suffering from missing twin syndrome (or whatever you want to call it.) But there is no way I had a twin. There are none in my family, no complications during gestation and I was a huge baby.

The emotional part of the questionnaire is far longer than the potential missing twin information. Worse it is applicable to anyone who has ever faced depression. These sorts of questionnaires lead people into incorrect assumptions. Someone who is depressed is more likely to miss the generalities and focus on the potential source of their discomfort. With it I could suggest a myriad of unremembered childhood events from abduction by UFO's to being touched by the horn of the invisible pink unicorn.

The only purpose for a questionnaire like this is to disregard the heath of the patient for the fantasy of the doctor.

[tishayton]

Well you must have some form of long term episodic memory before 3. When my older kid was 2 he would often talk about things he had done several weeks (or even months) before. He wouldn't be able to tell you what he had for lunch earlier in the day, but would suddenly start talking about something he had done months ago. I think the point is that at this age, the memories don't tend to be rehearsed so much, so they are more likely to be forgotten and not make it to the more permanent (ie that will survive to adulthood) long term memory. My son, at the age of 6 now doesn't seem to be able to remember anything before age 3 now.

But anyway, though I doubt whether there is a fixed lower age limit of 3 years, I still think the idea of memories of babyhood and prebirth are nonsense.

As I dig into this I read Allessandro Piontellis book " twins from fetus to child" She looked at ultrasounds and followed the same kids up for 5 years. There was a twin whose twin died and as soon as he could move he went searching all around the house, looking for his twin. And there are a few stories elsewhere of young children as soon as they can speak clearly - 2-3 years - asking for their missing sister or brother. The parents report this but as you say, the children dont remember, they only remember their parents telling them about it. I think the word " memory" doesn't describe this exactly. I am using "imprint" but that doesn't say it exactly either.

I have read all the posts on this, thanks, but I still need to know how to apply critical thinking to this - my clients who have proof will not profit from hearing me say "this is all humbug" and how do I know that some kind of proof doesnt exist for the others?

The evidence is mounting up that there may be something in this - nothing absolutely convincing and incontrovertible, just lots of stories and hints. In my job I do try to take my clients seriously, so I don't insist on them providing proof before we discuss it. I want to research this and write it up: Its a critical thinking issue as I see it. Will that be at all possible with something so nebulous? I can't do a randomised control trial, for a start!

Where do I start? All advice welcomed:hb:

[bookitty]

As I dig into this I read Allessandro Piontellis book " twins from fetus to child" She looked at ultrasounds and followed the same kids up for 5 years. There was a twin whose twin died and as soon as he could move he went searching all around the house, looking for his twin. And there are a few stories elsewhere of young children as soon as they can speak clearly - 2-3 years - asking for their missing sister or brother. The parents report this but as you say, the children dont remember, they only remember their parents telling them about it. I think the word " memory" doesn't describe this exactly. I am using "imprint" but that doesn't say it exactly either.

I have read all the posts on this, thanks, but I still need to know how to apply critical thinking to this - my clients who have proof will not profit from hearing me say "this is all humbug" and how do I know that some kind of proof doesnt exist for the others?

The evidence is mounting up that there may be something in this - nothing absolutely convincing and incontrovertible, just lots of stories and hints. In my job I do try to take my clients seriously, so I don't insist on them providing proof before we discuss it. I want to research this and write it up: Its a critical thinking issue as I see it. Will that be at all possible with something so nebulous? I can't do a randomised control trial, for a start!

Where do I start? All advice welcomed:hb:

Well, you might want to start by being honest. Barely any digging uncovered the fact that you wrote the questionnaire I mentioned earlier, edited an anthology on the subject and are about to release a book claiming that 10% of the population is a womb twin survivor (WOMB TWIN SURVIVORS: the lost twin in the Dream of the Womb). Since it isn't a critical examination of facts, maybe you could tell us what you are looking for.

If that doesn't appeal, perhaps you could point to some of this mounting evidence?

[tishayton]

Yes that is what I have been doing, but I badly need to start a scientific research programme of some sort to ground it all. I think there is something solid and worthwhile in all this, if I could only discover how to describe what I have found in ways that would satisfy the skeptics - hence these posts.

I want to research this properly and write up the research. All I have are stories, ideas, references, a few statistics (like the "1 in 10 people" you mentioned) and of course lots of clients coming in need of help. I published 70 of the stories, I'm writing about the ideas and the statistics in the new book, but I was hoping for some pointers to how to start a well-founded research exercise with this kind of nebulous material.

How could I do some kind of analysis of the stories and case studies, for example? I have several hundred now. It seems like an excellent resource, but I'm unsure how to tackle this or where to start!

[fls]

Tishayton, I'm confused. Under what circumstances are you granted enough authority to have clients, collect intimate stories and write a book on a subject, but by your own admission, you lack the skills and knowledge necessary to have authority on that subject?

Linda

[tishayton]

The concept and the work has come to me and I decided to work on it, that's all. I am a therapist and writer but I have not as yet developed the necessary skills to carry out a well founded research project, particularly using this kind of material. I am seeking help here so that I may learn a bit more about how to do it.

Your use of the word "authority" is interesting. I think authority is earned rather than granted, and I have not yet done enough work in this field yet to earn authority. In time, maybe - If I carry on learning.

[fls]

I am a therapist and writer but I have not as yet developed the necessary skills to carry out a well founded research project, particularly using this kind of material.

The training for a legitimate therapist should include the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out this kind of project. If you lack those skills why are you attempting this project? If you lack legitimate training, why are you set up as a therapist? Why not obtain the necessary skills and knowledge before you set up a project where mentally fragile patients are potentially harmed by exposure to quackery (as Roma put it)?

Linda

[fagin]

There was a twin whose twin died and as soon as he could move he went searching all around the house, looking for his twin.

Rubbish. Children move long before they communicate - how does anyone know what he was searching for?

[shuttlt]

Rubbish. Children move long before they communicate - how does anyone know what he was searching for?
Perhaps facilitated communication could be used...?

[bookitty]

The concept and the work has come to me and I decided to work on it, that's all. I am a therapist and writer but I have not as yet developed the necessary skills to carry out a well founded research project, particularly using this kind of material. I am seeking help here so that I may learn a bit more about how to do it.

Your use of the word "authority" is interesting. I think authority is earned rather than granted, and I have not yet done enough work in this field yet to earn authority. In time, maybe - If I carry on learning.

See, there's your problem. You've got it all backwards. The order is something like:

Hypothesis
Gather evidence
Test hypothosis
Discover repeatable results
Prove theory
Apply theory
Write book
Start non-profit

You've got it upside down. Giving you a non-profit org, a blog, several books and a pseudo-medical practice based on an unproven theory. Worse, you have no intention of changing your mind. You are only looking for ways to collate suspect data in order to give yourself a greater appearance of authority.

This is quackery, pure and simple. You are harming people when they are at their most fragile and your goal is to reach 10% of the population with this nonsense.


(Anyone else who is curious about this should google Althea Hayton)

[tishayton]

[QUOTE=bookitty;5712938]See, there's your problem. You've got it all backwards. The order is something like:

Hypothesis
Gather evidence
Test hypothosis
Discover repeatable results
Prove theory
Apply theory
Write book
Start non-profit

You've got it upside down.

Not so. If this list is anything like how it should be done then after 7 years I am at stage 4, having done it in the right order so far. That is a relief. The non profit obviously has nothing to do with the research, so I am surprised you mention it. I would like to "prove the theory" which is why I am here, seeking advice ( and so far not getting any) but this at least is a start.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if you know enough about my project to describe womb twin survivors as "fragile" and something - seemingly the entire idea? - as "nonsense." I often get these kind of remarks, like Im a quack, its rubbish, Im exploiting the vulnerable for my own ends etc.etc. from people who dont know about this work, (after all 90% of the population have no experience of it) I have heard all this before, so I will ignore it all and continue just for a while longer, to ask for help with this.

I have gathered a little data, enough to form a hypothesis. Now, as I continue to ask, how do I set about some well-founded research to formulate a theory from the hypothesis?

