According to a 2012 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and a Health Affairs study, 86–90% of health incidents, including medical errors, go unreported (HHS OIG Report; Health Affairs Study). This, in conjunction with the optional nature of reporting, suggests that the Medwatch FAERs numbers may be underreported.

Many doctors are unfamiliar with gadolinium toxicity and often attribute its symptoms to other conditions, such as spontaneous fibromyalgia or complex regional pain syndrome, even when patients feel that MRI contrast dye is the root cause. When deaths occur from gadolinium toxicity, causes like anaphylaxis, kidney failure, or cardiac arrest are frequently listed, despite gadolinium being the causative factor. Even families who highly suspect gadolinium was responsible for their loved one’s death express having to fight for accurate death reports.

As of December 10, 2024, the FAERS database recorded 32,829 reports of harm associated with gadolinium-based contrast agents. However, this figure may not fully reflect the extent of the issue. A 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by patients uncovered over 33,000 reports tied to a single GBCA brand at that time, suggesting potential underreporting or discrepancies in the data. In 2017, the FDA reported receiving only 132 patient reports of symptoms specifically linked to gadolinium retention, despite social media groups now containing thousands of patients sharing similar experiences. These figures underscore the lack of clarity and consistency in tracking gadolinium-related harm, as the numbers remain unclear across the board. A new FOIA request is needed to clarify the current scope of the issue and reconcile these discrepancies.

Pharmaceutical companies often replace older gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) with newer formulations, promoting these updates as safety improvements while retaining gadolinium as the active ingredient. This practice fragments injury data, making it difficult to comprehensively assess long-term risks. Frequent product changes, combined with reliance on postmarketing surveillance and systems like FAERS, shift the burden of identifying injuries to patients and providers while obscuring the full scope of gadolinium-related risks.

Patients often report not being informed that MRI contrast agents contain gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal. Instead, they were told they will receive a contrast injection, leaving them unaware that a lanthanide will remain embedded in their bodies. This can mislead patients who are familiar with iodine-based contrast agents into thinking GBCAs are the same.

GBCAs are often called 'dye,' misleading patients to associate them with non-metallic substances like food coloring. This misconception even creates a Mandela effect, with some mistakenly believing the contrast is blue. In reality, GBCAs are neither colorful nor true dyes, and such false associations only foster misunderstanding.

Patients are still told that MRI contrast agents leave their bodies in 24-72 hours, a falsehood likely originating from misleading claims in the original drug applications (Alwasiyah, et al., 2018). After just one injection, patients can test the excretion of gadolinium in urine, feces, hair, & more for months-years to come. While excretion values often drop to zero as gadolinium embeds in the body, provoked tests with chelating agents can reveal hidden retention in the future (FDA, 2017; Patient Tests; Scientific Literature).

Patients must be told the truth, as they know their unique medical history best and are therefore qualified to weigh the risks and benefits alongside their medical team without exclusion.

Most people view MRIs as non-invasive diagnostic procedures, and don’t consider that a scan would leave something implanted in their body. Gadolinium technically qualifies as a implant because, once injected, it embeds itself permanently in tissues, and patients can experience allergy and immune responses to this foreign metal.

When health issues emerge later, patients overlook gadolinium as a potential cause and struggle to link their symptoms to the procedure.

Recognizing gadolinium’s invasive nature would empower patients to better address health issues that arise following an MRI.

Patients often engage in discussions with medical professionals about their treatment plans, during which they are frequently reassured that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are safe. Some patients have reported being told there are minimal or no risks. However, this verbal reassurance can appear inconsistent with the consent forms or medication guides they are asked to sign, which include information about some risks associated with gadolinium injections.

Many patients may not fully understand that these forms often include disclosures about potential dangers associated with gadolinium. Instead, they may perceive the forms as procedural or as authorization for the MRI scan itself, without realizing they are agreeing to documented risks. This situation can lead to confusion and misinformation if verbal reassurances are not aligned with the scientific evidence or the risk information outlined in the documentation.

Consent forms and informational materials about the risks of GBCAs vary widely between facilities, creating significant gaps in communication and allowing critical information to slip through the cracks. Without a universal standard, patients are often left confused and inadequately informed, especially when medication guides are not provided.

