I had a bit of relapse and clicked on the link to listen to this opinion (podcast).
A bit of venting so no need to read further unless your curious:
The podcast was reacting to a post " Frontline: The Medicated Child" (ADHD BI/polar etc) and implying (matter of fact) that young children's instabilities (chemical or otherwise) were due to having overweight mothers and because "all" overweight mothers are depressed are there for most definitely bad parents. Bad parenting being the root cause of these disorders. Then "surprise" her symptoms would also be attributed to her father being military personnel. As what child being born of a military (mafia) father would not be ill and affected and want to rip peoples heads off . Certainly his criticisms of doctors making early diagnoses would not be hypocritical; in that he formed his diagnosis on the matter in the first 3 minutes of the show.

I turned off the Moly Ghosts podcast and finished watching the PBS show.

There was no mention in the early part of the show whether or not the father was in the military at that time (when she was 5 and wanting to destroy people and hitting her parents) but it was stated later when she was 12 that she was distressed to learn her father would be deployed to Iraq. The doctor was trying to discern at that time what was her condition and what were normal child hood stresses. Earlier in the video she made a motion in the younger years of slitting some ones throat. I immediately thought that image more than like came from movies and or television.

Regardless, this is his opinion, and observation and while claiming not to be a doctor and not offered as such (with much pause, raised voice and inflection); it became a factual statement and an oversimplification of the problem (with no evidence). In addition he says "like" allot and attacks the physical characteristics of people - both habits annoy the hell out of me.
A tongue in cheek summary of his diagnosis: The problem of "medicating the children" is a north American phenomenon and obesity is a problem in the country specifically with mothers, all overweight mothers are bad mothers and there are military personnel so therefore all children born to military fathers with over weight mothers are the root cause of this problem.

Thats it, problem solved

He sounds like a $cientologist. If he starts packaging and selling courses with levels, it's over. Culty.

(And no, Stewie, I'm sure your wife is not a whore.)

you mean like" diamond donator" and "philosopher king", segregated chat rooms and levels for listeners, AA style defoo podcasts and real time relationship books etc.... yeah that would be like "way" weird.

You make a fine, fine point, sir. Perhaps, too fine...

tonight I listened to the balance of the podcast > More venting proceed the read with caution:
A fellow shares his issues with a friend with the group and stef is sure to jump on his weakness. Yet more tragic is this:
A woman came on and inevitably Stef pushed her to share her foo issues. The woman was not fed well as a child and as a result continues to this day (about once a year) to steal food. Additionally she hides items in her home she loves for fear of others taking them and/or for no apparent reason. This is obviously an emotional time for her divulging all this information. As she is trying to get her story out and he is pressing her to continue there is a subtle hint of nervous laughter from her (she see's some humor in her story). Stef chastises "your laughing" then gos on a rant about what is funny and what isn't. After the slap she pauses for a fair bit, he prompts her to continue and she moves forward through the story. While he presses her to go further into the oven and she walks into the fire he then interrupts her in the middle of her sharing a revelation and chastises her again "wait, now, now your laughing" (I could not tell if it was jittery talk or a laugh. Whatever it was it was faint and barely audible). What I found interesting about this was his need to be in control, be superior and direct her emotionally. She was the typical pawn for a podcast. She fell for it of course, talked a wee bit more and cried. She thought those tears were due to her past. She cried in part for her past, in part due to nerves and because he subtly bullied her to exactly where he wanted her; cooked.

back story: while the woman is editing the book as a favor she is having a hard time staying interested and as a result of his pushing she informs Stef "I just can't stay focused"and"it hasn't grabbed my attention" . To his dismay his ego pushes for answers .. why, how can this be, what is the hump etc. In the beginning of his conversation you can sense tension from him hes is being curt and no doubt had difficulties with her honest critique.

