Candace Newmaker Controversial therapy that killed - MywallpapersMobi

Candace Newmaker Controversial therapy that killed

Candace Newmaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

Candace Newmaker
Candace Tiara Elmore

(1989-11-19)November 19, 1989

Lincolnton, North Carolina , US
DiedApril 18, 2000(2000-04-18) (aged 10)

Evergreen, Colorado , US
Cause of deathSuffocation

Candace Elizabeth Newmaker (born Candace Tiara Elmore, November 19, 1989 – April 18, 2000) was a victim of child abuse , killed during a 70-minute attachment therapy session purported to treat reactive attachment disorder . The treatment used that day included a rebirthing script, during which Candace was suffocated. The story had international coverage.


  • 1 History
  • 2 Attachment therapy and Candace’s death
  • 3 Convictions
  • 4 Effects
  • 5 In popular culture
  • 6 See also
  • 7 References
  • 8 External links

History[ edit ]

Candace was born in Lincolnton, North Carolina to Angela and Todd Elmore. At a young age, she and her younger brother Michael and sister Chelsea were removed from the home for neglect and separated by social services . When she was five, her parents’ parental rights were terminated. Two years later she was adopted by Jeane Elizabeth Newmaker, a single woman and pediatric nurse practitioner in Durham, North Carolina .

Within months of the adoption, Jeane began taking Candace to a psychiatrist , complaining about her behavior and attitude at home. Though Candace was treated with medications, Jeane reported that Candace’s behavior got worse during the ensuing two years, a period supposedly including her playing with matches and killing goldfish. [1]

Attachment therapy and Candace’s death[ edit ]

See also: Attachment therapy and Reactive attachment disorder

Candace and Jeane Newmaker traveled to Evergreen, Colorado in April 2000, for a $7,000 two-week “intensive” session of attachment therapy with Connell Watkins, upon a referral from William Goble, a licensed psychologist in North Carolina. [1] [2] [3]

Candace died during the second week of the intensive sessions with Watkins during what has been called a “rebirthing” session. Participating in the fatal session as therapists were Watkins and Julie Ponder, along with Candace’s “therapeutic foster parents”, Brita St. Clair, Jack McDaniel, and Jeane Newmaker. [3]

Following the script for that day’s treatment, Candace was wrapped in a flannel sheet and covered with pillows to simulate a womb or birth canal and was told to fight her way out of it, with the apparent expectation that the experience would help her “attach” to her adoptive mother. Four of the adults (weighing a combined total of 673 pounds) used their hands and feet to push on Candace’s head, chest and 70-pound body to resist her attempts to free herself, while she complained, pleaded, and even screamed for help and air, unable to escape from the sheet. Candace stated eleven times during the session that she was dying, to which Ponder responded, “You want to die? OK, then die. Go ahead, die right now”. [1] Twenty minutes into the session, Candace had vomited and excreted inside of the sheet; she was nonetheless kept restrained within. [2]

Forty minutes into the session, Jeane said to Candace “This baby doesn’t want to live. She’s a quitter.” Candace faintly responded “no”; this would ultimately be her last word. To this, Ponder replied, “Quitter, quitter, quitter, quitter! Quit, quit, quit, quit. She’s a quitter!” [4] Jeane Newmaker, who said later she felt rejected by Candace’s inability to be reborn, was asked by Watkins to leave the room, in order for Candace not to “pick up on (Jeane’s) sorrow”. Soon thereafter, Watkins requested the same of McDaniel and Brita St. Clair, leaving only herself and Ponder in the room with Candace. After talking for five minutes, the two unwrapped Candace and found that she was motionless, blue on the fingertips and lips, and not breathing. Upon seeing this, Watkins declared, “Oh there she is; she’s sleeping in her vomit,” whereupon the mother, who had been watching on a monitor in another room, rushed into the room, remarked on Candace’s color, and began CPR while Watkins called 9-1-1 . When paramedics arrived ten minutes later, McDaniel told them that Candace had been left alone for five minutes during a rebirthing session and was not breathing. The paramedics surmised that Candace had been unconscious and possibly not breathing for some time. Paramedics were able to restore the girl’s pulse and she was flown by helicopter to a hospital in Denver; however, she was declared brain-dead the next day as a consequence of asphyxia . [1] [3] [5]