Additionally, there is no prerequisite education on gadolinium-based contrast agents for MRI technicians, so their knowledge about GBCAs varies widely, leaving space for assumptions of safety or misconceptions about adverse events.

This inconsistency extends to post-MRI follow-up, where ambiguity and conflicting information further hinder patients’ ability to make informed decisions.

(See current forms here)

The order of operations for MRIs often makes it difficult for patients to avoid gadolinium, even if they have concerns. Conversations about the scan typically occur with the doctor at a different facility, and the doctor may order an MRI with contrast without ever mentioning the use of gadolinium to the patient. When the patient arrives at the imaging facility, the need for contrast is often revealed in the waiting room or right before the MRI is performed. By then, the facility cannot change the order to a non-contrast MRI without explicit consent from the doctor, who has likely already moved on to other patients.

This last-minute disclosure is especially problematic for patients who have taken time off work, arranged childcare, or made other logistical sacrifices to complete the scan. If they receive consent forms after changing into a gown and waiting by the machine, they may not have an internet device to research the risks. Even if they did, search engine results can sometimes be fruitless in terms of the risks of gadolinium toxicity. Patients are left relying on technicians for accurate information—information that is often incomplete or dismissive of the potential dangers of gadolinium. This process pressures patients into accepting gadolinium-based contrast agents when they normally might not, undermining the principle of informed consent.

Patients should be given adequate time to perform due diligence.

(See current forms here)

The consent forms and Medication Guides provided to patients fail to warn of Gadolinium Deposition Disease (GDD) or disclose that it can occur in individuals with normal renal function. Patients are not informed that certain symptoms, like tinnitus or fibrosis with normal renal function, can be permanent. The guides use vague language, stating gadolinium "retains for months to years," instead of accurately describing it as retaining "for life" or "indefinitely."

Moreover, these forms do not address critical information, such as gadolinium’s ability to dissociate and form metal nanoparticles in the body. There is no mention of contraindications for at-risk patients, including those with immune disorders like MCAS, and no testing is performed to check pre-emptively for gadolinium allergies/reactions (i.e. skin testing).

(See current forms here)

The FDA advises that "all MRI centers should provide a Medication Guide the first time an outpatient receives a GBCA injection or when the information is substantially changed." This recommendation raises two significant concerns. First, the use of "should" rather than "must" renders this guidance unenforceable. Second, limiting the requirement to the first GBCA injection or only when information changes leaves millions of patients without informed consent for repeat MRIs.

This loophole is troubling for patients whose first GBCA injection occurred before the 2017 warning. These individuals may receive numerous additional injections without ever being informed of the risks.

This trend is exemplified in discussions from the British Journal of Radiology, where radiologists openly debate whether parents should be informed about the risks of gadolinium accumulation in children. The article raises the question: "Should radiologists follow the Hippocratic maxim: ‘first do no harm,’ or consider that the Rumsfeldian ‘unknown unknown’ regarding contrast media accumulation has become the ‘known unknown’ of its effects on the developing brain, and so amend consent procedures accordingly?" The existence of this debate highlights a failure to prioritize patient and caregiver autonomy, even in the face of accumulating evidence about gadolinium’s risks.

Informed consent is a fundamental right. Patients, especially vulnerable populations like children, deserve full disclosure of risks at every GBCA injection, regardless of how many they’ve had before.

(See current forms here)

In 2017, the FDA announced that all patients receiving gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) should be provided with a Medication Guide to ensure they are informed of the risks. While this initially applied to both outpatients and hospital inpatients, a 2018 update excluded hospital patients unless they or their caregiver specifically request the guide. Additionally, it states that healthcare providers may choose to withhold the guide if they believe it is not in the patient’s best interest.

This policy is flawed because patients cannot request a medication guide if they are unaware it exists, leaving them uninformed about the potential risks of gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, skin, and other tissues. Allowing healthcare providers to decide not to provide this critical information undermines the entire purpose of the FDA’s guide mandate.