[Roma]

[QUOTE=bookitty;5712938]
Now, as I continue to ask, how do I set about some well-founded research to formulate a theory from the hypothesis?

tishayton, you are in luck,
there is another new member of the JREF forum who
you seem to have a lot in common with.
He has written hundreds of papers,
a dozen books, and can certainly tell you
exactly what you want to hear.
Just go to his thread and click on his name to leave him
a private message:
the Dr.Colin Ross Million Dollar Challenge thread

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167733

And tishayton,
please don't think we're picking on you,
as I can see you are very new on this skeptics site.
Just stay here a bit longer and you'll come to understand
how skeptics think.
We are just trying to help.
fls is a very smart person and you should listen to her advise.

[bookitty]

See, there's your problem. You've got it all backwards. The order is something like:

Hypothesis
Gather evidence
Test hypothosis
Discover repeatable results
Prove theory
Apply theory
Write book
Start non-profit

You've got it upside down.


Not so. If this list is anything like how it should be done then after 7 years I am at stage 4, having done it in the right order so far. That is a relief. The non profit obviously has nothing to do with the research, so I am surprised you mention it. I would like to "prove the theory" which is why I am here, seeking advice ( and so far not getting any) but this at least is a start.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if you know enough about my project to describe womb twin survivors as "fragile" and something - seemingly the entire idea? - as "nonsense." I often get these kind of remarks, like Im a quack, its rubbish, Im exploiting the vulnerable for my own ends etc.etc. from people who dont know about this work, (after all 90% of the population have no experience of it) I have heard all this before, so I will ignore it all and continue just for a while longer, to ask for help with this.

I have gathered a little data, enough to form a hypothesis. Now, as I continue to ask, how do I set about some well-founded research to formulate a theory from the hypothesis?

At this point, you have only a hypothesis. One that is based on anecdotal evidence and your own bias. You have not given any solid scientific research to show that the fetus can remember a twin, or that, if this memory exists, it has any effect on the psyche. Worse, the anecdotal evidence you have collected is based on a questionnaire that places the emphasis on the mental health of the patient and not proof of pre-birth trauma. Take away the first part and it is applicable to anyone who is seeking therapy.

You have admitted that you do not know how to conduct research and yet you are passing yourself off as an expert. You are treating people, writing books, and taking money to support your non-profit organization based on nothing more than a hunch.

Lets say you go into a health food store, while there you speak to a woman who says she is a nutritionist but actually has no training in nutrition other than her work at the store. You mention your chronic back pain. She tells you to take massive doses of vitamin D. It is winter, you might have a slight deficiency. There are some studies that suggest a link. On the surface the science seems sound. Besides, she has recommended this to hundreds of people and they have all been helped. Because she has a title, you take her advice. But what if the real problem is that you have kidney disease and the overdose of vitamin D makes it worse?

You are doing the same thing as that nutritionist. Faking authority and offering an unproven cure for a symptom while having no idea about disease. You are abusing the trust of people who come to you because they feel (in your words) odd, different, crazy or missing something. These are signs of fragile mental health, and it's shocking that you can not recognise that.

But is this hypothetical research really why you are here? Your blog entry from March 12th (http://wombtwin-survivors.blogspot.com/) suggests otherwise. "I need to discover who my enemies are then I can "pick a fight and inflame passions and get noticed." (bolding your own.)

[tishayton]

At this point, you have only a hypothesis. One that is based on anecdotal evidence and your own bias. You have not given any solid scientific research to show that the fetus can remember a twin, or that, if this memory exists, it has any effect on the psyche. Worse, the anecdotal evidence you have collected is based on a questionnaire that places the emphasis on the mental health of the patient and not proof of pre-birth trauma. Take away the first part and it is applicable to anyone who is seeking therapy.

You have admitted that you do not know how to conduct research and yet you are passing yourself off as an expert. You are treating people, writing books, and taking money to support your non-profit organization based on nothing more than a hunch.

Lets say you go into a health food store, while there you speak to a woman who says she is a nutritionist but actually has no training in nutrition other than her work at the store. You mention your chronic back pain. She tells you to take massive doses of vitamin D. It is winter, you might have a slight deficiency. There are some studies that suggest a link. On the surface the science seems sound. Besides, she has recommended this to hundreds of people and they have all been helped. Because she has a title, you take her advice. But what if the real problem is that you have kidney disease and the overdose of vitamin D makes it worse?

You are doing the same thing as that nutritionist. Faking authority and offering an unproven cure for a symptom while having no idea about disease. You are abusing the trust of people who come to you because they feel (in your words) odd, different, crazy or missing something. These are signs of fragile mental health, and it's shocking that you can not recognise that.

But is this hypothetical research really why you are here? Your blog entry from March 12th (http://wombtwin-survivors.blogspot.com/) suggests otherwise. "I need to discover who my enemies are then I can "pick a fight and inflame passions and get noticed." (bolding your own.)
If you had read the whole blog post you would see that I decided not to take the advice given in that book. I need no enemies. I dont have to fight anyone to get this out there - its coming to me and its developing rapidly, almost week by week. Its hard to believe, certainly, but its not "paranormal," as someone here has implied.

I am told that you "are only trying to help". That's reassuring, at least.

I am indeed "learning how skeptics think" - will that be enough? Will that alone help me to formulate a sound research project?

[Roma]

but its not "paranormal," as someone here has implied.


tishayton I wasn't implying that you were "paranormal" when I said that you had a lot in common with Dr.Colin Ross.

What I was implying is that you and Dr.Colin Ross are exploiting vulnerable people for your own purposes through fraudulent therapy.
Both of you cling onto refuted and unscientific thoughts and beliefs as if they were a religion to be worshipped uncritically.
You support your delusions through a network of others within that cult.
You encourage mentally fragile and easily manipulated people to convert to your beliefs by fraudualently claiming authority in an area that you have no authority in.
You iatrogenically produced false survivors or twins and documented your results while maintaining your self annointed authourity which ultimately perpetuates this quackery.
That is what you have in common with Dr.Colin Ross.


I strongly urge you to reconsider the path you are on now so that you won't have other things in common with Dr. Colin Ross:
1) lawsuits
2) ridicule from true authority
3) a life wasted

You are still young and have good intentions, I am only guessing.
You have the time and passion to take the right path to become a well educated therapist and acredited authority as fls encouraged you to do.
The JREF forum members here will be right there with you, encouraging you and supporting you if you reconsider and go back to school.

[bookitty]

You are still young and have good intentions, I am only guessing.
You have the time and passion to take the right path to become a well educated therapist and acredited authority as fls encouraged you to do.
The JREF forum members here will be right there with you, encouraging you and supporting you if you reconsider and go back to school.

Exactly.

This group can also help you research the medical groundwork you'll need. i.e. scientific method, issues with false memories in psychotherapy and fetal cognitive function, to name a few.

[fls]

tishayton,

Take the information you have collected and present your case to a legitimate psychologist at an academic institution. If they think your idea is worthwhile, they will have the knowledge and experience necessary to proceed with exploring and testing the idea. You are not going to be able to educate yourself by listening to a half-dozen anonymous posters on an internet forum.

It is not ethical behaviour to offer therapy based on an idea which has not undergone adequate testing.

Linda

[Kariboo]

QUOTE=tishayton;5707883] I am working as a therapist with people Do you have formal training as a therapist? Do you have a degree in psychology/psychiatry/social work? If not then you have no business working as a therapist or claiming you are one. If you do have a university degree then you should know how to do research.

Some have proof of their lost twin and others don't - or cant get hold of it because their mother has died or wont say etc.
Or they are just making up something in order to have some kind of 'explanation' to how they are feeling. Same way people make up stories about past lives, UFO's or other imaginary trauma's in order to create some credibility for themselves. As therapist we are to discourage this and offer some more effective coping mechanisms to address depression/anxiety/whatever.

I have been talking to experts, Which ones? What research have they done?

its coming to me and its developing rapidly, almost week by week. Its hard to believe, It is not hard to believe. A lot of people buy into these woo theories (crystal children, indigo, MPD, alien abduction, reiki). Especially because you can't prove them, it makes you sound interesting and deep and you don't have to deal with reality because you have a made up issue that you can spend all your time with. however the fact that you have followers DOES NOT MAKE WHAT YOU BELIEVE REAL.


I am indeed "learning how skeptics think" - will that be enough? Will that alone help me to formulate a sound research project? No, getting an education would.

