top of page

These pages serve to critique the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), its actions, and its impact on the recovered memory controversy.

What Was the FMSF?

The FMSF, founded in early 1992 and dissolving in 2019, had a complicated beginning. The reasons publicly cited for its establishment are often linked to scientific research, but multiple key members of the foundation have admitted that it was founded in response to allegations of abuse against the Freyds and others. The FMSF sought to deny the existence and accuracy of recovered memories. This page details how the FMSF was founded, why it was founded, and its stated purpose.

Public and Private Discrepancies

Much of the FMSF’s actions and agenda, especially its lobbying efforts against laws protecting children from abuse, were kept out of the public spotlight. This page highlights the inconsistent and troubling messaging of the FMSF, comparing public statements about the goals of the organization to what the FMSF actually did.

False Memory Syndrome (FMS): Scientifically Unfounded

The FMSF asserted that there was a national epidemic of ‘False Memory Syndrome (FMS),’ a phenomenon that has never been recognized by the scientific community. This page goes into detail about the lack of scientific evidence supporting FMS, the rate and rarity of false accusations, scientific articles debunking FMS, the impact of FMS on women’s credibility, and how the concept of FMS originated from anecdotal accounts of parents claiming to be falsely accused.

The FMSF’s Influence on Public Media

The FMSF’s biggest impact was on media coverage of recovered memories. Even though this organization has since dissolved, its impact on the media and the public conception of recovered memories persists. This page covers key pieces of media that challenged the FMSF, as well as pieces of supportive media that were linked to people accused of abuse.

People involved with the FMSF

This page covers the people involved in running the FMSF on a daily basis: the founders, employees, and staff. It talks about how the FMSF exaggerated its membership, and analyzes how many of the foundation’s Scientific and Advisory Board Members actually held degrees in fields related to memory.

bottom of page