(See current forms here)

The conversation surrounding gadolinium, including the information provided in consent forms and Medication Guides, is largely shaped by the pharmaceutical industry. These materials reflect outdated and sometimes inaccurate drug claims, often downplaying the risks of gadolinium retention. Compounding this issue is the FDA's reliance on the industry’s data and assurances, trusting the companies' word without conducting sufficient independent oversight or requiring updated studies.

(See current forms here)

Technicians often proceed with gadolinium injections even if patients disclose other allergies, such as to antibiotics, foods, or other contrast agents. For many GBCA brands, the only listed contraindication is a prior allergic reaction to that specific contrast agent. This creates a troubling logical flaw: patients must already have been exposed to the drug—and potentially harmed by it—before being flagged as at risk.

Despite reports of low anaphylaxis rates, this assurance overlooks a critical issue: this figure overlooks other reactions, like fibrosis and GDD, and a portion of patients who develop gadolinium toxicity frequently develop Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS), a chronic immune disorder triggered or exacerbated by gadolinium’s long-term presence in tissues. This means that anyone exposed to gadolinium is at risk for persistent allergic and immune responses, even years after their initial exposure.

There is a misconception that pre-medicating with allergy drugs can fully prevent reactions to gadolinium. While these medications may help reduce immediate symptoms, they cannot address the chronic immune responses or ongoing daily reactions that occur because gadolinium permanently embeds in tissues. This persistent presence of gadolinium in the body can cause long-term reactions that allergy drugs cannot completely resolve.

Patients have reported being told by technicians that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are "saline" or "mineral water," likely because of their clear, water-like appearance. In reality, GBCAs are far more chemically complex, consisting of gadolinium ions bound to a molecular cage called a chelator, which enables the gadolinium to dissolve in water.

When GBCAs enter the body, exposure to changes in pH, competing ions, or biological factors may break the cage, releasing gadolinium. This freed gadolinium reacts with biological compounds like phosphate or oxalate to form insoluble nanoparticles, as demonstrated here. Ironically, although medication guides warn against using “the solution if… particulate matter is present,” this transformation to nanoparticle precipitates may still occur inside the body, inducing pathological changes (Wagner, et al., 2024).

Radiologists claim they have never observed adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs), but this is because they typically have no direct interaction with patients beyond interpreting imaging scans. They do not conduct follow-up appointments or monitor patients for delayed or long-term effects, leaving them unaware of any adverse outcomes. For example, one of the authors of this website spoke with a head radiologist at a prominent children’s hospital in Cincinnati who confidently stated that he had scanned 50,000 children with GBCAs and had never seen a single adverse reaction. Yet, in that same year, a concerned mother appeared on Tucker Carlson, describing how her daughter’s health severely declined following an MRI with gadolinium at the same exact hospital. Her daughter lost the ability to walk, required an NG tube, and became wheelchair-bound—all under the care of that facility.

Furthermore, where are the studies examining the long-term impacts of GBCA exposure on mitochondrial changes, oxidative stress, oxalate formation, and nanoparticle accumulation over 1, 3, or 5 years? These gaps in research and follow-up practices allow for GBCA’s impact on human health to remain overlooked.

When patients experience worsening symptoms after an MRI with gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs), they are often advised to undergo additional MRIs to investigate the cause of their new health issues. This practice not only reinforces reliance on MRIs as a diagnostic tool but also obscures the connection between the initial MRI and the onset of symptoms. By attributing worsening health to other factors and recommending repeat scans, gadolinium remains unrecognized and patients susceptible to gadolinium toxicity are put at risk.

Detecting gadolinium retention requires specialized heavy metal tests, which means individuals must already be aware they were exposed to gadolinium to seek testing. Accidental discovery is highly unlikely, as some facilities even perpetuate the false claim that "no gadolinium tests exist." While Mayo Clinic offers a test that can detect gadolinium, its availability at one facility among thousands makes access challenging.

The industry often asserts that "no clinical evidence" exists to support concerns about gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs), but this claim warrants scrutiny. Although the full extent of gadolinium harm is not disclosed in medication guides or drug applications, they do acknowledge some symptoms, directly contradicting the claim that no evidence exists. Additionally, patients consistently report these same symptoms to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), providing further evidence that such issues are neither isolated nor hypothetical. Even the American College of Radiology (ACR) has acknowledged this reality by introducing the term SAGE (Symptoms Associated with Gadolinium Exposure) to categorize these adverse effects. A study published in Radiology (2021) further highlights the need to explore these symptoms and their links to gadolinium exposure (McDonald, 2021). Despite these indications, the industry continues to dismiss documented patterns and patient experiences.