The entire 70 minutes of the fatal session, as well as ten hours of other sessions from the preceding days, had been videotaped as a matter of course with Watkins’s treatment. All the videos were shown at the trial of Watkins and Ponder. [3] [6]

Convictions[ edit ]

A year later, Watkins and Ponder were tried and convicted of reckless child abuse resulting in death and received 16-year prison sentences. Brita St. Clair and Jack McDaniel, the therapeutic foster parents, pleaded guilty to criminally negligent child abuse and were given ten years’ probation and 1,000 hours of community service in a plea bargain . [7] [8] The adoptive mother, Jeane Newmaker, a nurse practitioner, pleaded guilty to neglect and abuse charges and was given a four-year suspended sentence, after which the charges were expunged from her record. An appeal by Watkins against conviction and sentence failed. [9] Watkins was paroled in June 2008, under “intense supervision” with restrictions on contact with children or counseling work, having served approximately 7 years of her 16-year sentence. [10]

Effects[ edit ]

The story of Candace’s death was a national one in the United States, with contemporaneous reports about her death and the subsequent trial of her therapists appearing in newspapers and news magazines all around the country, as well as internationally.

The case also generated enduring controversy about attachment therapy . It was the motivation behind “Candace’s Law”, in Colorado and North Carolina , which outlawed dangerous re-enactments of the birth experience. [11] [12] The US House of Representatives and Senate have separately passed resolutions urging similar actions in other states. [13]

In popular culture[ edit ]

The 2017 web series Petscop alludes to Newmaker, with references including the name of the “Newmaker Plane”, the setting of the titular video game, and several mentions of a character named “Tiara”. [14]

The YouTube channels The Game Theorists and Pyrocynical covered Petscop, and in extension, Newmaker. [15] [16]

See also[ edit ]

  • Attachment disorder
  • Attachment therapy
  • Advocates for Children in Therapy
  • Michael and Sharen Gravelle
  • Reactive attachment disorder

References[ edit ]

  1. ^ a b c d Crowder C; Lowe P. “Her name was Candace” , Denver Rocky Mountain News, October 29, 2000
  2. ^ a b Siegen B, “Seeking child’s love, a child’s life is lost”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4 Feb 2001, pp A1, A22-A24
  3. ^ a b c d Auge K, ” Alternative therapies not new in Evergreen “, Denver Post, June 17, 2000
  4. ^ Caldwell C, “Colorado rebirthers convicted”, Weekly Standard, 28 May 2001, 6(35):20ff
  5. ^ Gillan G, “Cuddles that kill” , Guardian Unlimited, June 20, 2001. Archived September 25, 2006, at the Wayback Machine .
  6. ^ Mercer, J; Sarner, L; Rosa, L (2006), Attachment therapy on trial: The torture and death of Candace Newmaker, Child Psychology and Mental Health, chapter by Costa G., Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, ISBN   0-275-97675-0 , ISSN   1538-8883 , OCLC   51242100

  7. ^ Sink M, “Rockies: Colorado: Probation in suffocation death”, New York Times October 5, 2001
  8. ^ Nicholson K, “Rebirthing aides to plead to lesser charges in death”, Denver Post, August 2, 2001
  9. ^ Affirmation of judgement and sentence on appeal by Watkins (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-09-07, retrieved 2008-04-18
  10. ^ The Associated Press (3 August 2008), “Therapist In ‘Rebirthing’ Death In Halfway House” ,, archived from the original on August 6, 2008, retrieved 2008-08-08
  11. ^ Sarner, L, “‘Rebirthers’ who killed child receive 16-year prison terms” , Quackwatch, June 19, 2001.
  12. ^ Candace’s Law
  13. ^ “Senate condemns rebirthing techniques” , Women’s Policy, 10(68), ISSN 1526-8713 Archived January 28, 2006, at the Wayback Machine .
  14. ^ Hernandez, Patricia (2017-04-21). “People Are Trying To Find The Truth About A Creepy ‘Unfinished’ PlayStation Game” . Kotaku. Retrieved 2017-11-24.
  15. ^ “Game Theory Petscop, The Scariest Game You’ll NEVER Play” . iMDB. Retrieved 2018-03-05.
  16. ^ Pyrocynical (2017-09-05), Petscop: The Best Game You’ve Never Played , retrieved 2018-04-11

