A bitter pill for the supplement industry.

There are any number of sins committed under the giant circus tent of self-help, but for sheer repeat-offender chutzpah, it's hard to beat the supplement industry—which each year sells America all those vitamins, herbs and so-called nutraceuticals. A $23.7 billion slice of the alternative-medicine (or "CAM") pie*, the supplement industry is also a major manifestation of SHAM, though it's seldom treated as such because (a) it involves a tangible product (unlike, say, "positive energy") and (b) proper nutrition has long been an important area of overall health management; ergo, vitamins and minerals benefit from that mindset. I myself have given supplements short shrift on this blog, and that's a serious oversight. Purveyors of health tonics and potions were, after all, the original (and literal) snake-oil salesmen, and evidence suggests that not much has changed. Nowadays they tap into (and prey upon) the widespread passion for "self-determination" in all areas of life; they sell the message that you know more about managing your own health than all those silly doctors and (real) nutritionists do. It's a message that, I might add, enjoys the government's imprimatur in the form of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which since 1992 has served as the supplement industry's coziest friend and biggest all-around cheerleader inside the Beltway. Although the pesky science that some NCCAM killjoy must have felt obliged to include on its Web site makes clear that most herbs and supplements can't be counted on to do much good, and may do plenty of bad, the mere fact that an NIH sub-unit has a site devoted to "informing" us about supplements—and that it kicks off its section on same with a line like, "Many people take dietary supplements in an effort to be well and stay healthy"—is telling. (For a succinct example of the Kafkaesque discord between NCCAM's overall philosophical position in favor of supplements and its own grudging presentation on the relevant science, check out the last few graphs of my December 2008 piece for The Wall Street Journal, "The Touch That Doesn't Heal.")

Since the advent of The Secret in particular, vitamin and herb manufacturers—no dummies—have increasingly framed their products as helpful catalysts in that all-important crusade to bring mind and body into proper harmony with the Universe: psychic fuel. In sum, the dietary supplement movement represents one more major step away from orthodoxy and commonality of thought and fact.

However, in line with the general climate of skeptical revisionism that SHAM helped launch (if I do say so myself), dietary supplements are now coming under greater scrutiny as well. This is hardly to say that skepticism of vitamins, herbs and nutraceuticals did not exist prior to my book. Notably, for decades, Quackwatch founder Dr. Stephen Barrett has been waging a one-man war against irresponsible claims for vitamins and dietary supplements. But somehow it was the supplement industry that seemed to hold the high ground, capturing and holding the public imagination while ironically succeeding at making serious medical types like Barrett sound like the real outliers—as well as heretics, naysayers and cultural dinosaurs.

Which is why it's especially gratifying to see the mood of revisionism sweep its way into a magazine like Reader's Digest. It began a few Novembers ago when RD ran "The Vitamin Hoax," by senior medical researcher Neena Samuel. The current (April) issue contains another eye-opening article, "5 Vitamin Truths and Lies," by the same author. [SEE NOTE BELOW] It's apparent that RD is doing some fancy footwork at times, not wanting to burn the magazine's bridges to the industry altogether—given that supplement manufacturers spend oodles on advertising, no small portion of it in pop magazines, like RD, that cater to an older crowd. But it's not hard to read between the lines: Samuel is telling us in a big-screen format what Barrett and a small circle of others have been preaching from the wilderness for years: that if you don't get these nutrients via your regular (food) diet, then all the pills in the world probably won't help you. They're not going to prevent or cure any major diseases. And they may even cause health problems you didn't have to begin with.

As you might imagine, the supplement industry isn't happy about this. Some fume that RD is in the pocket of Big Pharma due to all that glossy D-T-C drug advertising featured in the magazine's pages. (Pharma's interests here are evident: If people think they can cure themselves "naturally," they're less likely to buy prescription drugs.**) And, as noted, before we nominate Reader's Digest for sainthood, we should keep in mind that RD itself was singing the praises of supplements not all that long ago. Popular media like to have it both ways, riding the wave of fads, hawking the latest crazes, then later "exposing" those fads with a shameless, sanctimonious zeal...exactly as if they've been on the side of the angels all along.

No one demonstrates that better than our old pal Larry King, with his before-and-after coverage of the whole James Ray mess. S

NOTE: One of our contributors was nice enough to inform me that I got this wrong: The actual author of the current piece is Christie Aschwanden, not Ms. Samuel.

* not usually counted in formal measures of the size of the self-help industry per se.
** although it's not quite that simple, as many of the major pharmaceuticals also manufacture, or have subsidiaries that manufacture, dietary supplements. So they make money either way/both ways.

Is Ray still gunning?

A few days ago a gentleman named Roman contacted me (as well as others in the growing anti-guru movement) with regard to a problem he's having with James Ray International. You can read the skinny here, but basically Roman is upset over the $1500 he says he prepaid for a pair of tickets to James Ray's Harmonic Wealth Weekend, which, as per the literature he received at the time of purchase last year, would've kicked off tomorrow in San Francisco at a venue "TBD." Inasmuch as the venue has never been D'd, Roman would like his $1500 back—which seems a reasonable request under the circumstances. I would think that the seminar leader's having recently been incarcerated on a multiple-manslaughter rap (for which he still must face the music) would supersede the terms of any three-day cancellation provisos.

I called all of the numbers I could find for Ray and his handlers and minions, and was unable to make any headway. Several of the numbers just rang a few times and then...stopped. I even phoned around coastal San Diego to an assortment of numbers variously listed to "James Ray," "James A. Ray," "J. Ray," etc. No luck...though I did meet some very nice, infinitely patient people who claim that they are not, and have never been, James Arthur Ray. I believed them.

What's interesting, though, is that—imagine my luck!—apparently it's not too late to get in on the good times in some secret part of San Francisco. I went to the Ray site today and registered for the event myself, getting as far as the screen where I'm asked to confirm payment. I gave my address as "2010 Shambloggian Way" in "Truth or Consequences, New Mexico"; I thought that was a nice touch. I was offered a $200 discount for ordering "today," and would also receive, the site says, a free copy of Ray's The Science of Success Learning System, a "$117 value." The total cost, with all my discounts and freebies, would be $1,097. I'll upload a screenshot of that page once I figure out how.