Radiologists are not experts in human biochemistry, cellular functioning, metabolic health, or homeostasis. Their primary role is not to understand how to heal the body but to capture the clearest diagnostic images. This disconnect is highlighted by a quote from one of the industry’s top radiologists, who openly admitted to hating chemistry, revealing a gap in thinking between radiologists and the educational prerequisites for understanding human health.

This priority on imaging is reflected in early GBCA research, where radiologists explored various paramagnetic metals, such as iron, chromium, copper, and manganese, to enhance MRI contrast. Some of these metals play natural roles in the body’s metabolic processes and homeostasis. However, gadolinium was ultimately chosen solely for its ability to produce the brightest images. In doing so, safety and biological compatibility were deprioritized at the expense of long-term patient health considerations.

Gadolinium exposure can produce a wide array of symptoms affecting multiple organ systems, making it difficult to recognize as a single underlying cause. This challenge is compounded by the structure of modern medicine, which is divided into specialties that focus on individual organs rather than viewing the body as an interconnected system. As a result, systemic problems may go unrecognized or misattributed. A greater focus on cellular and mitochondrial processes would allow doctors to bridge the gap and understand substances like gadolinium could affect the body as a whole.

Manufacturers of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) were permitted to submit scientifically misleading drug applications that lacked long-term studies and failed to acknowledge gadolinium toxicity in patients with normal renal function. These omissions contributed to many doctors prescribing GBCAs under the assumption they were safe.

Physicians affected by gadolinium toxicity themselves have noted the absence of formalized education on the risks of GBCAs, which may leave some practitioners relying too heavily on manufacturer claims. This gap in information, combined with manufacturers profiting from the omission of critical information about gadolinium toxicity leaves patients vulnerable to harm.

As it stands, patients are in the dark, and physicians may be, too.

The history of pharmaceutical companies developing contrast agents is marred by repeated oversights and ethical lapses, which prioritize profit over patient safety.

A notable example is Thorotrast, an X-ray contrast agent introduced in the 1930s. Containing thorium dioxide, a radioactive substance, it was widely used despite early safety concerns. Thorotrast was eventually linked to severe health issues, including liver cancer and leukemia. It took decades for the medical community to acknowledge these dangers and discontinue its use, by which time many patients had suffered irreversible harm (Radiopaedia, et al., 2024).

The parallels between Thorotrast and gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are striking. Both were introduced without adequate warnings or long-term studies and injected without proper informed consent. Unlike Thorotrast, gadolinium is not radioactive, but this distinction creates a false sense of safety. Despite lacking radioactivity, gadolinium carries many harms, as detailed on this site.

Bayer, the manufacturer of Gadavist, has a history that further exemplifies the industry's ethical lapses. During World War II, Bayer was part of IG Farben, a conglomerate that produced Zyklon B, the cyanide-based pesticide infamously used in Nazi gas chambers (Hayes, 2003). This association with one of history's gravest atrocities underscores a troubling willingness to engage in harmful practices.

These examples reveal a recurring pattern: companies do not have the ability to objectively assess their own products due to inherent conflicts of interest and profit motives.

Online discussions about gadolinium toxicity are often censored or removed, significantly limiting public awareness. Search engines frequently favor industry-backed data, prioritizing content that highlights the benefits of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) while suppressing or downranking patient testimonials and independent studies on their risks. As a result, it can be challenging to find information that outlines the dangers of GBCAs in search results. (Note from the author: There are significantly more articles discussing the risks of gadolinium now than there were 4–5 years ago when I was first poisoned. Back then, finding them was nearly impossible, even with extensive searching. I also did my pre-MRI research on MRI safety only because I wasn’t told about the dye until after I agreed.)