External links[ edit ]

  • Summary of press reports on case at Advocates for Children in Therapy
  • Transcript of excerpts from the videotaped final therapy session
  • Denver Rocky Mountain News special coverage (“Her Name was Candace”)
Authority control Edit this at Wikidata
  • WorldCat Identities
  • GND : 128627077
  • ISNI : 0000 0000 3252 167X
  • LCCN : n2002154872
  • VIAF : 10903178

Retrieved from ” ”
Categories :

  • 1989 births
  • 2000 deaths
  • People from Lincolnton, North Carolina
  • Child abuse resulting in death
  • American adoptees
  • Adoption history
  • Filmed killings
Hidden categories:

  • Webarchive template wayback links
  • Pages to import images to Wikidata
  • Articles with hCards
  • Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
  • Wikipedia articles with ISNI identifiers
  • Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers
  • Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers

Navigation menu

Personal tools

  • Not logged in
  • Talk
  • Contributions
  • Create account
  • Log in


  • Article
  • Talk



    • Read
    • Edit
    • View history



      • Main page
      • Contents
      • Featured content
      • Current events
      • Random article
      • Donate to Wikipedia
      • Wikipedia store


      • Help
      • About Wikipedia
      • Community portal
      • Recent changes
      • Contact page


      • What links here
      • Related changes
      • Upload file
      • Special pages
      • Permanent link
      • Page information
      • Wikidata item
      • Cite this page


      • Create a book
      • Download as PDF
      • Printable version


      • العربية
      • Català
      • Español
      • Nederlands
      Edit links

      • This page was last edited on 18 November 2018, at 22:05 (UTC).
      • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;
        additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , a non-profit organization.
      • Privacy policy
      • About Wikipedia
      • Disclaimers
      • Contact Wikipedia
      • Developers
      • Cookie statement
      • Mobile view
      • Wikimedia Foundation
      • Powered by MediaWiki

      The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice

      Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work
      SRMHP Home / Spring ~ Summer 2004 Volume 3 Number 1 /


      Attachment Therapies: A Deadly Cure without a Disease?

      Review of Attachment Therapy on Trial: The Torture and Death of Candace Newmaker
      by Jean Mercer, Larry Sarner, and Linda Rosa

      For years, scientifically minded mental healthcare professionals have decried the use of unsupported techniques, especially �fringe therapies.� By and large, these are faddish practices based on theories that run counter to mainstream psychology, and that often closely resemble New Age cults. Most troublingly, such untested therapies are being foisted upon children in our society, who are subject to the vagaries of our laws, mental health systems, and the choices of parents who may be uninformed.

      Although the constellation of techniques called attachment therapy (AT) has been implicated in the deaths of several children, the most publicized case was the death in 2000 of Candace Newmaker, a 10-year-old girl who suffocated on her own vomit as a team of attachment therapists and her adoptive mother stood by and ignored her pleas to be released. In Attachment Therapy on Trial: The Torture and Death of Candace Newmaker (2003), Jean Mercer, Larry Sarner, and Linda Rosa tell Candace�s poignant tale, and provide a thorough analysis of the convergence of cultural trends, societal beliefs, and fallacious reasoning that culminated in her death.

      Attachment Therapy on Trial is a truly ambitious undertaking. In the introduction, the authors outline the three-part organization of the book: first, a case study of Candace�s life and death; second, a comparative discussion evaluating AT principles in the context of research-based views of human development and psychological scientists; and third, an analysis of the events in the Newmaker case with respect to such causal factors as societal trends and common errors in reasoning. Mercer, Sarner, and Rosa refreshingly refuse to offer even a pretense of a superficially �balanced� perspective on AT. Instead, they adopt a strong anti-AT stance, based on the strong preponderance of evidence that favors such a position.