For fairly obvious reasons, I didn't want to click past that screen. That's all I need. S

Dangerous mind(game)s: James Ray in black and white.

"Only he and she who is willing to potentially go too far will ever know how far one can go." -T.S. Elliot [sic]
—James Ray on Twitter, 3:19 p.m., September 30, 2009

To b the greatest pitcher in the world you have to play w/the greatest hitters. The greatest hitters have to hit the fastest & hardest pitch
—James Ray on Twitter, 7:06 p.m., March 6, 2010

I've been reading through some of the papers filed in connection with the James Ray case, and a number of things jump out at me. First of all, I'm reminded of just how profitable this line of work can be. As per the contracts Ray signed with Angel Valley, it appears that his company, JRI, paid the Retreat Center $107,200 for the use of the facilities, and provisions for all Spiritual Warrior participants. The contract covers 60 spiritual warriors and eight Dream Team members (paying quasi-facilitators), each of whom presumably ponied up the usual $9695, or something close. Simple multiplication gives a sense of the margin here. By my math, JRI collected upwards of $650,000 and discharged its debt to Angel Valley for just $107,000, meaning a gross profit (before salaries and such) of well over a half-million bucks. There may be some other expenses involved here that aren't accounted for in the documents I've seen, but that's a damn sweet take nonetheless. And this was just a single event, of course.

The other thing that leaps off the page(s) is the never-say-die mentality that Ray was determined to stoke in his disciples, and how that may figure in his ultimate responsibility for what took place in Sedona. Again and again we have indications of Ray's intention to push his captive audience, to get them to stretch, even perhaps when their gut instincts were telling them otherwise.

All of the following are from the introductory, "Welcome to Spiritual Warrior" letter that Ray sent to prospective attendees:

"The personal battles you've fought, challenges you've overcome, and the difficulties you've faced place you among the elite few who are willing to do what most never will."

and

"Springing forward to capture new heights always means letting go. For something new to live something first must die."

and

"As you may imagine, Spiritual Warrior will push you beyond your perceived limits."

and

"If you can't dance with the Devil you will never walk in the Light."

and

"Prepare yourself to dance like never before, my Warrior Friend. I warn you in advance that your small ego/identity may not want to participate and complete the tasks ahead of you. Many talk, but time for talk is over..."

and

"Be courageous."

and

"Prepare to plug in to 220 watts..."*

Ray's lawyers doubtless will argue that such language collectively forms a disclaimer. But in this setting, with this type of "spiritual warrior" audience, does all of that really sound like a disclaimer? Or is it more of a gauntlet being thrown down. A dare. An exhortation to check your brains at the door, throw caution to the wind and let one James Ray usher you into a new dimension of personal growth.

In a letter to Yuvapai County District Attorney Bill Hughes, Ray's lawyers, apparently trying to downplay the woo-hoo factor, note that "participants compare the sweat lodge to a marathon, with people encouraging one another and checking on one another. One participant recalls that Mr. Ray acted like a coach, telling people 'come on you can do it, you are better than this.' "

I would counter: In a mass-psychology setting (which is precisely what makes these group affairs so dangerous), who's going to be the first to admit he's not "better than this"? Who's going to be the one to stand up and say, "Nah, tell ya what, I think I'll just go back to the main building and eat Skittles"?

Even more remarkable is an eye-opening 2005 incident that Ray's attorneys describe as part of emphasizing the evolution of Ray's program, and the safeguards that JRI had built into its sweat lodge experience since its earliest iterations:

...[A]fter the sweat lodge ceremony ended, one man became combative. Thirty people had participated in that sweat lodge. It was held at night and ran for 12 rounds. Mr. Ray told participants that they had only one more round to go, then at the last minute, held one more round. Some participants complained and, when the ceremony was over, people left in disarray. A man named Daniel Pfankuch came out swinging his arms and cursing. Paramedics responded and administered oxygen. He was hospitalized that night and returned to the Spiritual Warrior Retreat the next day.

This is instructive on two levels. First, again, it shows Ray's tendency to push people to and beyond their limits. But it also shows the degree of mindless obedience found in his followers, even in situations where they consider his commands onerous and unreasonable. This man, Pfankuch, was so enraged and/or dissipated by the end of the ceremony that he grew violent. And yet he had stayed the course. He waited till the event was over before erupting. Then he got some treatment and came back for more!

Such, one might argue, is the near-religious dominion over participants that Ray establishes from the first. On a Spiritual Warrior instruction sheet included with the lawyers' letter to the DA, labeled "Exhibit E," the following phrase appears three times:

Remember that you're in silence until the code of silence is lifted.

In the end, Ray's lawyers may have put it best: "The evidence would show that Mr. Ray did not physically prevent anyone from leaving." No, not physically he didn't. But there are other ways of controlling behavior.

**************************

And in a postscript that I find chilling: The first tweet at the top of this page, posted just a few days before everything went sour, shows the mentality that James Arthur Ray took into his Spiritual Warrior weekend in Sedona last October. The second tweet, a few days after Ray made bail late last month, shows us that not much has changed.

* or maybe, to par-broil at 220 degrees?

Landmark forum. A few final words of my own.

UPDATE, Thursday, March 11. You may recall that in our last post, I wondered about the status of Landmark's license to use the intellectual property developed by Werner Erhard as part of est and, later, the original Forum. The 1991 deal between Landmark and Erhard gave the new company an 18-year license for such usage, which obviously would've expired in 2009. I wrote to Ms. Beroset, and here is the response I just received by way of an outside publicity firm that works for Landmark:

The license was not renewed. Between 1999 and 2002 Landmark acquired the intellectual property [italics present in actual answer].

Interesting. The cost and precise nature of that acquisition, and Erhard's stake in same, may warrant further exploration.

==============================

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
—the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

It's a great and memorable line—and if I may be permitted a brief digression, the tragedy of modern Washington is that so few denizens of Moynihan's erstwhile milieu, Congress, are willing to live by it: When facts become inconvenient in a given platform or agenda, today's legislators simply make up new ones.