Just to reiterate what bookitty said an what you conveniently chose to ignore (not a good research trait I will add) :

* At this point, you have only a hypothesis. One that is based on anecdotal evidence and your own bias.
* You have not given any solid scientific research to show that the fetus can remember a twin, or that, if this memory exists, it has any effect on the psyche.
*the anecdotal evidence you have collected is based on a questionnaire that places the emphasis on the mental health of the patient and not proof of pre-birth trauma. Take away the first part and it is applicable to anyone who is seeking therapy.

[Kariboo]

From your website

Some womb twin survivors have definite proof of their twin and some do not. Only the respondents who had proof were included in this analysis. There were shades of response to the list of statements, fromA which was the strongest to D which was the weakest. Only the As and Bs were chosen. The top five answers, made by people with proof of their lost twin and who answered A or B, were discovered. The picture that emerges from this analysis is distinct and seems quite reasonable, as long as one assumes that some kind of pre-birth impression of the lost twin does remain in the mind of the survivor.

[Many thanks to the Statistics Department of the University of Hertfordshire for this analysis. ]

76% agreed strongly with: "All my life I have felt as if something is missing."
73% agreed strongly with "I fear rejection."
70% agreed strongly with this idea: "I know I am not realising my true potential."
65% gave a strong response to: "I feel different from other people."
68% agreed strongly with the statement: "I have been searching for something all my life but I don’t know what it is".
65% agreed strongly with the statement: "Deep down, I feel alone, even when I am among friends."
65% agreed strongly with the statement "I fear abandonment."

Here are your problems

1) You don't have a control group.
2) You do not have a control group
3) You didn't have a control group
4) I don't think I can say often enough that you don't have a control group.

If you don't understand how important this is : step slowly away from whatever 'research' you are doing.

I dare you to interview a couple of hundred depressed people/teenagers/midlife crisis people and find statistically different outcomes

This is not even worth the paper it was written on.

also as long as one assumes that some kind of pre-birth impression of the lost twin does remain in the mind of the survivor. proof??? Any?? Assuming is not part of research

<<<<<<<YOU HAVE NO CONTROL GROUP>>>>>>>

[bookitty]

Judging from Mrs. Hayton's MO, we probably won't see her again. She tends to do a hit and run immediately before the publication of a new book. Obviously she's not looking for real feedback. Just another quack dropping by to brag about their specific unscientific scam. How do these people sleep at night?

[fls]

I just wanted to note that she does not have a hypothesis. At best, it can be called an idea. A hypothesis is a statement which describes/explains a relationship in a way that allows it to be tested. That is, the results of the test can serve to confirm (in a non-trivial manner) and/or disconfirm the hypothesis. The sample given earlier, of a description of the responses given to a set of questions, did not serve as a test, as any set of answers would be applicable to the idea.

Linda

[fls]

Judging from Mrs. Hayton's MO, we probably won't see her again. She tends to do a hit and run immediately before the publication of a new book. Obviously she's not looking for real feedback. Just another quack dropping by to brag about their specific unscientific scam. How do these people sleep at night?

I'm a bit curious as to why it looks like she has two different JREF accounts.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74837

I thought that was a violation of the membership agreement?

Linda

[Loss Leader]

I have been talking to experts, but I want to find out how skeptical people (who are coming to this "cold" with presumably little or no previous knowledge) are about the whole idea of some kind of pre-birth memory.


No, it's impossible.

People don't remember things the way a tape machine does. In order to form a memory, you must have a matrix in which to put it. You have to be able to index it so that you can retrieve it.

Consider, for example, all of the things you were taught in your high school social studies class that you have no memory of. In part, that's because the information didn't mean anything to you. You didn't care; you couldn't relate to it; so you had no way to put it in memory so it could be accessed later. Face it, if Louis XVI were your uncle, you'd remember a lot more about him.

It takes years for a baby to form the basic brain architecture to store a memory and successfully retrieve it. Pre-birth (and for two to four years after birth), it just cannot be done.



ETA: Having read through the comments so far, I am sorry I ever took the OP seriously. I have no doubt that she is here for no reason other than to elicit negative responses so that she can quote mine. We're all making a very nice strawman to be defeated in an upcoming ridiculous book.

[Roma]

Judging from Mrs. Hayton's MO, we probably won't see her again. She tends to do a hit and run immediately before the publication of a new book. Obviously she's not looking for real feedback. Just another quack dropping by to brag about their specific unscientific scam. How do these people sleep at night?

They sleep with pointy tin foil hats on I guess.

Her "seperated at birth twin" Dr.Colin Ross did the same thing with his thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167733&page=7

"...Overall, this thread seems to have deteriorated into name-calling, questions of little or no substance, like is my laptop plugged into the wall? (Post 248), and repetition of points previously made. I am therefore signing off. Thank you for the questions and comments."

They just won't understand or accept any constructive criticism
and they both may just be trying to plug their new book.

[bookitty]

ETA: Having read through the comments so far, I am sorry I ever took the OP seriously. I have no doubt that she is here for no reason other than to elicit negative responses so that she can quote mine. We're all making a very nice strawman to be defeated in an upcoming ridiculous book.

Agreed. Knowing that any response, no matter how well meant, will be used to further this person's campaign for harm and self-aggrandizement, is a bit sickening. Nothing to do but wait for the lawsuit and hope whoever files it finally gets the help they need.

[Elaedith]

I'm new here, so sorry in advance if I am doing this wrong. I am working as a therapist with people (womb twin survivors) who say they have some kind of cellular memory of a twin lost before birth. Some have proof of their lost twin and others don't - or cant get hold of it because their mother has died or wont say etc. I have been talking to experts, but I want to find out how skeptical people (who are coming to this "cold" with presumably little or no previous knowledge) are about the whole idea of some kind of pre-birth memory. So that is why Im posting here.

I was very skeptical at first myself, but the evidence in favour is beginning to mount up. What advice do you all have about how I ought to carry out the research? Thanks.

There is certainly evidence for prenatal memory but it has nothing to do with 'cellular' memory and it has nothing to do with consciously reportable experience which is what most people think of as 'memory'.

Long-term retention in newborn and very young infants is tested with methods like habituation and dishabituation, preferential looking, and measurement of physiological responses or brain activity to familiar and novel stimuli.

If there is any neural encoding of sensory information related to the presence of a twin prenatally it will not result in any consciously verbalizable experience and cannot be assessed with the methods you suggest.

[tishayton]

Here are your problems

1) You don't have a control group.
2) You do not have a control group
3) You didn't have a control group
4) I don't think I can say often enough that you don't have a control group.
<<<<<<<YOU HAVE NO CONTROL GROUP>>>>>>>[/QUOTE]

At last, some help.

Yes of course I have no control group. I know about the scientific method and the need to make comparisons between two groups to generate statistics that may support this idea (I am told not to call it an hypothesis.)

I have said this often - not here, but at conferences and so forth - but to little effect. I appreciate the chance to say here why I have never been able to find a suitable control group.

This is an extract from what I once wrote about this

The loss of a twin before or around birth affects at least 10% of the population, including neonatal death, stillbirth, miscarriage, abortion, multifetal pregnancy reduction, a surgically removed conjoined twin, parasitic twin, teratoma or dermoid cyst, and a twin conceived and reabsorbed in the first trimester (known as " the vanishing twin.")

This is the reference and abstract.

Boklage, C. E. (1990). "Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term." Int J Fertil 35(2): 75, 79-80, 81-94.

Preterm death of the human conceptus is common. A consistent biphasic pattern in the rate of loss from biochemical pregnancy detection to term suggests that most wastage occurs prior to clinical recognition. After simple adjustments for varying methods, existing data show that at least 73% of natural single conceptions have no real chance of surviving 6 weeks of gestation. Of the remainder, about 90% will survive to term. IVF conceptions do nearly as well as natural pregnancies after clinical recognition, but poorly before, despite selecting apparently normal embryos for transfer. Reasons may lie in the uterus more than the embryo itself. Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions, of which number about 2% survive to term as twins and about 12% result in single births. In all of these situations, simple equations for exponential decay in a mixture of two populations can accurately describe the distribution of those deaths in time.
(end of abstract)

If it is true that the loss of a twin before birth has some kind of psychological effect on the womb twin survivor, then it is in the public interest for this to be known, so that mental health professional can provide appropriate help and make properly informed decisions.