In addition to biased search algorithms, certain articles, academic journals, and studies have been quietly removed or made inaccessible over time. Social media platforms also flag or suppress posts critical of GBCAs, further contributing to the information vacuum. This censorship leaves patients with little choice but to rely on narratives crafted by manufacturers, which often downplay risks and discourage critical inquiry.

A network of paid experts, corporate lobbyists, and legal professionals works to shield GBCA manufacturers from accountability. These individuals and organizations protect one another through lobbying efforts, expert testimony, and potentially legislative influence, creating systemic barriers that prevent patients from seeking justice.

Beyond the courtroom, influential connections extend to media and entertainment. Drug companies that sponsor media channels or television shows have reportedly shut down conversations or stories about gadolinium toxicity. These intertwined relationships and shared financial interests create a culture of silence, where profits are prioritized over transparency, leaving patients without a voice.

According to the more seasoned members of the gadolinium toxicity community, critical information, including research papers and patient testimonies, has quietly disappeared from public view over time. The dissolution of NSF (Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis) research initiatives further highlights the "scrubbing" of data that could validate patient concerns or challenge industry claims. Additionally, the industry began claiming that newer macrocyclics would eradicate NSF before even putting the products on the market, indicating claims and not actual post marketing data. In conjunction with these claims, some hospitals are trying to remove kidney testing altogether, increasing the potential for another wave of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis cases from the gadolinium in macrocyclic agents.

The onus is on patients to prove the dangers of a drug after they’ve already been exposed because the FDA approves drugs like GBCAs with limited safety data. Instead of requiring overwhelming evidence of safety and minimal evidence of harm before approval, the system operates in reverse: overwhelming evidence of harm is needed to consider removing a drug from the market. This backward approach leaves patients unprotected and shifts the burden onto those who’ve already lost everything.

The database tracking adverse events is managed by agencies with financial ties to the manufacturers of GBCAs. This conflict of interest raises concerns about transparency and accountability, as the very organizations tasked with monitoring safety may prioritize corporate relationships over patient welfare.

In addition to this, there are barriers to entry with the reporting database, especially in older patients who may not be technologically literate: the database is not intuitively named, it is difficult to locate, and many patients are unaware they need to report adverse reactions in the first place. These factors also reduce visibility of the full scope of risks associated with GBCAs.

Pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to fund studies that could reveal their products' dangers. Conducting such research would not only cost millions but could also jeopardize future profits. Instead, they prioritize studies that emphasize safety and efficacy, creating a biased body of evidence that favors their products.

Patients harmed by gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) often find themselves at a legal dead end when seeking justice. Many who attempt to sue manufacturers or healthcare providers are turned away by lawyers, who frequently state they don’t take gadolinium cases. This leaves patients confused, as the reasons behind these rejections are rarely explained, creating the impression that legal precedents have been set to block such claims.

When patients pursue legal action, they are often told it is difficult, if not impossible, to sue hospitals because they are technically following established protocols. Even when protocols are violated—such as administering GBCAs to kidney failure patients—recourse is rare, as hospitals are heavily insulated from liability. Patients are instead left with the option of suing individual doctors, who themselves were often misled about the safety of GBCAs. Meanwhile, the manufacturers, who created and perpetuated the problem by failing to disclose the risks of their products and ignoring decades of mounting evidence, remain largely untouchable. This lack of accountability at every level leaves victims without meaningful avenues to pursue justice.

Whistleblowers seeking to expose the risks of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have often been silenced—some for unknown reasons, and others because they tragically died from gadolinium toxicity. Conditions like Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) and gadolinium toxicity have proven fatal, with many sufferers—children and adults alike—succumbing within a decade of their injections. Common causes of death include fibrosis, heart failure, cardiac arrest, neurological symptoms, or secondary injuries from being bedbound. When these individuals pass, their voices and knowledge are lost, making advocacy even more difficult.

Advocating is especially challenging for disabled individuals. Many spend all their energy managing their health, while some sufferers develop extreme sensitivities to EMFs or chemicals, forcing them to live off-grid or in isolation. Gadolinium toxicity also causes social withdrawal, similar to other heavy metal toxicities, further silencing those affected.