But in the bigger picture, Moynihan's point is well taken. It's especially germane to this series of posts. I cannot write, in this space or anywhere else, "Fifty-nine people were killed during various Landmark Forum programs last year." I most particularly cannot write such a thing in the pages of a highly visible publication like The Wall Street Journal. The reason I cannot write it is that it isn't true. It is not a fact. And authentic facts, in most cases—notwithstanding the implications that surfaced during a recent thread on this blog—are nonnegotiable. There is a commonly understood knowledge base that underlies the civilized living of life, and that most of us who are sane are willing to accept as Truth. George Washington was the first U.S. president. Maybe he was a good choice, maybe he was a poor one; those are opinions, and people are allowed to hold the latter opinion, even if they're in a decided minority. But he was the first president. Birthers aside, Barack Obama is the current president; and even if you give the Birthers their due, the fact remains, Obama occupies the White House. Interestingly enough, though I happen to think Obama is a very smart man, and though I also think the evidence for his superior intellect is voluminous and beyond question, that is not a fact in the same category as his status as president. You might have different standards than I do for what constitutes "intelligence," or you might have a different meaning in mind when you use the term. Accordingly, you might argue that Obama is an idiot—based, say, on the way he's run this country to date. In most contexts you could describe him that way without fear of penalty, even though publicly quoted estimates of his IQ put him well above the "idiot" range in every textbook sense. Many words and ideas have a vernacular usage that supersedes their literal meaning, and it's "understood" that when people use those words in an offhand way, they cannot be held accountable for failing to hew to the textbook meanings.*

Which is why, for the purposes of this post, I would turn the Moynihan quote around, inverting its emphasis: No one is entitled to have his own facts, but everyone is entitled to have his own opinion. This nation was founded, in no small part, on that very ethic. So, while I cannot write that Landmark killed 59 of its customers last year, I should certainly be allowed to write that I think it's a reckless, potentially dangerous program. I dare say (and that may be the perfect phrase for introducing what comes next), I should be allowed to write that I think Landmark Forum is a cult, or has many cult-like qualities, regardless of what they say. Understand, I'm not making that allegation here; I'm just saying that I should be allowed to. And the fact that Landmark has enjoyed some success at bringing suit against people who have expressed that view (or who merely talked around the edges of such a view) is a blemish on the nation's commitment to free speech and a damn, crying shame.

All of which brings me to Beroset's line, towards the end of her letter: "And again, should you reference us in the future, we would expect to be contacted."

You would expect?

Let's be clear about something. I wrote an opinion piece that ran in the opinion section of an opinion-leading newspaper. In my opinion piece, I quoted the opinion of Margaret Singer, an expert in the field. (Actually, two experts, if we include Michael Hurd, who is at least as skeptical as I am of pop psychology's progressive encroachments into the recognized mental-healing arts.) In this country, Ms. Beroset, we are entitled to hold opinions, all the more so when those opinions are informed by a broad survey of the available data and/or literature. (You are equally free to think [and write] that you consider me a hack journalist and an embarrassment to the breed.) No matter how many epiphanies and personal breakthroughs Landmark claims to have engineered, it is my opinion that the guiding principle of Hippocratic medicine is operative here:

First, do no harm.

If your self-enrichment coursework is a material factor in even a small handful of catastrophic breakdowns or suicides or homicides, then in my opinion there are valid questions to be raised about your assumptions and practices, no matter how many people who attended the same program believe that they were helped. (Moreover—and I haven't made a big deal about this so far—how much do we really know about what happens to the lives of Landmark graduates in the 10 or 15 years after the course? More specifically, do we know, say, what happens to their relationships with the folks around them—the folks who loved and depended on the pre-enlightened version of those 1.2 million Landmark graduates?) In my opinion, Landmark's first duty is to adhere to the above-referenced Hippocratic oath, especially since—in my opinion—the plaintiff in Weed was spot-on: the Forum curriculum comes very, very close to practicing psychology without a license.

And that is how I see it. S

Read Part 1 in this series.
Read Part 2 in this series.

* Of course, context is everything here. If you're a professor who's up for tenure or a scientist who's in line for a key appointment, and you boast a proven IQ of 168, but a colleague of yours says during your hearings that he believes you to be a "genuine idiot" who's somehow managed to fool people— and on that basis you lose out—it's possible that you could bring successful suit for damages.

Landmark Forum. In (largely) its own words. Part 2.

Read Part 1 in this series.

It is beyond dispute that Landmark doesn't like to be called a "cult" and will take prompt legal action in instances where such an equivalence is proposed or merely suggested. (For the record, no such equivalence is being suggested here.) As we saw in Beroset's letter to me (and, again, a similar document went to The Wall Street Journal), the company doesn't like being called an "LGAT," either...even though many observers of the realm consider Landmark to be the prototypical LGAT. Just as an instructive exercise, Google "Landmark Forum" + LGAT. See how many hits you get. I dare say the characterization of Forum as an LGAT is public-domain by now. Certainly Margaret Singer thought so. In explaining why she brought up Forum in her 1995 book about cults, she said, quote, "Forum is one of the largest and most popular LGATs. It has also been the source of great public controversy and has been discussed in numerous magazine and newspaper articles and books. As a result, it would've been very conspicuous not to discuss Forum in a chapter about LGATs."

WHAT'S INTERESTING is that such perceptions evidently exist within Landmark itself. The company has a wing, Vanto Group, that specializes in corporate consulting and retraining. Vanto's CEO is Steve Zaffron. In a rather airy 2001 paper appearing in Contemporary Philosophy, "The Promise and Philosophy of the Landmark Forum," Zaffron and his three coauthors provide a succinct review of the "literature" on est and Forum; in that review they cite prior references to Landmark-as-LGAT, which they appear to be accepting on their face, and which, in any case, they make no attempt to refute. In truth, Zaffron et al seem to invoke the phrase approvingly in describing the benefits that can accrue to LGAT participants. Of one such study, a 1994 PhD thesis by Charles Dennison wherein Dennison interviewed Forum graduates, the authors note:

Dennison's study, which characterizes Landmark Forum as a 'large group awareness training'....reports predominantly positive outcomes.

Later in the piece, in a section on the self-serving poses we adopt in life, the authors write:

Sharing such inauthenticities in a large group has the remarkable effect of generating collective awareness of our human commonalities [emphasis added].

Further, one could plausibly argue that the group dynamic described under a subhead of the Zaffron piece, "Empty and Meaningless," is the very essence of large-group awareness training. Bottom line, if Landmark isn't an LGAT, maybe Beroset needs to walk down the hall* and tell Zaffron.