I wish to establish by some means if there is or is not a psychological effect on the survivor who a twin dies before birth, and if so, what form that takes.

Now I do have 700 responses to the questionnaire (which is aimed at and completed by womb twin survivors.) I have only included in my preliminary results, published last December, the respondents who have some definite, recognised medical indication that their mother did at some stage carry twins during the pregnancy. They are all encouraged to tell me their story and 50% of them have done so. Assessing the information provided and studying the stories, I have decided to believe that in all cases where there is proof, their stories are sincere and the answers given honestly.

This eliminates any respondents who may have created a "fantasy twin" for themselves.

But I need a control group of people who are not womb twin survivors and I can be sure they are not. The loss of a twin can be symptom-free, and this means that there may be a womb twin survivors in any family, even where there are no twins in the family at all. Any member of any control group I select ( theatre audience, football crowd, people in the street, psychology students, other students ) may unknowingly be a womb twin survivor and if their mother had no symptoms there would be no way for me to know. "

So I need a group but have no idea how to find them.

It could be that this forum could be a very useful source of people who are absolutely sure they are not womb twin survivors and even if they are, they do not believe in any way that this loss has affected them psychologically.

Yes, I need a control group - have I found it on this forum? Do I need to find 700 skeptics?

[tishayton]

There is certainly evidence for prenatal memory but it has nothing to do with 'cellular' memory and it has nothing to do with consciously reportable experience which is what most people think of as 'memory'.

Long-term retention in newborn and very young infants is tested with methods like habituation and dishabituation, preferential looking, and measurement of physiological responses or brain activity to familiar and novel stimuli.

If there is any neural encoding of sensory information related to the presence of a twin prenatally it will not result in any consciously verbalizable experience and cannot be assessed with the methods you suggest.

What methods would you suggest?

[Roma]

If it is true that the loss of a twin before birth has some kind of psychological effect on the womb twin survivor, then it is in the public interest for this to be known, so that mental health professional can provide appropriate help and make properly informed decisions.

Do I need to find 700 skeptics?

No tishayton, you need to go to school , real school, not tishayton school.

[bookitty]

What methods would you suggest?

I would suggest that you prove the validity of your idea before you use it to treat people. Until your work is proven valid, there is the possibility that you are wrong. If you are wrong, you are doing a grave disservice to those who come to you for help.

I would also suggest that you spend quite a bit of time research the negative effects of false memory syndrome and the associated lawsuits.

[shuttlt]

If you mean to say that around 10% of the population are twin survivors based on your Boklage, C. E. (1990) reference, I'm pretty sure you've got your maths wrong and the number is quite a bit lower. Could you possibly show your working?

[shuttlt]

By the way, adding a self selected bunch of 700 strangers onto your self-selected bunch of 700 womb-survivors really isn't going to improve things and will certainly be a wasted effort.

[Roma]

By the way, adding a self selected bunch of 700 strangers onto your self-selected bunch of 700 womb-survivors really isn't going to improve things and will certainly be a wasted effort.

Exactly, that is why she needs to go to school,

If she knew anything at all about "Statistical Analysis" then she wouldn't be annoying JREF forum members with nonsense like that.

[Delvo]

What does "womb twin" even mean? What other kinds of twins are there?

[Loss Leader]

I wish to establish by some means if there is or is not a psychological effect on the survivor who a twin dies before birth, and if so, what form that takes.


It seems that current psychological thinking already adequately explains why a person's ego might manifest a belief that the person had a twin. Lonliness, feelings of depression, isolation and an inability to connect with others would be more than enough reason to engage in such a delusion.

I think your control group should be actual twins. Actual twins would have the same likelihood of the psychological conditions that lead to the delusion but, already being twins, they would know that simply having a sibling does not help with any of those feelings. They would be far, far less inclined to invent a memory of another sibling because they would already have been disabused of the fantasy that a twin is some sort of automatic cure for being sad.

If you aren't completely full of crud, you should try to see if anyone with a living twin thinks he or she remembers there being a third person in there. I bet almost none of them do.

And, with that control group, you can confidently dismiss your idea as the utter unscientific nonsense that it is.

[Roma]

... you should try to see if anyone with a living twin thinks he or she remembers there being a third person in there.

See what I mean tishayton,
if you went to university and took a course in "Critical Thinking" then
you could ponder questions like that too.



P.S. Loss Leader that's a good one, wish I'd thought of that ;)

[Miss_Kitt]

This is even less sincere and reasonable than I originally thought. Best case, the OP is very fuzzy in her thinking, worst case she is a fraud. She doesn't have any idea how to conduct a scientific inquiry; how to deal with statistics; or how to analyze the results of a survey. A few examples are in order; all of the following are taken from Hayton's posts earlier in this thread:

Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions, of which number about 2% survive to term as twins and about 12% result in single births... I presume this is where she gets her 10% figure from, due to misunderstanding the statement quoted from an actual scientific paper's abstract. The quoted statement does not say that 12% of all pregnancies are multiple, and 2% of all pregnancies become multiple births! It says, "of which number about 2% survive to term as twins", that is, 2% of the 12% of all natural conceptions (ie, those not using fertility treatment methods to occur)--that is, about 0.24% of natural conceptions. This number, 2.4 out of 1000 natural conceptions, is nothing like 10%.


Discussing her existing "data", Hayton further says:
Now I do have 700 responses to the questionnaire .... recognised medical indication that their mother did at some stage carry twins during the pregnancy. They are all encouraged to tell me their story and 50% of them have done so. Assessing the information provided and studying the stories, I have decided to believe that in all cases where there is proof, their stories are sincere and the answers given honestly.

This eliminates any respondents who may have created a "fantasy twin" for themselves... "

Hayton here is confusing sincerity and honesty with congruence to reality; she leaves out entirely the possibility that the people are honestly mistaken, self-deluded, or subconsciously responding to her questions in the apparently desired manner. That is, just because someone believes something does not make it true. Further, she believes them; that does not mean they are not lying to her, only that they may have successfully fooled her.

Also interesting is that in her survey, she found that:

76% agreed strongly with: "All my life I have felt as if something is missing."
73% agreed strongly with "I fear rejection."
70% agreed strongly with this idea: "I know I am not realising my true potential."
65% gave a strong response to: "I feel different from other people."
68% agreed strongly with the statement: "I have been searching for something all my life but I don’t know what it is".
65% agreed strongly with the statement: "Deep down, I feel alone, even when I am among friends."
65% agreed strongly with the statement "I fear abandonment."

Notice that the two italicized statements are functionally identical, but the respondents agreement level dropped from 76% to 68%. Apparently Hayton does not consider that to be worth mentioning. I also note that fearing rejection or abandonment, feeling different, or even feeling that something is missing is hardly a rare occurance--in fact, in adolescence, it's downright common!

Finally, her assertion that she needs a control group but doesn't know how to find them, while true, reflects confusion about what a control group is. She could have started out with a group of students, given them all the psychological assessment, and then gotten her demographic data on possible twins/lost twins/actual twins and seen if their answers were any different. Even then, that would only tell you what people who had been told they were the surviving twin thought and felt. A really rigorous assessment would require getting a comparison between twin survivors who did not know they had shared a womb for any time and a matching cohort who had been told...

But it's pretty pointless now. What we have is a person who has drawn a notion out of thin air, persuaded some lonely, sad people that she knows what caused their issues, and is selling books on the topic. There is no science here, just fiddle-faddle dreamed up by someone who--if she had a college education at all--clearly has no training in the sciences, not even psychology.

Sad, really. But not as sad as the damage she will wreak on those who trust her 'authority' and believe that they are damaged by pre-birth events.

Miss_Kitt

[bookitty]

But it's pretty pointless now. What we have is a person who has drawn a notion out of thin air, persuaded some lonely, sad people that she knows what caused their issues, and is selling books on the topic. There is no science here, just fiddle-faddle dreamed up by someone who--if she had a college education at all--clearly has no training in the sciences, not even psychology.

Sad, really. But not as sad as the damage she will wreak on those who trust her 'authority' and believe that they are damaged by pre-birth events.

