Holmes presented a somewhat skeptical review of the laboratory research on the defense mechanism of repression, whereby conscious memory of a traumatic event is pushed from consciousness because of its emotionally painful impact on the psyche. His conclusions generally differ from those of the investigators who conducted the research, as well as other reviewers. He argues that mechanisms other than repression best explain the results of the laboratory studies he reviewed. Because of Holmes' focus, which did not address traumatic amnesia or the ability to recover accurate memories of trauma, his conclusions are not directly relevant to the current recovered- memory controversy. A wealth of clinical and experimental data do support the concept of extensive traumatic amnesia and the subsequent recovery of accurate memories. This is not to imply that such recovered memories are always accurate or that more research on this topic is not needed; however, the often repeated statement that there is no scientific support for "repressed" memories should be viewed as based on one review article that is cited out of context, while ignoring decades of relevant data that have yielded a different conclusion. 56 references