Another identifying aspect of LGATs is that the initial, entry-level course often functions as a sort of "loss leader" for more intensive coursework, and if the numerous anecdotal reports can be believed, Landmark meets that criterion as well. Even some people who are generally high on the company's products, like the folks here on Steve Pavlina's board, have grown weary of the strong-arm tactics Landmark employs in "encouraging" clients to sign up for a never-ending sequence of advanced classes. Recounting her Landmark experience for Mother Jones in 2009, Laura McClure wrote, "Part of it is the in-your-face, hard-sell ethos embedded in the corporate DNA it inherited from est. Forum grads are urged to stay involved and 'invite' friends and family. After finishing the Forum, I received calls asking me to volunteer at the Landmark call center and come in for one-on-one coaching." McClure added that their group leader "gently prods the storytellers to invite their family members to attend a Forum—or even pay for them to attend." Our own poster, who attended a Landmark session early in the company's history, described a similar experience.

Reading such accounts, you almost wonder what's next: Will Landmark threaten to sue journalists who call it a "company"?

****************************

McClure's passing reference to the origins of Landmark's "corporate DNA" is the kind of line that Landmark can get really touchy about. Landmark would like to control the debate on the precise nature of its relationship with Werner Erhard and est—on the one hand crediting Erhard for his groundbreaking theories about consciousness-raising while at the same time disowning the inconvenient and troubling connotations of the est course itself. This results in an odd and schizophrenic relationship between the company and its "DNA," as well as some rather cute (albeit technically correct) distinctions—like Beroset's assertion that Ney "was not about 'The Landmark Forum,' but rather an earlier and different program called 'The Forum,' which was presented by a different company, Werner Erhard and Associates."

Let's take a look at that.

As it happens, some of the facts that emerged in Ney are of special pertinence. In its decision affirming Landmark's dismissal from the suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, writes that the former organization, Werner Erhard & Associates (WE & A):

...consisted of a business with offices in 21 cities throughout the United States. After the sale, Landmark continued to operate out of the same offices, presenting the same programs throughout the United States. As of the date of the sale, WE&A had 216 employees. Most of the same employees remained with Landmark. Landmark acquired all assets of WE&A that were necessary to continue to present the Forum. Landmark also acquired the right to use the names and addresses of all individuals who had completed the Forum.

After the sale, WE&A ceased doing business, and Landmark began doing business immediately with the assets and the license acquired from WE&A and Erhard. There was little change in the format of the Forum [emphasis added]. At the time of the sale, Landmark's six directors were highlevel [sic] employees of WE&A and WE&AII. Neither Donald Cox nor Erhard, however, became part of Landmark. The key negotiators for Landmark in the sale of WE&A assets consisted of the same group of top executives, one of whom was Erhard's brother. The only bidder aside from Landmark was Cox....

Donald Cox had been the CEO of WE & A. So, summing up, there were two suitors for Erhard's stressed est empire: (a) the former CEO of WE &A and, basically, (b) the rest of WE & A's existing management team. The Court goes on to note:

Landmark obtained from Erhard a license to present the Forum for 18 years in the United States and internationally with the exception of Japan and Mexico. Erhard retained ownership of the license. The license was not assignable without Erhard's express written consent, and was to revert to Erhard after 18 years.** Furthermore, under the Agreement, Erhard was promised 2% of Landmark's gross revenues payable on a monthly basis and, in addition, 50% of the net (pre-tax) profit payable quarterly....***

Nonetheless, in explaining why it has no choice but to uphold the ruling, the Court writes:

The problem here is that while the successor corporation continued the work of its predecessor [emphasis added], there is not a continuation of the corporate entity of the predecessor... WE&A was a sole proprietorship owned by Werner Erhard. Landmark is owned by its employees, and Erhard owns no stock in the new company...

The question of whether there was identity of management is more difficult to ascertain. There is evidence that with one or two exceptions, all of the executives of Landmark are the same as all of the executives of WE&A. The difficulty with the argument advanced by Ney is that it appears that while there was substantial overlap in personnel, it cannot be said that there was identity of management, since the primary "managers" of WE&A did not continue as a part of Landmark.

One senses that the Court has some misgivings about the decision it is legally compelled to render (that is, based on a narrow reading of the statutes that applied in Virginia, which had original jurisdiction). At the top of its conclusion, the Court editorializes thusly: "There should be legitimate concerns over changes in corporate form undertaken by an individual and his wholly owned company who, among other things, apparently owe the federal government millions of dollars in unpaid taxes." This statement turns out to be controversial. Erhard vociferously disputed his tax indebtedness, and in fact, in 1996 the IRS was forced to pay him a $200,000 settlement for making improper public disclosures about his finances. However, there is no denying the surreal messiness of Erhard's world as the '80s yielded to the '90s, and I think it's fair to wonder about his state of mind at the time of the Landmark acquisition: whether he felt as if the walls were closing in and he could use a Plan B.

In any case, were Beroset sitting in front of me right now, I would ask her: In making the distinction you would like to make between Erhard's Forum and your Landmark Forum, how do you explain (a) the fact that when you purchased the "intellectual property" rights to the est/Forum theories and methodology in 1991, the desirability of that property apparently constituted the entire business rationale for the acquisition?; (b) the much-quoted 1993 internal memorandum in which the CEO of this new entity acknowledged the Landmark course's roots in est and described Landmark's use of Erhard's ideas as a "licensing agreement"?; (To wit:

The nature and material of Landmark Education's initiatives, projects, and programs is based on a technology originally developed by Werner Erhard... It is on this technology that Landmark's work stands today and from which it continues to evolve.)

(c) the numerous anecdotal reports of striking similarities between Forum and Landmark Forum in terms of overall shape (especially in Landmark's early years)? Consider as a notable example the allegations in Been v. Weed, a wrongful-death suit filed when a Landmark attendee, Jason Weed, gunned down his mailman one day after graduating from an advanced Landmark course. The point is not whether Landmark "caused" Weed's homicidal outburst; in fact, a prominent psychologist called in to help gauge Weed's sanity, Dr. Harrison Pope, deemed it unlikely that the Landmark course was a factor in Weed's crime, and the courts once again rejected Landmark's liability in the case. The point is that whatever caused Weed to snap, characterizations of the course he attended in 2001 suggest that it was of the more confrontational variety, in keeping with the company's "corporate DNA."