Miss_Kitt

That is the most frustrating aspect. It's obvious to anyone who has read her posts that she has no idea what she is doing. She claims to be a womb-twin survivor herself so it's impossible for her to be objective. Since she has no training, no objectivity and no ability to think critically, she is the worst person for these sad and lonely people to deal with.

But what can be done to stop her and the hoards of other deluded "therapists" who make their living by keeping people ill?

[zooterkin]

I'm a bit curious as to why it looks like she has two different JREF accounts.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74837

I thought that was a violation of the membership agreement?

Linda

Looks like the accounts have now been merged.

[bookitty]

A little more digging into womb-twin survivors shows that it is a relatively unknown "disorder" from the far reaches of woo. It survives by piggy-backing the lost twin support groups. (These are people who lost a living twin, one they actually knew.) There are a few books but nothing that is supported by hard science. The yahoo support groups are not terribly serious. It could be compared to past-life regression or many other New Age therapies, a few people take it seriously but for most it's just psychological entertainment.

Mrs. Hayton is working very hard to popularize the idea but her own lack of professionalism is working against her. I have no doubt that she fills up her workshops with a couple dozen people and has a few clients but, in general, her impact is too small to be taken seriously. It doesn't make her actions any less reprehensible but she is one of the smaller fish in the woo pond.

[shuttlt]

Am I the only one who is vaguely reminded of the movie Basket Case (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083624/), by all this?

A young man carrying a big basket that contains his deformed Siamese-twin brother seeks vengeance on the doctors who separated them against their will.

[tishayton]

There is a misunderstanding here:

A womb twin survivor is someone who was conceived as part of a twin or multiple pregnancy but was born alone. Boklage is describing how one of the twins dies, or the rest of the multiples die, leaving just one left: the womb twin survivor.

The Boklage quote:

He says that 12% of conceptions are multiple, that out of that 12% only 2% survive to birth as an intact twin pair. The rest of them (10%) are born alone but were once twins.They are the womb twin survivors.

I hope that makes things clearer for you.

A " womb twin" is a term for the lost twin.

Intact pairs of twins are in an unknown number of cases reduced triplet or multiple sets. When we are looking at a pair of twins we cannot be sure that they are not the survivors of a triplet or multiple set. Using twin pairs is a nice idea though - thanks!

An interesting debate. Most helpful.

When I studied Geography at Oxford University in 1965 we didnt learn anything much about statistical analysis and anyhow Im hopeless with maths, which is why I gathered the data and left the analysis to the stats dept of our local university. I am not a student and have no intention of going back to school as you recommend, not out of sheer stupidity and wrong headness but because I cant afford the fees on my pension. I would love to do an MA on this, but I doubt if I will ever manage it, so i am writing the book instead. Detailed statistical analysis will be for the others who come after me. Im just getting the idea - it is an emerging idea in the medical feild too- out there for others to pick up and carry forward if they want to.

As you will be aware, this idea is still tentative. I am still at the data gathering stage, formulating the list of statements according to what womb twin survivors are telling me about themselves.

Thanks so much for all your posts and careful analysis - I can understand your doubts, but rest assured my character and motives are not as you describe.

It's probably a part of the skeptical character to be a little paranoid about things that cannot be proven. I can understand that.

Bye for now.

Althea
www.wombtwinsurvivors.com

[zooterkin]

There is a misunderstanding here:
There is indeed.


A womb twin survivor is someone who was conceived as part of a twin or multiple pregnancy but was born alone. Boklage is describing how one of the twins dies, or the rest of the multiples die, leaving just one left: the womb twin survivor.

The Boklage quote:

He says that 12% of conceptions are multiple, that out of that 12% only 2% survive to birth as an intact twin pair. The rest of them (10%) are born alone but were once twins.They are the womb twin survivors.

I hope that makes things clearer for you.


Yes, it makes it clear you have misunderstood the quote, as Miss Kitt already pointed out.

Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions, of which number about 2% survive to term as twins and about 12% result in single births. In all of these situations, simple equations for exponential decay in a mixture of two populations can accurately describe the distribution of those deaths in time.


12% of natural conceptions are multiple, of which 12% result in single births, or 1.44% of all natural conceptions, not 10% as you seem to be assuming. Most of the multiple conceptions, as most of the single conceptions, do not result in live births. If you've been finding 10% of the population who appear to be 'womb twin survivors', then I'm afraid you've disproved your theory as to the cause of this apparent syndrome.

[shuttlt]

Perhaps somebody could check my workings, but I think 2.3% of births are potential womb twin survivors. The paper did mention "Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions", so the real figure could be a little higher.


0.73 * 0.9 = 0.657 (66%) Number of single pregnancies surviving

0.12 pregnancies are multiple => 0.88 (88%) Pregnancies are single.

=> 0.657 * 0.88 = 0.57816 (58%) Pregnancies that are single and survive
0.12 * 0.2 = 0.024 (2%) Pregnancies that are multiple and end up in twins.
0.12 * 0.12 = 0.0144 (1%) Pregnancies that are multiple and end in a single birth

Percentage of births where multiple pregnancies have result in a single birth:
0.0144 / (0.57816 + 0.024 + 0.0144) = 0.023 (2.3%)

[zooterkin]

Perhaps somebody could check my workings, but I think 2.3% of births are potential womb twin survivors. The paper did mention "Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions", so the real figure could be a little higher.


0.73 * 0.9 = 0.657 (66%) Number of single pregnancies surviving


I think that is round the wrong way. It's 73% of single conceptions that don't survive, so that should be 0.27 * 0.9.

existing data show that at least 73% of natural single conceptions have no real chance of surviving 6 weeks of gestation.

But please continue, my analysis was too simplistic as it didn't look at 'womb twin survivors' as a percentage of live births, only as a percentage of conceptions.

[fls]

Perhaps somebody could check my workings, but I think 2.3% of births are potential womb twin survivors. The paper did mention "Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions", so the real figure could be a little higher.


0.73 * 0.9 = 0.657 (66%) Number of single pregnancies surviving

The first number should be 0.27, as Zooterkin pointed out.

0.12 pregnancies are multiple => 0.88 (88%) Pregnancies are single.

=> 0.657 * 0.88 = 0.57816 (58%) Pregnancies that are single and survive
0.12 * 0.2 = 0.024 (2%) Pregnancies that are multiple and end up in twins.

The second number should be 0.02 (2%, not 20%).

0.12 * 0.12 = 0.0144 (1%) Pregnancies that are multiple and end in a single birth

Percentage of births where multiple pregnancies have result in a single birth:
0.0144 / (0.57816 + 0.024 + 0.0144) = 0.023 (2.3%)

I get 6%.

Linda

[shuttlt]

The first number should be 0.27, as Zooterkin pointed out.



The second number should be 0.02 (2%, not 20%).



I get 6%.

Linda
Thanks Linda. I blame it on doing the maths in notepad... :o

Oh, well. It looks like the OPs 10% wasn't so very far off the true figure, even if her maths is worse than mine. Not that any of that justifies believing in womb twins.

[Cuddles]

The paper did mention "Multiple pregnancies may constitute more than 12% of all natural conceptions", so the real figure could be a little higher.

On the other hand, that "may" suggests that the real figure could also be a lot lower.

[Roma]

There is a misunderstanding here:

Misunderstanding? Ya think?

When I studied Geography at Oxford University in 1965 we didnt learn anything much about statistical analysis...

Oh my God, I also have a degree in Geography and it sure as hell included courses in statistical analysis, research methods, logic and critical thinking.
I always thought that Oxford was a good university .... no wait... I'm not going to critisize that university until I see proof that you actually graduated from there with a degree in Geography.
Which brings me to another point, if you actually are a geographer why are you passing yourself off as a "therapist".
Do you tell your clients that you are a geographer and do not have a degree in psychology, or are you concealing that information from them.
And by "concealing" I also mean misleading them by refering to your university education but not the faculty you belonged to.

It's probably a part of the skeptical character to be a little paranoid about things that cannot be proven. I can understand that.

Nope, skeptics are not "paranoid". If you actually understood what paranoid meant then you would know that.
And as for what you understand I doubt you understand anything at all..



Tishayton if you are writing a book about something that you know nothing about
then you are just lazy and attention seeking.