      Candace Newmaker was one of several offspring of a teenage mother (who had herself been born to a teenage mother) and a violent father. Her family had a history of involvement with social services, and her mother was living in a home for mentally ill children when Candace was born. On the surface, it appeared that pediatric nurse Jeane Newmaker would provide Candace with opportunities that her low social class and disorganized family life could not. As occurs in many adoptions, after an initial �honeymoon� period, Jeane began to complain that her new daughter was behaving negatively. Soon, Candace began to see a series of psychotherapists and received a series of diagnoses (including posttraumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder) and psychiatric medications. During this period, Candace�s school and psychiatrists rarely communicated with each other. Instead, Jeane Newmaker was the sole go-between in seeking services for Candace. Much to Candace�s detriment, Jeane effectively become her caseworker. Though none of Candace�s psychiatrists had suggested that attachment issues were at the root of her emotional difficulties, when Jeane heard through a county social worker about an upcoming workshop at the Guilford Attachment Center in High Point, North Carolina, she chose to attend. Soon, Jeane began to attend group meetings with other worried parents, and took Candace for individual sessions with an AT practitioner.

      The treatment she received, holding therapy, was one of a series of sadistic and abusive practices all classified broadly as �attachment therapies,� and was based on the same principles as the techniques that led to her death. During these holding sessions, Candace was grabbed by the face, shouted at, and immobilized. The authors consistently offer concrete examples of the practices involved in attachment therapies. This sort of descriptive frankness is conspicuously absent from materials issued by the Association for the Treatment and Training of Attachment in Children (ATTACh) and other organizations that promote AT. As observers at the trial of therapists Julie Ponder and Connell Watkins, the authors were privy to many hours of testimony and videotape, which provided a rare glimpse into the workings of a fringe practice. In the aftermath of Candace�s case, a quick visit to the ATTACh website revealed that the organization has put its �treatment manual� online, although most specifics revolved around �don�ts� rather than acceptable practices. Holding and restraint are still very much a part of the AT philosophy, although one of the newly posted guidelines reads �The child will never be restrained or have pressure put on them in such a manner that would interfere with their [sic] basic life functions such as breathing, circulation, temperature, etc.� (ATTACh, 2001). Notably absent from the Web site is any statement on Candace�s case, expression of remorse, or condemnation of the actions taken by her therapists. Even the site�s page titled �Recent News Articles� includes only the following headline (from the Orange County Register): �Controversial Attachment�A Couple Says Attachment Therapy, Though Linked to Deaths, Has Brought Their Raging Son Under Control.� Apparently, ATTACh�s media watch person managed to track down one of the few articles issued since the Newmaker case that does not explicitly condemn AT, although certainly not the only news item pertaining to its practices.

      As those who have followed this case know, Candace�s real troubles began when Jeane took Candace to Evergreen, Colorado, for 2 weeks of intensive attachment therapy, as recommended by representatives at an ATTACh conference. For 8 days leading up to her death, she was placed in �therapeutic foster care� with Brita St. Clair (though Jeane was in town with Candace). During her stay at Evergreen, Candace also was under the care of AT practitioners Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder. She underwent daily sessions of the same sort of �holding therapy� she had endured in North Carolina, including a session of compression therapy, in which Jeane Newmaker, a robust woman, lay on top of her and licked her face. As brutal as her treatment was during this time, it was purported to offer a respite from the confrontational techniques that ultimately led to her demise. She was to undergo a brief procedure called �rebirthing,� in which she would be tightly wrapped in a flannel sheet symbolizing the birth canal, and push her way out into the world to be �reborn� as Jeane Newmaker�s true daughter.

      The authors review the chilling videotaped proceedings that followed. Although the procedure was supposed to last for only 10 minutes, Ponder, Watkins, and Newmaker stood by and taunted Candace as she spent 40 minutes begging for air, vomiting, and choking (all of which were interpreted as active resistance). For another 30 minutes, Candace was silent, while the adults casually conversed, one of the therapists propping herself against Candace�s motionless form. When finally unwrapped, Candace was blue and had no pulse. When emergency medical workers resuscitated her, it was too late: Candace was brain-dead. She remained on life support until her organs could be harvested for transplants.