Further, that same year (2001), Landmark reportedly entered into a second licensing agreement with Erhard, this time with the intent of using his proprietary intellectual technology in Japan and Mexico, two markets excluded from the agreement of 1991. (If the company had evolved that far from its roots, why did it still need Erhard? Why not drum up a second syllabus, call it Landmark Bore 'Em or whatever, and go it alone?) To this day, Landmark pays homage to its philosophical father on its site, reminding us that Erhard is "widely regarded for the unique and lasting contributions that his ideas made in peoples' [sic] lives and organizations."

So when exactly did this sweeping, top-to-bottom transformation occur?

But if such a transformation did occur...then I have another problem.

I quote from Landmark's fact sheet:

From its beginning in 1991 to the present day Landmark Education has continued to fulfill its commitment to contribute to individuals and organizations... To date, over 1,200,000 people have participated in Landmark's programs.

In taking credit for those 1.2 million customers, Landmark is seeking to mine the PR implications of having been in business for several decades and having compiled a substantial cumulative client base over that time. Landmark is thus doing the same thing the local used-car dealer does when it seeks to establish credibility with a sign like, FAMILY OWNED AND OPERATED SINCE 1954. To my mind, this clear pride in continuity of business also establishes a certain thematic continuity that invalidates Beroset's implication of some bright shining line between then and now.

Uh, wait a minute, Steve. Are you saying that the mere fact of Landmark's having been in business since 1991 means ipso facto that Landmark then = Landmark now? Of course not. And what an asinine statement that would be. Landmark declares on its site that its curriculum "has significantly evolved since its beginnings in 1991" and that the company "recently completed a comprehensive redesign and elevation of its programs." And that's all well and good—as long as folks like Beroset recognize that to speak of "elevating" their curriculum implies a time when that curriculum was less elevated—even, perhaps, in need of elevation. If you're going to boast of being in business since 1991, you cannot selectively edit that narrative to reflect only your finest/most recent hours, nor can you run from allegations and suspicions having to do with the way you ran your shop during your moments of pre-elevation. If, say, GM wants to revel publicly in its long corporate history, then it can't get too pissy when you bring up the Corvair, or the fact that for much of that era when the Baby Boom was coming of age, GM cars had a reputation for exploding the minute the warranties expired, or that Chevys in particular—which GM now seems bent on portraying as its flagship models—were widely regarded as tinny pieces of crap. Sure, GM is free to emphasize its more recent nominations for Car of the Year and other accolades, but the company could not logically limit the discussion to those glossy, much-improved models pitched by Howie Long in the current ads.

So too, surely some among the 2.1 million that Landmark has introduced to a new view of Possibility received that training under formats that resembled the grim characterizations of Margaret Singer. Especially since Landmark appears to give its facilitators a fair amount of leeway in running their respective programs, or at least it did in years gone by.

Incidentally, for those who may not know... The "CEO of this new entity," alluded to above, remains in place. His name is Harry Rosenberg, and he is the younger brother of John Paul Rosenberg. John Paul Rosenberg is better known by the name he took for himself in launching his New Age venture back in the 1970s: Werner Erhard.

I'll have some final words on Landmark—and freedom of speech—next time. S

* I'm using the expression metaphorically. I have no idea where their respective offices are located.
** That brings us to 2009. As I couldn't find any verifiable reference to what happened when that license expired, I emailed Beroset and asked. I haven't heard back yet, but I'll report if and when I do.
*** In a subsequent sworn declaration, Landmark general counsel Art Schreiber stated that these fees were never paid to Erhard, and that Erhard had assigned his financial interest in Landmark to an unnamed third party.

Landmark Forum. In (largely) its own words. Part 1.

Reading Deborah Beroset's most excellent work of creative nonfiction, I was reminded of Bill Clinton's famous disquisition on the meaning of the word is, and how it pertained to his claim that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." (Of course, as we now know, he did indeed have sex with that woman, as well as others.) Seldom have I read a more entertaining example of hair-splitting, lawyering, language-parsing and general concealment of forests in trees.

I was amused for starters by her use of the word request, as in, "We have written separately to The Wall Street Journal to request a correction be printed..." One gets the feeling that Landmark requests things the way Vito Corleone did. (Remember Tom Hagen's quietly chilling line after being rebuffed by the soon-to-be-horseless movie mogul during their uneasy dinner? Hagen says of his boss, the don, "He never asks a second favor when he's been refused the first.") The above-linked site puts it this way: "How does Landmark handle criticism? With lawyers." But rather than spend the balance of this email being snarky and offhand, I'd thought I'd address the substance of Beroset's observations head-on. Actually, where appropriate, I also thought I'd let her own employer, Landmark, address the substance of her thoughts, which might prove even more illuminating. This gets a bit complicated in spots, folks, so fasten your seatbelts and shoulder harnesses, and read carefully as you go.

We have a very simple question before us: Did the late Dr. Margaret Singer offer sworn testimony* in a case that was originally filed as Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard? (Answer: Yes.) Did she say what I quoted her as saying in my Journal piece? (Answer: Yes.) Let's review her words for a moment:

The est/Forum organization applies a number of powerful and psychologically disturbing, emotionally arousing and defense destabilizing techniques to large groups of people, in an intense, marathon-like period.

The fact that Landmark eventually was dismissed from the suit** is in my view a technicality that has scant bearing on Singer's conclusions about Landmark's product, which clearly were based on a contemporaneous knowledge of Landmark's ongoing operations, not just a retrospective understanding of Erhard's est. [See NOTE below.] The reason this gets tricky is that Landmark in 1996 sued Singer, unhappy over finding its name in her 1995 book, Cults in Our Midst. (Singer had not specifically labeled the company a cult, but nothing will prompt a suit from Landmark faster than the words Landmark and cult used in any sort of adjacency—as the women's magazines Self and Elle, as well as the Cult Awareness Network, all learned during the 1990s.) As part of a negotiated settlement of that lawsuit in 1997, Singer agreed to stipulate that she had "no personal knowledge" of the Landmark program. However, the operative graph of that settlement clearly applies an extremely technical and limited standard of what constitutes "personal knowledge." In Singer's case, what it means—all it means—is that the famed psychologist was never physically present in the room during a session of Landmark's version of Forum.