[/QUOTE]

[bookitty]

The numbers are interesting but there is no mention of the age or developmental stage of the surviving twin. At what stage does this most often take place? If it is in the first or second trimester, it's difficult to believe that the surviving fetus would have any memory.

Even if it takes place in the third trimester, there is nothing to suggest that the brain is developed enough to retain this memory. Or, further, that it causes life long trauma.

The number of potential "surviving" twins has nothing to with fetal guilt and/or loss.



It's probably a part of the skeptical character to be a little paranoid about things that cannot be proven. I can understand that.



Cute. According to you, paranoia is a sign of narcissism.

[GNB Spotter]

Hi Everyone

My Name is Gerald N Burnett

I would like to thank each and everyone of you who contributed in unmasking Althea Hayton for who she is a Fraudulant Misfit.I have delt with her personally in confronting her through this whole journey of her wombtwin hypothesis for the past three years and beleive me it was a total pleasure to identify to all the critical thinking and accuracy that poured of your sharings

She has no PHD in Psychology... no Therapist certification, no Stastics analysis degree and has used and abused wombtwin survivors including me in promoting her own unresolved wombtwin brother loss and yet has no proof whatsover of that reality...She passes herself as and expert in this field of Woundtwin Survivors around the world no less to promote her own writings .engrained dellusional beleifs, even her attempted profiling of wombtwin survivors is bogus and when I brought it to her attention ..I was accused of flamming her.

For those of you who have access to her Blog... wombtwin survivors dot blogspot dot com/

Have a look at what she wrote about you all under:
I've found a control group!Sunday, March 14, 2010

BTY ..I was the one who she shares getting a lambasting from and of course without using my name.

Warmest Regards

Gerald

[bookitty]

Hi Everyone

My Name is Gerald N Burnett

I would like to thank each and everyone of you who contributed in unmasking Althea Hayton for who she is a Fraudulant Misfit.I have delt with her personally in confronting her through this whole journey of her wombtwin hypothesis for the past three years and beleive me it was a total pleasure to identify to all the critical thinking and accuracy that poured of your sharings

She has no PHD in Psychology... no Therapist certification, no Stastics analysis degree and has used and abused wombtwin survivors including me in promoting her own unresolved wombtwin brother loss and yet has no proof whatsover of that reality...She passes herself as and expert in this field of Woundtwin Survivors around the world no less to promote her own writings .engrained dellusional beleifs, even her attempted profiling of wombtwin survivors is bogus and when I brought it to her attention ..I was accused of flamming her.

For those of you who have access to her Blog... wombtwin survivors dot blogspot dot com/

Have a look at what she wrote about you all under:
I've found a control group!Sunday, March 14, 2010

BTY ..I was the one who she shares getting a lambasting from and of course without using my name.

Warmest Regards

Gerald

Gerald, welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing your experiences. I am very sorry that happened to you, abuse by a therapist is horrible. It is a betrayal of trust that strikes deep.

May I ask your take on the womb twin hypothesis?

ETA: you say "BTY ..I was the one who she shares getting a lambasting from and of course without using my name." but there are no longer comments on the site. The option was there when I checked a few days ago but there weren't any comments posted. Did that change?

[GNB Spotter]

Gerald, welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing your experiences. I am very sorry that happened to you, abuse by a therapist is horrible. It is a betrayal of trust that strikes deep.

Hi Bookitty thanks for the Welcome...follow a copy of her thread below..I know She has deleted three of my comments and blocked the comment option from me..then again perhaps she has for everyone else too..I have already sent three nasty comments involving a law suit coming her way and reporting her to a PPPNA convention panel she is planning to attend... of her false credentials and the reference to discovering this precious forum..might have panicked her...not sure of that though.

She was not a therapist when we connected three years ago... then one year ago she self promotes herself as a therapist which is B.S on and on to an Authority on Wombtwin Survivors worldwide ..and yes it did wound me to be sure and of course she never responded.. when I confronted her about her qualifications as a therapist

May I ask your take on the womb twin hypothesis? It is all bogus and as per JREF Post #45 without merit going back to seven years ago is a little late for control groups after already publishing several books.

ETA: you say "BTY ..I was the one who she shares getting a lambasting from and of course without using my name." but there are no longer comments on the site. The option was there when I checked a few days ago but there weren't any comments posted. Did that change?Sunday, March 14, 2010

Per Althea Hayton below

I've found a control group!

I have been on a forum with people who believe in critical thinking, and after the lambasting I got in December from an individual on the wombtwin forum (see "I've been flamed" below) about my research results, I am beginning to think I may be going the wrong way about this. So I asked for some advice from people who reckon to know.

Anyhow, just recently I've had quite a run-in with a few of them see here.

The latest post is sensational! (It concerns a Dr Ross, who is researching some kind of psychic ability)

* What I was implying is that you and Dr.Colin Ross are exploiting vulnerable people for your own purposes through fraudulent therapy.
* Both of you cling onto refuted and unscientific thoughts and beliefs as if they were a religion to be worshipped uncritically.
* You support your delusions through a network of others within that cult.
* You encourage mentally fragile and easily manipulated people to convert to your beliefs by fraudualently claiming authority in an area that you have no authority in.
* You iatrogenically produced false survivors or twins and documented your results while maintaining your self annointed authourity which ultimately perpetuates this quackery.


[If that's what I've been doing to you, please leave now by the side entrance, for I have been told that you are obviously mentally fragile and easily manipulated. But dont tell me, or I may be terribly upset because it may dampen my fragile little Ego which I am bolstering with my Cult.]

Wow! If I wanted a group of people to compare notes with, this is it. Absolutely sure that they are not womb twin survivors, and even if they were, that it would not leave any impression on their psyche. Great!

Today I know what to do: to find a group of absolute and utter sceptics to complete the questionnaire for me and hey presto! there is my control group, which I have been looking for for years, so I can begin to make comparisons.

All I have to do is to find 700 sceptics to match the 700 questionnaires - I wonder where I start?

The trouble is, can I be absolutely sure that sceptics are not sceptical because they are womb twin survivors? That is always the problem.......

But that is for the future. The chapters continue to develop. Chapter 9 now.

After all. I must keep busy "iatrogenically producing false survivors or twins", not to mention "bolstering my self-anointed authority. " With all that to do, Im not sure how I will have time for any more research!


What fun this is!
Posted by Althea Hayton at 3:27 PM

[Roma]

Sunday, March 14, 2010

What fun this is!
Posted by Althea Hayton at 3:27 PM

Thank-you for that information GNB Spotter,

now that I know more about Althea it just makes me sick,

I can't even tell you how angry I am because there are rules here.

[bookitty]

GNB Spotter: Thank you for the clarification. So you are the "narcissist" she mentions in her oh-pity-me-I-was-flamed post. It must have been very frustrating to be the lone voice of reason. (And no, I don't think you are a narcissist. If I had to guess I'd say the word has been tossed at Mrs. Hayton often enough that she looked up and now cherry-picks what she needs. It is, after all, her MO.)

Mrs. Hayton is not a therapist and she has no right to treat people or to expect support for her completely bogus ideas. But she does and she will continue to do so, blind to any potential harm. The only good thing about this sick scenario is her lack of access to people who will believe her.

There's an entire cottage industry of those who make up pretty stories for fragile people, each of them with their own scientifically unsound view. In general, they are not capable of deviating from their own script and their clients tend to move on rather quickly. Some turn to actual medicine, some to the next shiny thing. Very few of these pseudo-healers actually end up successful and wealthy, the next Kevin Trudeau or James Arthur Ray. It's also noteworthy that both those men are currently facing legal battles.

She is incredibly annoying but she's not terribly important.

[GNB Spotter]

GNB Spotter: Thank you for the clarification. So you are the "narcissist" she mentions in her oh-pity-me-I-was-flamed post. It must have been very frustrating to be the lone voice of reason. (And no, I don't think you are a narcissist. If I had to guess I'd say the word has been tossed at Mrs. Hayton often enough that she looked up and now cherry-picks what she needs. It is, after all, her MO.)

Yes indeed it was very frustrating and I am not a Narcissit...interestingly enough she has a son who is one by her own admission a full bown Narcissit and now claims all Identical Wombtwin Survivors are narcissists..I actually confronted her on these projections...That I am not her son... which fell on deaf ears of course.

