I think it callous and irresponsible to make declarations about motive and attitude when the victims become a pawn of skepticism or belief.
They have no problem making themselves pawns of credulity, especially when there are books and DVDs to sell, and appearance fees to collect. And I'm not very interested in the case of "Mary S. of Hoboken" they report, who may or may not exist.
Claiming to be a victim is one of the easiest ways to forestall criticism. Anyone who doesn't believe your story of how you got to be a victim can be written off as "callous." Anyone who doubts your worthiness of sympathy (and money) can be termed "irresponsible."
Why don't these people seek help from the mainstream? Oh, they do -- or so they say. But the nature of any such assistance is confidential. The doctor involved is bound by strict laws that prohibit him from revealing the nature of his involvement. But nothing prevents the
patient from (mis)representing whatever he wants about what was done or not done.
It's all a carefully orchestrated image designed to perpetuate the mystery and controversy as long as possible, and to obviate any meaningful criticism or comment.
You know all about the politics of victimization, don't you? Another example of your "poor, poor me!" syndrome:
http://www.alien-ufos.com/EBE-recove...829.html&st=40 .
You're always so worried about the mere act of being criticized that you don't even stop to see whether the criticism has merit.
Sure, there are likely people out there suffering a legitimate set of symptoms. But the burden of proof is not on skeptics to show that the abduction explanation pasted on it by self-serving people is bogus. The claimants have the burden of proof.