This is key because Beroset and Landmark like to play the settlement language as a trump card, spinning it as if Singer were recanting her testimony in Ney (as well as her other, prior observations about Landmark and est). Hardly. Though Singer was understandably reluctant to talk about Landmark after the 1996 suit—which of course is the outcome Landmark sought—it appears obvious from the few guarded statements she did make that she viewed the settlement as having been coerced. "I do not endorse them—never have," she told a reporter from Phoenix New Times, adding that she was "afraid to tell you what I really think about them" because "the SOBs have already sued me once."

In fact, "no personal knowledge" is an awfully casual way of dismissing (a) Singer's several decades of studying and observing practices commonly known as "brainwashing" and "mind control," and her acknowledged worldwide expertise in the workings of same; (b) Singer's voluminous reading on the subject of LGATs in general and est/Forum in particular; (c) Singer's personal attendance at several Forum training sessions prior to the Landmark acquisition; (d) Singer's personal interviews with a variety of people who had attended Landmark coursework; (e) Singer's personal review of Landmark's training materials and internal memos; (f) Singer's familiarity with the case histories of several people who had suffered extreme adverse reactions to the Forum course. I could go on and on. In one section of the declaration Singer made in initially defending the Landmark lawsuit, she put it like so: "Between 1991 and the time I wrote the Book, I spoke to numerous individuals about their experiences as participants in est and/or The Forum. The experiences they shared were consistent with one another and independently corroborated by the many newspaper and magazine articles and books that I read about Landmark and The Forum."

Life experience qualifies each of us to render judgment on any number of matters. I have no personal knowledge of a shotgun blast to the face, but I think I'm capable of appreciating the damage that such an occurrence is apt to cause on those who do have the experience. In addition to the generalized life experience we all share, highly specialized experience like Singer's prepared her to render meaningful judgment on topics within her area of expertise. (If you still need more convincing, my God, look at pages 2 through 4 of the Singer declaration; even in summary form, the woman's qualifications to speak to this subject are breathtaking.) To assert otherwise is ridiculous—tantamount to arguing that a physician must actually be sick himself in order to accurately diagnose a patient with that same disorder. It bears noting that Landmark Forum does not have "personal knowledge" of the lives of the customers who attend its coursework, yet Landmark claims to possess a generic formula for helping those people improve their quality-of-life. Go figure.

*****************************

As to that formula for success... One is struck by the catch-22 of Landmark's public stance. On the one hand, the company promises to deliver coursework that is so psychologically and emotionally compelling that it will foster an almost instantaneous breakthrough in those who attend; that is the clear message of Landmark's promotional materials. From its site:

The Landmark Forum, our powerful flagship program, is specifically designed to bring about positive and permanent shifts in the quality of your life—in just three days.

This is remarkable, given that formal psychotherapy often takes years to prompt major insights and breakthroughs (if they take place at all). And yet, on the other hand, Landmark does not take kindly to media implications that any coursework that's potent enough to spur that sort of metamorphosis would also be likely to trigger serious emotional upset in some people. Personally, I do not think that such a program can be both safe and effective. In order to be effective—almost instantly effective, no less—it must be "destabilizing," in Singer's words. And if it is destabilizing, then it cannot be safe for all participants, particularly in the weekend-warrior setting in which it is delivered.

But why leave this to one journalist's uninformed, irresponsible perceptions? (I am paraphrasing Beroset.) Let's look instead at how Landmark sees Landmark.

Here is the waiver that prospective Landmark attendees must read and sign. Take a gander at the scope of this thing and—in particular—focus on its self-evident intent. At least by implication, this document would seem to represent a near-total annihilation of all of Landmark's public vows about the safety of its coursework. The nature and sweep of its caveats tell us that Landmark itself manifestly has concerns about being "psychologically disturbing."

The brows begin to lift at the very outset of Landmark's Notice of Important Information, Health Warnings, and Legal Agreements. The first full paragraph notes blandly:

Many people have found the Program to be an enjoyable and valuable experience. However, the Program is not advisable for everyone.

But think about that. Is it reasonable that everyone for whom the Program is "not advisable" would be able to self-identify, or in any case could be weeded out, ahead of time? This is especially pertinent in light of the observation, a few graphs later, that:

...[T]here is simply no way to predict in advance exactly what you may think or feel. It is normal for some people to experience unwanted or unfamiliar emotions from time to time, such as fear, anger, sadness, regret, hatred, irritation and impatience.

Fear? Anger? Hatred? If you concede that such emotions may occur, and are even "normal" (at least for Forum participants), how can you, in the same document, disclaim responsibility for the possible results of such extreme emotions? (As Landmark does.)

As the waiver moves forward, notice how many times Landmark cautions prospective attendees that OUR ADVISORS STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE—just like that, in all caps. One case where Landmark's advisors make that recommendation is:

...if you have a family history of bi-polar affective disorder (manic-depressive disorder), schizophrenia, acute or chronic depression or other psychotic disorder, whether or not you or they are being or have ever been treated or hospitalized.

I added emphasis to the last part, because if you haven't been treated, how would you know you have a condition that disqualifies you from participating? And isn't it likely that some of those who'd be drawn to such coursework are people with underlying psychological problems, "whether or not you or they are being or have ever been treated"?

Also cautioned are people who are taking:

any drugs or medicines, whether prescription or non-prescription, intended to treat or affect mental processes or mood or to treat a chemical imbalance...

What exactly does that cover? What does it rule out?

Here's another: You should probably not participate if you

are uncertain about your physical, mental or emotional ability to participate in the Program.

But...you haven't yet taken the Program. Have you? How would you make that judgment, and on what basis?

Next we have this:

From time to time, during or shortly after participating in the Program, a very small number of people who have no personal or family history of mental illness or drug abuse have reported experiencing brief, temporary episodes of emotional upset rnaging from heightened activity, irregular or diminished sleep, to mild psychotic-like behavior.

Note my emphasis. This caveat is followed by the most intriguing statement in the document, at least to me:

In less than 1/1000 of 1% of participants, there have been reports of unexplained suicide or other destructive behavior.