      Rather than simply treating Watkins, Ponder, St. Clair, and Newmaker as the villains, and broadly condemning AT practices, the authors undertake an extremely thorough and well-reasoned comparative analysis of research-based findings in psychology and AT beliefs. First, the authors highlight key differences between AT and �normal� psychotherapy. Although there are several major theoretical schools of psychotherapy, the authors emphasize, there are more common elements than divergences across mainstream approaches. Some key differences between AT and normal therapy practices that are underscored are: (1) an emphasis on transformation rather than communication; (2) a belief that humans can prenatally sense and interpret emotion in the self and others; (3) using touch as a key part of therapy, even with older children; and (4) using physical exertion and removal from schooling as �punishments.�

      Perhaps the most disturbing discrepancy between mainstream psychology and AT is the series of faulty assumptions that form the AT understanding of attachments and how they form. Developmental psychologists have found that attachment to familiar people forms between the ages of 6 and 24 months. Research findings consistently indicate that extremely impoverished conditions with little opportunity for social play (like those found in many Romanian orphanages) or frequent caregiver switches during this period are the most likely factors to disrupt attachment. The corresponding DSM�IV diagnosis, Reactive Attachment Disorder, describes 2 characteristic patterns of behavior that arise from such early deprivation: (1) Extremely inhibited behavior that results in a failure to respond normally to social interactions, or (2) Diffuse attachments, as marked by indiscriminate sociability. The authors assert that complete failure of attachment is so rare that it is not well understood, but contrary to some early assumptions by Bowlby (1982) and others, the result would most likely be reflected in relationship difficulties rather than a complete lack of empathy (AT theorists have borrowed a simplified version of this idea from Bowlby). AT theorists believe that poor attachment can result from just about any sort of childhood �trauma,� including run-of-the-mill poor parenting. Once labeled with �Attachment Disorder� by AT practitioners, the child is more or less demonized, and parents are typically told that their child is no more than a manipulative con artist. It is troubling to realize that at this point, the child can effectively do no right. Although most parents end up enmeshed in AT groups because of some degree of perceived negative child behavior, any attempts by the child to ameliorate the situation are seen as trickery. The authors underscore the important differences between the DSM conceptualization of Reactive Attachment Disorder and the AT version. AT practitioners use a simple checklist to diagnose �Attachment Disorder.� This checklist includes many added criteria, most of which more appropriately describe symptoms of other recognized forms of child psychopathology, such as externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and pervasive developmental disorders.

      Additionally, AT practitioners underscore the importance of prenatal attachment. According to this scientifically baseless belief, the fetus can receive and internalize the mother�s emotional states, and even early adoption is sufficiently traumatic to disrupt attachment for life (although it is well established that humans cannot remember events that happen in infancy). As the authors point out, this claim completely contradicts the findings of such researchers as Miller, Fan, Christensen, Grotevant, and van Dulmen (2000), who have found no differences in adjustment of early adopted and nonadopted children. Mercer and her coauthors emphasize that another essential faulty assumption underlying AT is �recapitulation,� the idea that a series of events that has gone wrong can be repeated in a guided way that will produce a new and desirable outcome. Alas, rebirthing does not accurately resemble the birthing experience any more than holding therapy resembles the way that human infants form attachments. Regardless of the accuracy of replication, the complexities of human development preclude us from ever stepping in the same metaphorical river twice, as the authors aptly point out.

      Nevertheless, thinking that diverges from mainstream theory is not automatically wrong; the burden is simply on AT theorists to produce findings that support their ideas and practices. Part 3 of Attachment Therapy on Trial highlights not only problems with AT and the handling of Candace�s case, but possible solutions. The first problem is the state of scientific support for AT practices. Unsurprisingly, such evidence is largely nonexistent. According to Mercer, Sarner, and Rosa, there are no randomized, controlled studies (published or otherwise) examining the efficacy of AT; additionally, there are no well-conducted case studies that included descriptions of the techniques used. There are a few weak instances of Class II (quasi-experimental) evidence posted by the Evergreen group, all rife with sampling bias and design flaws. Only one study was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Perhaps the most insightful and entertaining chapter in Attachment Therapy on Trial is the chapter dealing with the series of personal and professional errors that have led to the supply of and demand for AT and similarly appalling treatments. For example, the authors cite the unfiltered flow of sometimes erroneous information disseminated to desperate parents over the Internet, certain insidious aspects of the self-help movement, and parental beliefs about the degree of control one should exert over children as factors that may lead parents to accept AT. Additionally, factors such as a lingering popular belief in the long-debunked concept of catharsis (�If I make a child angry, it releases and �destroys� the anger�), common cognitive errors (e.g., belief in testimonials rather than scientific findings, misinterpretations of causality), and world events (e.g., exaggerated fears of youth violence, worries about the effects of preadoption conditions on child development) have a place in the system of which Candace and her therapists are a part.

