Several of the letters regarding our article address the methodological difficulties of the use of participant self-reports in our research (which is one of the primary criticisms of Pope and Hudson  in their review of clinical research in this area). In our article we acknowledged the limitations of our study, including the reliance on patients’ self-reports concerning possible abuse and corroboration and the difficulties of determining whether subtle suggestion had been a part of the patients’ psychotherapy. However, the results of our study and similar studies should not be dismissed out of hand for methodological reasons. After all, self-report is a routine and accepted methodology for clinical research in which patients are asked describe a wide variety of variables such as mood and other psychiatric symptoms, perceptions, and life events. Although it is true that patients’ self-reports can be influenced by errors in recall, suggestion, study design, and contagion in treatment settings, we doubt that the cumulative clinical research in this area can be completely misguided and mistaken. As noted by Scheflin and Brown (5), who reviewed 25 studies of traumatic amnesia, "Partial or full amnesia was found across studies regardless of whether the sample was clinical, nonclinical, random or nonrandom, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective. Every known study has found amnesia for childhood sexual abuse in at least a portion of the sampled individuals" (pp. 178–179).