Working from Landmark's own figure of having "helped" 1.2 million people since 1991 (and we'll come back to that boast next time), that translates to 12 people. Or, using Landmark's current claim of training 200,000 people per year, that translates to two "reports of unexplained suicide or other destructive behavior" annually. Is that "serious"? Is it worthy of mentioning in a more upfront way? I leave that to others to decide. For argument's sake, though, here's a comparison: Walt Disney World in Orlando attracted 17 million visitors in 2008. The same incident rate admitted by Landmark, applied to Disney, would yield 170 deaths or other major events. In a single year. And that's just the one Disney park in Orlando; the systemwide numbers would, of course, be stratospheric: the makings of a cause celebre with major "legs," as we media types say of hot stories. (In fact, the Disney incident numbers are infinitesimally small).

What's more, does it not seem reasonable to assume that for every actual case of "suicide or other destructive behavior," there are a certain number of additional "dislocations"?

*****************************

As the waiver rouses to its dour finish, we encounter a section titled INFORMED CONSENT. Here, among other things, clients must affirm via signature that they're aware that "certain persons with no personal or family history of current or previous mental or emotional problems and no history of use of psychotropic or mood altering drugs reported having experienced psychotic episodes following the Program." A few lines later the participant is again reminded that he has been "STRONGLY ADVISED NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the Program if...I have concerns about my ability to handle stress."

What makes this excruciatingly ironic and even tragicomic is the way Landmark, in other areas of its site, hypes the stress-busting potential of its coursework. F'rinstance, Landmark's online syllabus, DAY TWO, Section IV, is titled, "Freedom From Anxiety." The syllabus observes:

Consider that one of the primary obstacles to effectiveness is fear. No matter how accomplished, successful, or courageous we are, fear and anxiety seem to play a role at some point in all of our lives. Often, we allow fear and anxieties to stop us...assigning them an unwarranted power and magnitude in our lives...

(In truth, any number of Forum segments seem designed to address conditions that laypeople would probably describe as "stress-related" or "depression-like." Consider, for example, the language of DAY 1, Section V: Rackets™: The Payoff and the Cost, and Day 2, Section 1: The Illusion of Someday. The language is the rhetoric of philosophy, but the payoff—it is strongly suggested—occurs in the realm of psychology.)

Landmark even uses stress as a sales hook in this testimonial from one Gabor Mate, MD:

As shown throughout [my] book, it is these fixed but unconscious interpretations that underlie and trigger many of our chronic stresses.

Does it not seem reasonable that if you're offering a Program that teaches people how to free themselves from anxiety and "chronic stresses," your target audience would consist in some part of people who "have concerns about [their] ability to handle stress"? S

To be continued...

NOTE: I've received a couple of emails off-blog suggesting that a bit more explanation of the Ney case is in order. A woman, Stephanie Ney, attended a Forum course in 1989; in its immediate aftermath, she experienced an utter psychological collapse that required her to be institutionalized. A few years later she filed suit. In the interim Forum had become Landmark Forum, so she included Landmark in her filing. Singer was called as an expert witness on Ney's behalf.

Read Part 2.

* See paragraph 35. This was the quote I focused in on my Journal piece.
** The events at the heart of the case occurred in 1989, prior to Landmark's acquisition of Forum, and the judge denied plaintiff's claims of Landmark's "successor liability."

'So, uh, where's the 'new blog'?'

OK, I know that the "new SHAMblog" I've been talking about for a while now may not look all that different from the old SHAMblog. But look a bit closer. I've added a "slime blotter," which strives to cover breaking news about lesser-known gurus—stuff that might not normally make the national radar screen. I've added "Guru Watch," which presents useful links to info about Gurudom's heavy hitters. For those who need more personalized feedback, I've put an interactive feature up at the top of the sidebar where I'm offering help to those who find themselves at that critical, early, guru-choosing stage. (I realize that most of our regulars are unlikely to be in that position, which is the reason for the sarcasm...but maybe you have friends or loved ones who are a bit less skeptical than you are and could benefit from such a service?) Above all, I'm going to be focusing my posts much more tightly around self-help themes, and exploring those issues at greater depth: more journalism, fewer rants.

We'll start with a topic that's ripe for exploration: Landmark Education and my experience with same (below). Happy reading. Let me know what you think. S

My love letter from Landmark Forum.

ON NOVEMBER 3, 2009—a few weeks after the publication of my Wall Street Journal piece, "Self Help Doesn't Help...and Often Hurts"—I received from one Deborah Beroset, Director of Public Relations for Landmark Education, the following letter (via email). I suspect it is substantially similar in tone and substance to the letters that not a few journalists and others have received since 1991, when a new employee-owned company called Landmark emerged from the tumult of Werner Erhard's crumbling est empire.

In the spirit of fair play, I reproduce the document here in its entirety*. We'll be returning to Ms. Beroset and her thoughts in my next post.

Happy reading. S

========================

Dear Mr. Salerno, I'm the Director of Public Relations of Landmark Education and am writing about your opinion piece "Self-Help Doesn’t Help—And Often Hurts," published in The Wall Street Journal on Oct 22, 2009. I was frankly surprised we hadn't gotten a call from you when I read your article, which contained several significant inaccuracies about our company and our program The Landmark Forum. These inaccuracies cast Landmark Education, our programs and our participants in a negative and false light. We have written separately to The Wall Street Journal to request a correction be printed, but I wanted to write to you also, particularly given your field of expertise and the likelihood that these inaccuracies were, while very damaging to us, not the result of any intent on your part to paint our company or programs in a false light, but rather the result of your not having all the facts at hand.

Landmark Education is a globally recognized personal training and development company, with approximately 1.2 million people having participated in our programs. While we don't consider our programs to be "self help," we do recognize that we are sometimes lumped into that category. However, other categories such as LGATs are totally inappropriate for us to be grouped in (and I'll address that directly later in this letter). The Landmark Forum has been independently observed by numerous top professionals from around the world—including psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, educators and academicians—who have clearly determined that our programs are professionally delivered, safe and effective.

I am somewhat familiar with your work and professional reputation and appreciate the fact that you are yourself critical of uninformed accusations and assertions being irresponsibly bandied about by "hit squads" on "witch hunts." Nonetheless, you published inaccurate and incomplete information. (Perhaps you were given inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information about us by some third party.)