      Perhaps because it is so provocative, this chapter left me with burning, unanswered questions. The motivations of the practitioners received a bit of attention in a short section on �shadow professionals,� but little explanation was presented other than the fact that such techniques are easy to learn, and come with a handsome certificate that confers legitimacy and authority upon the recipient. These are safe assumptions, but this discussion could have gone further. Why would some individuals presume that they could learn to be psychotherapists after a weekend workshop? Why are some professionals, who should know better after many years of training, drawn to fringe therapies? We may not know the answer to the latter question, intriguing as it may be. Nevertheless, some important points could have been raised about the former. Academic psychologists and those trained in research programs have not managed to communicate effectively the nature of our profession to the general public. Instead, the �psychologists� whom laypersons do typically see in the media often simply reinforce the notion that psychology is just a matter of �good people sense� and that some minimal interaction with �experts� in the field constitutes sufficient training.

      It would be an overstatement to call any chapter in Attachment Therapy on Trial weak, but relative to the other chapters, I was most dissatisfied with the chapter that dealt with the approach trained psychotherapists would have taken with Candace. Some important points about the reciprocal nature of all family interactions and adapting parenting to fit the child�s needs were included (the latter point is especially important in light of the AT philosophy that finds the child responsible for all problems). Nevertheless, this would have been an appropriate place to include one important issue that would have made this book even more compelling: how a good psychologist or psychiatrist should go about diagnosing childhood psychopathology. Especially given the authors� consensus that Candace seemed to be going through nothing more pathological than attention problems at school and mildly oppositional behavior, this subject is important to address. Further, even when Candace was being treated by the mainstream mental health system, she was given a slew of diagnoses and medications that could have aggravated her newly adoptive mother�s confusion. Labeling Candace with such diagnoses as bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder and prescribing for her antipsychotic and anxiolytic medications not only seems inappropriate, but may have erroneously confirmed Jeane Newmaker�s notion that Candace had severe psychological problems. Mercer, Sarner, and Rosa seem reluctant to indict the legitimate professionals, despite this reflection of how poorly understood and diagnosed childhood mental illness often is, even by those ostensibly qualified.

      In sum, Attachment Therapy on Trial: The Torture and Death of Candace Newmaker is an informative, well-researched, and interesting read. This book has the additional advantage of being accessible to educated laypeople, and will hopefully be read by those who are struggling with parenting issues and weighing the options of child treatment. The authors are to be commended for their fine balance of scholarship and passion in their analysis of this heartbreaking episode. Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying �The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don�t do anything about it.� Mercer, Sarner and Rosa exemplify those who are doing something about the troubling proliferation of practices that may harm those seeking help.


      ATTACh. (2001). ATTACh professional practice manual. Retrieved from .

      Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

      Mercer, J., Sarner, L., & Rosa, L. Attachment therapy on trial: The torture and death of Candace Newmaker. Westport, CT: Praeger.

      Miller, B., Fan, X., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H., & van Dulmen, M. (2000). Comparisons of adopted and non-adopted adolescents in a large, nationally represented sample. Child Development, 71, 1458�1473.

      Katherine Alexa Fowler, Ph.D. student
      Department of Psychology
      Emory University

      can read this review in

      The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice,
      vol. 3, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2004).

      Subscribe now!

      • About SRMHP
      • In The News
      • Subscriptions
      • Author Guidelines
      • Current Issue
      • Back Issues
      • Online Articles
      • Resource Links
      • Contact Us

      Affiliate Links:

      • Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH)
      • Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM)
      • Center for Inquiry International (CFI)
      • Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)
      • Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (SI)
      Center for Inquiry    | SRMHP Home | About SRMHP | Contact Us |