She continues her story. Stef notices his beloved Christina is moved to tears and only then he lays off the chastising. After a few moments he hands over the microphone to Christina (who I think is genuine). Christina (the bandaid) assumes she is finally releasing this do to her reading while editing Stef's RTR book. The woman speaking Sharlet says "no, I don't think it is the book". Well Christina states"we had some difficult issues while we were into the book" etc. The woman says "no I don't think that is what it is". Christina gos on to state "your so brave, that is what is so beautiful about this community, you really need to look for a therapist etc." The "I now feel bad and I had no idea" softer side of sandpaper Stef comes through. He compliments the woman on her bravery thanks her for involuntarily solidifying his position on the necessary for all act of defooing and joins in the cheers. The more of these "Dr. Phil"/"Koresh" style podcasts come out, the more convinced I am that Stef is a master. A master con. Take your time, build trust, slowly beat them down, get them from their family and own them forever. The "magnificent 15" or so posters all come from very troubled backgrounds and I am sure are lonely and long for sense of community. There is nothing abnormal or wrong with having some shit to deal with and working forward in your life. But when someone like Stef offers you magic sandpaper to erase you and all the shit you have as opposed to accepting it and dealing with it. You have to wonder how long your ass is going to bleed before you get that a bit of tissue is going to be necessary in the future.

wow, that's a very gripping analysis.

thank you.

but now I may want to actually listen to the podcast. less thank you

I'm sickened just reading your post again, it's so horrible what they're doing to these people and then the love-fest on the board afterwards, after the confession, the breakdown. it's so very very cult-like. but would have to listen to the podcast to say anything more meaningful. thanks again for the analysis

Your welcome and thank you. I would like to honestly say "my pleasure". It was hardly a pleasure listening to, more akin to watching those people in the videos of the tsunami playing on the beach, thinking all is well I am on vacation in this idyllic place , then the water recedes like the hair line and even though they see and sense something is wrong they willingly walk into, rather than away from the water...after all the sun is out and bam..the big one comes and sucks them all under. You know it is going to happen but for some reason you watch and still yell get to higher ground. It's tragic really.

just now listening to a bit, and yeah Stef interrupting re the laughter is solely a controlling mechanism. It's a power thing, plain and simple. to make the other feel ill at ease, to interrupt her flow. (I reckon the RTR technique will have a similar purpose and likely it will be left just undefined and ambiguous enough that Stef will be the authority when it comes to interpreting and applying the principle)

On further recall I think it was slimy how he exposed her by name.
The Sunday shows are broad cast as a collective discussion, you know if you go on there it will be out in the open. However I don't recall him ever calling the confessors by name particularly in personal discussions such as that. I think he did a masterfully evil job of exposing her weakness and implying she's troubled ( the laughter etc) and there by removing her power and discrediting in the community (why? for her critique and reluctant adulation of course).

edit: He owes the woman and the board a public apology.
That was a blatant breach of trust, and he threw her off as you say from her flow and shocked her into submission.

Give the lady some tissue already!

I've read through quite a few of these FDR critiques. For someone who was never a part of that, does this seem to anyone else like a new low? Or is this pretty much standard? Based solely on the other stuff you guys have written about FDR here it seems to me like Steph is having a very desperate breakdown. I mean literally just collapsing...

Nahh,

2:17:35 where Christina at such a crucial moment tries to connect it to the RTR book, that's sickening

just before that Stef says 'and the goal of the abuse is to isolate you, right?' (mildly paraphrased). Such goddamn projection

2:09:35 Stef says in response to the listener's mildly laughing about her situation 'Look, if you don't feel the horror of what you went through, I gotta feel it 10 times'. What the hell does he mean here? is he like Christ suffering for the sins of mankind?

and I don't believe a word of what he says about not his being able to process the horror of what the girl went through if she nervously and (again) mildly laughs about it, she's not negating the emotions she felt, just not comfortable in expressing her true emotion in such a direct conversation, especially in this kind of medium. it's purely a controlling mechanism for Stef.

oh, and now he connects her shoplifting to eat to her nervously mildly laughing about her experience, and what is his evidence for saying that this is the same thing and that they're both ways of communicating the horror she went through? nothing. it is just an assertion that at first sight may sound very deep but which really is a meaningless connection. and she says 'yeah' but hesitantly and likely only because of the power disparity in this conversation. it is at the same time an effect of the power disparity and a further establishment of that disparity (Stef makes a bald unsubstantiated psychological statement about her and she is pressured into accepting it, making her all the more vulnerable and less able to independently think about it) and then he plays 'good compassionate cop' directly afterwards to make the girl feel connected with him again and thereby retroactively make her accept his previous statement. How did she feel after this conversation?