Here is the relevant excerpt from your article:

And yet even when people aren't dying, there is no missing the recklessness of this misbegotten realm. Self-help is not benign. The $11 billion industry can hurt you psychologically, it can hurt you financially and, as we see, it can hurt you physically. It can hurt your family and friends too. Consider that today's increasingly popular "large group awareness training" (LGAT) incorporates tactics more commonly identified with psychological warfare. Facilitators bully attendees verbally and sometimes physically, call upon them to relive their worst experiences in humiliating detail in front of strangers, deprive them of sleep and even bathroom privileges—all in the name of self-actualization. In expert testimony in a 1992 lawsuit against the best-known of these LGATs, Landmark Forum (long a favored choice for corporate retreats), the clinical psychologist Margaret Singer observed that Forum "applies a number of powerful and psychologically disturbing, emotionally arousing and defense destabilizing techniques to large groups of people, in an intense, marathon-like period." How can this not have a catastrophic effect on people in a fragile emotional state—which is surely the case with a sizable contingent of those who seek out these 'transformational' courses to begin with?

Below are the basic facts as relate to each inaccuracy in the above passage:

1. Regarding the 1992 lawsuit you reference:

a. The 1992 lawsuit was not about "The Landmark Forum," but rather an earlier and different program called "The Forum," which was presented by a different company, Werner Erhard and Associates. In fact, the 1992 lawsuit was about a program delivered prior to Landmark Education’s existence.

b. You neglected to mention that in that 1992 lawsuit the jury unanimously rejected the claim that the participant in that program had been harmed by the program. It was inappropriate and irresponsible to leave out this important fact.

c. Perhaps most importantly, Ms. Singer, who was quoted in the article, testified that she never observed The Landmark Forum and had no personal knowledge of the program. This also should have been made clear.

2. Regarding Landmark Education being referenced as a “large group awareness training” or LGAT:

a. Landmark Education is not a Large Group Awareness Training or LGAT. Landmark Education’s programs are acknowledged to be some of the most effective programs in the training and development industry. Our programs do not reflect or follow the parameters of this inherently negative psychological term Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) that was coined during the ‘70s era.

b. Numerous top experts have also stated that Landmark Education is not a LGAT, including Dr. Raymond Fowler, PhD, retired CEO of the American Psychological Association, who observed the Landmark Forum and stated in an independent report which reflected his own opinion, "Landmark’s programs are totally distinct from LGATs in their methodology, structure, purpose, design and format."

3. Regarding including Landmark Education as an organization that uses tactics commonly associated with psychological warfare, such as verbal and physical bullying, etc:

a. Your statement that Landmark Education’s programs are in the category of those using psychological warfare tactics ('Facilitators bully attendees verbally and sometimes physically, call upon them to relive their worst experiences in humiliating detail in front of strangers, deprive them of sleep and even bathroom privileges') has grossly misrepresented our company and seriously damaged our reputation. The fact is, Landmark Education has always gone out of its way to ensure that our programs are not only valuable and effective, but patently safe for our customers. Our ongoing quality control has involved having many independent, highly credentialed professionals to assess their safety. The numerous experts from around the world who have observed our programs and judged them to be safe, effective and valuable include many luminaries. Here are just a few examples of these experts and their conclusions:

i. Dr. Raymond Fowler, retired CEO of the American Psychological Association, who observed the Landmark Forum and, in an independent report which reflected his own opinion (not on behalf of the Association), was quoted as saying, 'I saw nothing in The Landmark Forum that I attended to suggest that it would be harmful to any participant.'

ii. Dr. Charles Watson, Professorial Research Fellow and Former Chief Health Officer of Western Australia and Executive Dean of Health Sciences at Curtin University, said, 'I have personally observed The Landmark Forum and other programs at Landmark Education. Speaking from my expertise and experience as a medical doctor and former Chief Health Officer, my view is that there is absolutely nothing harmful in Landmark Education’s programs. This conclusion is fully aligned with those of numerous independent studies by top experts.'

iii. Numerous other experts including: Dr. Juan Jose Sanchez-Sosa, PhD, professor for more than 35 years at Mexico's National University (UNAM), a consultant for the World Health Organization and the Mexican Institute of Psychiatry and currently member of the National Academy of Science of Mexico and the Fulbright Academy of Science and Technology; Dr. Norbert Nedopil, renowned forensic Psychiatrist from the University of Munich; and many others. While we could supply you with many additional statements (and are prepared to do so), for simplicity’s sake, we are giving you these representative examples.

b. In addition to the numerous experts who have independently observed our programs and provided their conclusions, there have been studies and surveys that independently confirm the programs’ safety and value. As mentioned earlier, more than 40,000 health professionals and educators have participated in Landmark Education’s programs. Harris Interactive, one of the largest and most respected market research firms in the world, conducted an independent survey on behalf of Landmark Education of health professionals and educators (including psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians and academicians) who have taken Landmark Education’s programs. The results show that, of those surveyed, an overwhelming 94 percent agree that Landmark Education’s programs are professionally conducted and provide great value.

While I have no desire to sell you on our programs or company or to overwhelm you with reams of information, I do want to ensure that you (a) have the facts as relate to what you wrote for the Wall Street Journal, and that (b) you have a more accurate picture of our company and programs, should you reference us in the future. And again, should you reference us in the future, we would expect to be contacted. In addition, I am enclosing an addendum and an additional study about Landmark and its programs—you may already be familiar with much of this, given your work in this area. If you have any questions or need any further information now or in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me, as I have much more in the way of studies, expert statements and other research to share, should you desire it.

In closing, I would like to express to you that we at Landmark Education are as stunned and sorrowful about the tragic outcome of the sweat lodge incident as the rest of the world. However, it is unfair and misleading to readers to create fear where it is not warranted, and to make accusations about personal development programs that have been lauded after serious review by highly credentialed experts as not only safe, but effective. Please know that we have no issue with your or anyone else’s commitment to holding program providers to account for the safety of their programs —we simply request that you ensure you have all the facts when doing so. Thank you for your consideration—and again, in addition to the addendum and study I've attached herein, I am totally available to supply you with additional information about Landmark Education should you write about us in the future.

* I have made some very minor "technical" changes in keeping with house style.