Mark,
yes, that's a fascinating object of study and no, I did get no funds for that research except state money. I do not like to be dependent when forming my opinion.

Little Hawk and Amos,
my main concern is not the therapy part of the said book, but the statements on how memory works (I didn't say that explicitely but I thought it was clear in the context of my post). I'm still at a loss of understanding how any person can write a book and not even acknowledge that there might be a problem with one of the main assumptions in their theory. That's what I call 'uninformed' to avoid a harsher word. However, there has been severe criticism also from the therapy camp (outside of my area of knowledge), easy to find in a websearch.

Amos: I can only say what I have (as far as I know) observed in personal experience, but of course that doesn't account for much. :>)
That counts a lot in science for generating hypotheses, but near to nothing for testing hypotheses.

Amos: statistical validity (if that is not an oxymoron)
It puzzles me deeply, how you can call a technical term with a clear definiton an oxymoron. The term 'statistical significance' (assuming you mean that) has been called by several scientists a 'misnomer' with very good reasons (one part of a chapter in my book about methods will be titled 'Why statistically significant may not be significant after all'), but 'oxymoron'? That makes no sense.

Amos: where no real-world results are being presented to support the claim
Do you mean in my post above? I have presented no results at all, neither from real world nor from lab, I have merely made assertions backed up by a few citations. Or do you mean in memory research? If that, it would be blatantly false, for there is an increasing number of real world experiments or of gathering real world data especially in that field.

Wolfgang