Mrs. Hayton is not a therapist and she has no right to treat people or to expect support for her completely bogus ideas. But she does and she will continue to do so, blind to any potential harm. The only good thing about this sick scenario is her lack of access to people who will believe her.

There's an entire cottage industry of those who make up pretty stories for fragile people, each of them with their own scientifically unsound view. In general, they are not capable of deviating from their own script and their clients tend to move on rather quickly. Some turn to actual medicine, some to the next shiny thing. Very few of these pseudo-healers actually end up successful and wealthy, the next Kevin Trudeau or James Arthur Ray. It's also noteworthy that both those men are currently facing legal battles.

She is incredibly annoying but she's not terribly important.

Yes I agree ..that is where I"m at... She is but a viral seed of consciousness in this vast ocean of Conciousness.

[Belz...]

I'm new here, so sorry in advance if I am doing this wrong. I am working as a therapist with people (womb twin survivors) who say they have some kind of cellular memory of a twin lost before birth. Some have proof of their lost twin and others don't - or cant get hold of it because their mother has died or wont say etc. I have been talking to experts, but I want to find out how skeptical people (who are coming to this "cold" with presumably little or no previous knowledge) are about the whole idea of some kind of pre-birth memory. So that is why Im posting here.

I was very skeptical at first myself, but the evidence in favour is beginning to mount up. What advice do you all have about how I ought to carry out the research? Thanks.

Cellular memory ?

There are no mechanisms within cells to carry such information.

[Belz...]

No, it's impossible.

People don't remember things the way a tape machine does. In order to form a memory, you must have a matrix in which to put it. You have to be able to index it so that you can retrieve it.

Consider, for example, all of the things you were taught in your high school social studies class that you have no memory of. In part, that's because the information didn't mean anything to you. You didn't care; you couldn't relate to it; so you had no way to put it in memory so it could be accessed later.

Also, we have finite amounts of space. At some point I guess we have to replace the older, less-accessed or less-relevant memories.

[GNB Spotter]

Thank-you for that information GNB Spotter,

now that I know more about Althea it just makes me sick,

I can't even tell you how angry I am because there are rules here.

Yes Roma.. Personally I can identify...I have used every derogatory word in the dictionay in my release of this anger towards this misfit. I might even create some new ones...lol

[GNB Spotter]

Bookitty..Althea has unlocked the comment option on her Blog..perhaps you may choose to comment on...I have found a control group

[shuttlt]

Could it maybe be the water in the amniotic fluid holding the memories while the foetus develops? I think there may have been a thread postulating water memory.

[zooterkin]

Could it maybe be the water in the amniotic fluid holding the memories while the foetus develops? I think there may have been a thread postulating water memory.

Well, that would tie in with homeopathy...

[shuttlt]

Well, that would tie in with homeopathy...
Yes! It's all connected. Did you know for instance that the reason the womb twins are dying is EMF from mobile phones? Why do you think in the 19th century everybody had such large families? Very few mobile phones, so all the womb twins lived, that's why! Where is the information about whether the 9/11 hijackers were womb twins? It's being supressed because the truth would blow the whole system wide open.

[Loss Leader]

Per Althea Hayton below

I've found a control group!

...

Wow! If I wanted a group of people to compare notes with, this is it. Absolutely sure that they are not womb twin survivors, and even if they were, that it would not leave any impression on their psyche. Great!



Face
Palm

The woman seems to have not the least idea of the definition of either the word "control" or "group".

Is much scientific research done on self-selecting populations? What if one of the populations is selecting for a trait that doesn't exist?

I knew she was trawling around here, looking for a way to steal "skeptical" ideas to create her own, personal strawman. I didn't know she would be so blatant.

[shuttlt]

I wonder whether there is any connection with Indigo children?

[zooterkin]

Yes! It's all connected. Did you know for instance that the reason the womb twins are dying is EMF from mobile phones? Why do you think in the 19th century everybody had such large families? Very few mobile phones, so all the womb twins lived, that's why! Where is the information about whether the 9/11 hijackers were womb twins? It's being supressed because the truth would blow the whole system wide open.

You've failed to mention Big Pharma, and the effect of the contraceptive pill, but I'm sure that's just an oversight, likewise with GM foods. :)



Here's the link to the blog, btw, for those that haven't found it yet - http://wombtwin-survivors.blogspot.com/

[Roma]

You've failed to mention Big Pharma, and the effect of the contraceptive pill, but I'm sure that's just an oversight, likewise with GM foods. :)



Here's the link to the blog, btw, for those that haven't found it yet - http://wombtwin-survivors.blogspot.com/

Please tell me you're joking,
I can't tell anymore,
I think I have to wash my eye balls now :boggled:

[bookitty]

Bookitty..Althea has unlocked the comment option on her Blog..perhaps you may choose to comment on...I have found a control group

Unfortunately, anything I could say would only give this delusional woman more fuel. She is incapable of hearing or applying logic. It would be a huge waste of time.

For example, she has added a short questionnaire (because the large one worked out so well? /sarcasm)

How do you know you are a womb twin survivor?
I was told
I feel it deep inside
Because you say I must be
I had no twin
I have found evidence
I cannot ask my family about it
There is another reason not listed here

It is obvious that she is trying to use this to prove that she has not planted memories. The many studies on false memory guarantee that she will get the result she wants. People simply don't remember where they got information.

But please notice that only two people have answered. That is as it should be. (although I am guessing that number will go up dramatically very soon.)

[GNB Spotter]

Please tell me you're joking,
I can't tell anymore,
I think I have to wash my eye balls now :boggled:

Roma...thanks for the Blog link. Now get ready for a surprise... As you folks already know Althea has operated under two accounts on this forum and I found a post under label( skepticism). dated Feb 23/ 2007 on the wombtwin blog... which was her original account.

Hang on to your eyeballs Roma... :-)

[bookitty]

Roma...thanks for the Blog link. Now get ready for a surprise... As you folks already know Althea has operated under two accounts on this forum and I found a post under label( skepticism). dated Feb 23/ 2007 on the wombtwin blog... which was her original account.

Hang on to your eyeballs Roma... :-)

GNB Spotter, I understand your disgust with the Hayton woman and I fully understand wanting to point out all of her petty little ways. But we are already aware of her views regarding skeptics and skepticism.

Getting all riled up because the irrational person shows no grasp of logic is useless. If there is some action you can recommend, I am happy to listen. Merely giving Mrs. Hayton more of the attention she craves is not satisfying.

[GNB Spotter]

Unfortunately, anything I could say would only give this delusional woman more fuel. She is incapable of hearing or applying logic. It would be a huge waste of time.

For example, she has added a short questionnaire (because the large one worked out so well? /sarcasm)

How do you know you are a womb twin survivor?
I was told
I feel it deep inside
Because you say I must be
I had no twin
I have found evidence
I cannot ask my family about it
There is another reason not listed here

It is obvious that she is trying to use this to prove that she has not planted memories. The many studies on false memory guarantee that she will get the result she wants. People simply don't remember where they got information.

But please notice that only two people have answered. That is as it should be. (although I am guessing that number will go up dramatically very soon.)

Right on Bookitty... I am Noticing quite frankly most of her posts have zero responses...I feel she has reached her peak of incredulity...and yes she is using Subliminal Induction to pray on visitors...What a Sick Sick Sick distorted person.

[GNB Spotter]

Ok Bootkitty..I hear you loud and clear... I stand corrected...and I appreciate the cease and decease order..Thank you. I have already placed an Copyright Infringement order in the past and it worked so..now onto further legal action is in order.

[kerikiwi]

.and I appreciate the cease and decease order..

To be fair, I don't think Bootkitty really wants you dead. ;)

[GNB Spotter]

To be fair, I don't think Bootkitty really wants you dead. ;)

No problem Kerikiki... I am sure Bookitty does not want me dead...my intent was to exit from any further dialogue to the contentious issue involving this misfit. and I agree with gratitude.

[Retrograde]

Yes! It's all connected. Did you know for instance that the reason the womb twins are dying is EMF from mobile phones? Why do you think in the 19th century everybody had such large families? Very few mobile phones, so all the womb twins lived, that's why! Where is the information about whether the 9/11 hijackers were womb twins? It's being supressed because the truth would blow the whole system wide open.