Lobbying by pharmaceutical companies and healthcare organizations plays a significant role in shaping public discourse around gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs). These companies invest heavily in lobbying efforts to influence policymakers, regulators, and even medical institutions, ensuring that the focus remains on the benefits of GBCAs while downplaying or ignoring their risks. Financial ties between manufacturers, medical societies, and research institutions further suppress critical discussions. By funding campaigns, sponsoring medical conferences, and influencing educational materials, the industry creates a narrative that prioritizes profits over transparency, making it difficult for the risks of GBCAs to be addressed openly or truthfully.

Accountability for gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) is a legal and ethical mess that makes it difficult for patients to pursue any meaningful legal action or recourse. Hospitals often cannot be sued directly for GBCA-related injuries, leaving patients to target individual doctors who may have ordered the scan but didn’t administer the injection. Meanwhile, the technicians who actually injected the contrast or misled patients about its safety rarely face consequences. At the same time, the companies that manufacture GBCAs—and propagate misleading claims about their safety—are completely removed from the process and never interact directly with patients, further insulating themselves from accountability.

This fragmented system also makes it easier to inject toxic substances like gadolinium because the people issuing the directives—the companies and higher-ups—are not the ones administering it. Instead, they rely on others to carry out the process, avoiding direct involvement with patients and distancing themselves from the ethical implications of their actions. This separation allows harmful practices to persist with little accountability at any level.

Diagnostic tools like MRIs are trusted as safe and beneficial by design, so patients do not anticipate potential harm. The idea that a tool meant to diagnose health issues could produce disability or prove fatal is not on anyone’s radar.

When seeking medical care, patients often assume they are hiring trained professionals whose primary goal is to help them. There is an initial belief in the expertise of doctors and the idea that they are fully informed and acting in the patient’s best interest. However, systemic issues in medicine, such as time constraints, patient quotas, and reliance on pharmaceutical-driven education, can limit a doctor’s ability to provide holistic care. Unless they or a loved one have been medically injured before, patients don’t typically realize that special interests and the obfuscation of drug risks can leave them vulnerable.

Unlike other medical interventions, the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) is limited by the availability of MRI machines, with only 30+ million patients receiving them annually. This slower, steady rate of harm is spread out over years and decades, making the injuries less visible compared to large-scale medical interventions like vaccines. The gradual pace has allowed companies to construct and maintain narratives that downplay risks, avoiding a forced moment of reckoning that might occur if millions were affected all at once.

However, with the recent push for prophylactic MRIs by various health tech startups, it is crucial to set the record straight about gadolinium-based contrast agents. More young people are at risk of being injected with this toxin under the guise of prevention, making transparency and accountability more urgent than ever.

The delayed onset of symptoms weeks or months after gadolinium exposure makes it challenging for patients to link their health issues to the injection.

After an initial period of excretion, gadolinium levels in blood and urine tests often drop to undetectable levels, leading patients and doctors to believe the substance has left the body. However, this decline is deceptive, as gadolinium becomes embedded in tissues where it cannot be easily measured. This phenomenon makes it harder for patients to link symptoms to prior GBCA exposure.

Older adults make up the majority of MRI patients, and gadolinium-related symptoms are often mistaken for aging rather than toxicity, both by patients and their doctors. This misattribution delays recognition of the true cause and prevents proper diagnosis or treatment. In contrast, younger patients are more likely to identify gadolinium toxicity because their symptoms stand out against an otherwise healthy baseline. Additionally, many older patients face challenges accessing information about gadolinium risks due to limited technological literacy or internet access, leaving them less equipped to connect their symptoms to gadolinium exposure or seek support. These factors make older adults particularly vulnerable and less likely to advocate for themselves.

Gadolinium exposure can damage the nervous system and brain, leaving patients cognitively impaired and struggling with communication. Neurological damage also makes confrontational or stressful situations, such as advocating for oneself with medical professionals, particularly challenging. Sensitivity to light, noise, and stress can exacerbate symptoms, further isolating patients.

Patients harmed by GBCAs often blame themselves for not asking more questions or refusing the injection, despite not being provided with adequate information. This dynamic mirrors that of assault survivors, where feelings of shame and violation can discourage individuals from speaking out or seeking support. This internalized blame further silences victims and perpetuates the issue.