Wow! I never thought of it that way! Everything's connected! Look at the colors, man! Now all you have to do is tie that water memory guy from What the Bleep Do We Know? in and you have the next big thing in woo.

Here's the link to the blog, btw, for those that haven't found it yet - http://wombtwin-survivors.blogspot.com/

Now my brain hurts. No only does she not understand "control group" she can't write a coherent poll.

[GNB Spotter]

No problem Kerikiki... I am sure Bookitty does not want me dead...my intent was to exit from any further dialogue to the contentious issue involving this misfit. and I agree with gratitude.

Ooops I goofed... I meant to say Cease and Desist order... My French origins contaminated my spelling...Sorry..

[kerikiwi]

Ooops I goofed... I meant to say Cease and Desist order... My French origins contaminated my spelling...Sorry..

That was what I was getting at. ;)
I love a good typo.

[bookitty]

No problem Kerikiki... I am sure Bookitty does not want me dead...my intent was to exit from any further dialogue to the contentious issue involving this misfit. and I agree with gratitude.

I am glad to have you on board. I discovered this forum because I was furious about a bogus AIDS cure. Since then it has offered much information and quite a bit of entertainment. I hope that you enjoy the same.

[GNB Spotter]

I am glad to have you on board. I discovered this forum because I was furious about a bogus AIDS cure. Since then it has offered much information and quite a bit of entertainment. I hope that you enjoy the same.

Thank you Bookitty... I truly do enjoy being here and the feedback I have received from all of you has tremendously helped me in venting my frusfrations and in releasing my attachments of the woundings of this misguided person representing the Wombtwin Survivors as a whole.. :)

I now consider myself an awakened and initiated Skeptic...and proud to be part of this endeavour. ;)

Warmest Regards to all.

[GNB Spotter]

Thank you Bookitty... I truly do enjoy being here and the feedback I have received from all of you has tremendously helped me in venting my frusfrations and in releasing my attachments of the woundings of this misguided person representing the Wombtwin Survivors as a whole.. :)

I now consider myself an awakened and initiated Skeptic...and proud to be part of this endeavour. ;)

Warmest Regards to all.

Sunday, March 21, 2010 on Althea's Blog:

After the maelstrom of last week, being accused of being a "fraud" and promoting some kind of "delusion" or " fantasy" to people who are "mentally fragile and easily manipulated" etc etc. by a bunch of so-called "skeptics" on their own special forum for being sceptical about everything (except being sceptical) I returned home from holiday to find a load of emails.

Althea

Are you not a Fraud?... I apologise for the possible mis-directed 185 posts so called skeptics at theThe James Randi Educational Foundation a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information.

You are rather a full blown unreachable Sociopath... without sound logic. www dot mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Do your own personal Psychological profiling ...of course Sociopaths do not present themselves at a Psychiatrist"s office correct?...unless mandated by Law.

Let me know if I can help you with that.

Regards

Gerald N Burnett

[calebprime]

Nah, calling someone a sociopath is just rhetoric, a little more extreme than calling someone a 'narcissist'.

Both have some technical meaning, but both are just used as terms of abuse for people you don't like.

Usually, they are terms of abuse for people that other people perceive as dishonest or committed to some incomprehensible form of life.

Another (not so) veiled insult is 'get help.'

Of course, the insult may or may not be justified.

[GNB Spotter]

Nah, calling someone a sociopath is just rhetoric, a little more extreme than calling someone a 'narcissist'.

Both have some technical meaning, but both are just used as terms of abuse for people you don't like.

Usually, they are terms of abuse for people that other people perceive as dishonest or committed to some incomprehensible form of life.

Another (not so) veiled insult is 'get help.'

Of course, the insult may or may not be justified.

Caleprime

Did you happen to follow the many sources within the link I provided in my posting?

Profile of the Sociopath...Narcissism is part of it and included in DSM IV... It is a Fact of life.. not an insult on my part.

[Roma]

Of course you could try the direct approach,
the way I do with my comments to my former psychiatist:

"Dear Dr.Colin Ross,

blah blah blah.....
...blah blah blah.

Get help for Christ sake."

[Miss_Kitt]

Actually, if this woman is promoting 'treatments' or group therapy or something, can she be pursued for trying to practice medicine without a license?

I can't speak for elsewhere, but in my State in the USA, you are not allowed to be a mental health counselor of *any* kind -- not even unpaid -- without passing certain exams and being vetted for previous criminal misconduct, etc.

I have not gone to this website, and I don't intend to. It might, however, be worthwhile to see whether the relevent authorities think she is in violation of the local regs concerning professional licensing.

One other thought: IIRC, she is British. While she is a very small fish in the Woo pond, she does have an amazingly bad idea as her starting point. It might be worth suggesting, politely and without going into detail, that her website and claims be looked at by Dr. Ben Goldacre, who writes the wonderful "Bad Science" blog.

http://www.badscience.net/

Gerald, I sympathize with your plight. Having someone lead you down a false road when you are seeking to understand things in your head that aren't where you'd like them to be is truly a betrayal.

Snake oil is best peddled in the dark and among the ignorant; drawing some critical attention may be the best way of fighting her.

Best wishes, MK

[GNB Spotter]

Actually, if this woman is promoting 'treatments' or group therapy or something, can she be pursued for trying to practice medicine without a license?

I can't speak for elsewhere, but in my State in the USA, you are not allowed to be a mental health counselor of *any* kind -- not even unpaid -- without passing certain exams and being vetted for previous criminal misconduct, etc.

I have not gone to this website, and I don't intend to. It might, however, be worthwhile to see whether the relevent authorities think she is in violation of the local regs concerning professional licensing.

One other thought: IIRC, she is British. While she is a very small fish in the Woo pond, she does have an amazingly bad idea as her starting point. It might be worth suggesting, politely and without going into detail, that her website and claims be looked at by Dr. Ben Goldacre, who writes the wonderful "Bad Science" blog.

Gerald, I sympathize with your plight. Having someone lead you down a false road when you are seeking to understand things in your head that aren't where you'd like them to be is truly a betrayal.

Snake oil is best peddled in the dark and among the ignorant; drawing some critical attention may be the best way of fighting her.

Best wishes, MK

Hi... Miss Kitt

Thanks for the Bad Science Blog link and your supportive feedback.

As for Althea's Credentials ...she has none whatesoever in any field you mentioned... except being and untreated Sociopath.

I was suspicious of this Quack back in 2008 when I began questioning her on her wombtwin hypothesis and her so called wombtwin profiling Questionaire which most neurotic person could easily answer and thus qualify as wombtwin survivor..what a sad (F******) joke to say the least.

Warm Regards

GNB

[Roma]

Hi... Miss Kitt

As for Althea's Credentials ...she has none whatesoever in any field you mentioned...
GNB

Yes of course GNB, she does not have any credentials to practice mental health therapy as far as we know,
but does she require any credentials where she is working ?
If she does require certification of some kind and she does not have it then she can be in some kind of legal trouble.
If she is claiming to have credentials that she does not have then she can be charged with fraud.
If she is "implying" that she has some kind of credentials by means of referring to her Oxford education for example (see her post #60):
"When I studied Geography at Oxford University in 1965" , she could possibly be legally charged with fraudulent concealment. That would mean that she was "holding herself out" as being something that she is not and having something that she is not, and deliberately concealing that information from her clients which would allow them to make infomed consent to the therapy she is providing to them under the guise of an Oxford trained psychotherapist.

Anyway, I hope you sue the pants off her.

[GNB Spotter]

Yes of course GNB, she does not have any credentials to practice mental health therapy as far as we know,
but does she require any credentials where she is working ?

Hi Roma..yes she does require licensing according to a (google search) The British Psychology Society.

Anyway, I hope you sue the pants off her.

I am working on it.. and she knows I am.:)

GNB

[Roma]

I am working on it.. and she knows I am.:)

GNB

Good to hear,

GNB why not call up my friend in the U.K.,
she would have resources available to help you:

UNITED KINGDOM
The British False Memory Society
Madeline 44-1225 868-682

(don't worry this phone number is already available on the web)