Nicole Prause’s Harassment, Cyber-stalking, Defamation, and “Astroturf” Campaign

This page was created to counter the ongoing harassment and false claims made by former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause as part of an ongoing “astroturf” campaign to persuade people that anyone who disagrees with her conclusions deserves to be reviled. Watch this short, excellent TEDx talk, “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages” | Sharyl Attkisson – YouTube if you aren’t familiar with the astroturf phenomenon. The speaker explains which terms give away astroturf campaigns such as, “debunking myths (that aren’t myths),” claims of “pseudoscience,” disregard/disparagement of opposing scientific findings, and all personal attacks that do not address substance. Count how many of them appear below! (Prause has also falsely, publicly, repeatedly claimed to have a court restraining order against Wilson: See details.)

Since this page was first created Prause has targeted others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former UCLA colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, and the head of the academic journal CUREUS. These incidents are in the “OTHERS” sections. Several additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to divulge. This page is arranged roughly in chronological order.

Important point: While Prause continues to falsely claim she is “the victim,” it is Prause who initiated all contact and harassment towards the individuals and organizations listed on this page. No one on this list has harassed Nicole Prause. Her fabricated claims about being a victim of “stalking” or misogyny from “anti-porn activists” lack one iota of documentation. Put simply, Prause has created a mythology with zero verifiable evidence, while being closely allied with the porn industry. All the evidence she provides is self-generated: a single info-graphic, a few emails from her to others describing harassment, and several spurious cease and desist letters containing false allegations.

Update: In an attempt to hide her egregious behavior Prause has deleted many of the tweets linked to on this page and has filed 2 bogus DMCA takedowns to have the screenshots of her tweets removed.

Table of Contents:

  1. March & April, 2013: The beginning of Nicole Prause’s harassment, false claims and threats (after she & David Ley target Wilson in a PT blog post)
  2. July, 2013: Prause publishes her first EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Wilson critiques it. Prause employs multiple usernames to post lies around the Web
  3. Others – August, 2013: John A. Johnson PhD debunks Prause’s claims about Steele et al., 2013. Prause retaliates
  4. November 2013: Prause places a libelous PDF on her SPAN Lab website. Content mirrors “anonymous” comments around the Web
  5. December 2013: Prause’s initial tweet is about Wilson & the CBC. Prause sockpuppet “RealScience” posts same false claims on same day
  6. Fall 2014: Documentation of Prause lying to film producers about Gary Wilson and Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD
  7. May 2014: Dozens of Prause sock puppets post information on porn recovery forums that only Prause would know or care about
  8. Others – Summer 2014: Prause urges patients to report sex addiction therapists to state boards
  9. January, 2015: “The Prause Chapter” described 9 months earlier by a YourBrainRebalanced.com troll is finally published
  10. Others – 2015 & 2016: Prause falsely accuses sex addiction therapists of reparative therapy
  11. Others – March, 2015 (ongoing): Prause and her sock puppets (including “PornHelps”) go after Gabe Deem
  12. Others – October 2015: Prause’s original Twitter account is permanently suspended for harassment
  13. Others – November, 2015: Cureus Journal founder John Adler MD blogs about Prause & David Ley harassment
  14. Others – March, 2016: Prause (falsely) tells TIME Magazine that Gabe Deem impersonated a doctor to write a formal critique of her study (letter to the editor) in an academic journal (and the letter was traced to Gabe’s computer)
  15. Others – June, 2016: Prause and her sock puppet PornHelps claim that respected neuroscientists are members of “anti-porn groups” and “their science is bad”
  16. Others – July, 2016: Prause & David Ley attack NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes
  17. Others – July, 2016: Prause falsely accuses @PornHelp.org of harassment, libel, and promoting hate
  18. Others – July, 2016: Prause & sock puppet “PornHelps” attack Alexander Rhodes, falsely claiming he faked porn-induced sexual problems
  19. Others – July, 2016: Nicole Prause & “PornHelps” falsely accuse TIME editor Belinda Luscombe of lying and misquoting
  20. Others – April, 2016: A Nicole Prause sock puppet edits the Belinda Luscombe Wikipedia page
  21. Others – September 2016: Prause attacks and libels former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. 2 years earlier “TellTheTruth” posted the exact same claims & documents on a porn recovery site frequented by Prause’s many sock puppets
  22. September, 2016: Prause libels Gary Wilson and others with AmazonAWS documents & infographic (which Prause tweeted dozens of times)
  23. Others – Prause falsely accuses Donald Hilton, MD
  24. Others – September 25, 2016: Prause attacks therapist Paula Hall
  25. Others – October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Alexander Rhodes
  26. 2015 & 2016: Prause violates COPE’s code of conduct to harass Gary Wilson and a Scottish charity
  27. October, 2016 – Prause publishes her spurious October, 2015 “cease and desist” letter. Wilson responds by publishing his letter to Prause’s lawyer.
  28. October, 2016 – Prause had co-presenter Susan Stiritz “warn campus police” that Gary Wilson might fly 2000 miles to listen to Prause say porn addiction isn’t real
  29. Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters
  30. Others – October, 2016: Prause falsely states that SASH and IITAP “board members and practitioners are openly sexist and assaultive to scientists
  31. Others – November, 2016: Prause asks VICE magazine to fire infectious disease specialist Keren Landman, MD for supporting Prop 60 (condoms in porn)
  32. Others – November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast
  33. Others – December, 2016: In a Quora answer Prause tells a porn addict to visit a prostitute (a violation of APA ethics and California law)
  34. Others – December, 2016: Prause reports Fight the New Drug to the State of Utah (tweets over 30 times about FTND)
  35. Others – January, 2017: Nicole Prause tweets that Noah B. Church is a scientifically inaccurate non-expert and religious profiteer
  36. Others – January, 2017: Prause smears professor Frederick M. Toates with a laughable claim
  37. Others – January, 2017: Prause defames publisher MDPI calling Behavioral Sciences a “fake journal” (harasses several journal contributors)
  38. Others – January, 2017 (and earlier): Prause employs multiple user accounts (including “NotGaryWilson”) to edit Wikipedia
  39. Others – April, 2017: Prause insults Professor Gail Dines, PhD, perhaps for joining the “Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography?”
  40. Others – May, 2017: Prause attacks SASH (Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health)
  41. Others – May, 2017: In response to paper presented at a urology conference Prause calls US Navy urologists “activists, not scientists.”
  42. Others – September, 2017: Prause claims all who believe porn can be harmful and addictive are “science-illiterate & misogynistic”
  43. Others – January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaint with Washington State against therapist Staci Sprout
  44. Others – January 29, 2018: Prause threatens therapists who would diagnose sexual behavior addicts using the upcoming “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” diagnosis in the ICD-11
  45. Others – February, 2018: Prause lies about a brain scan study (Seok & Sohn, 2018) by well-respected neuroscientists
  46. March, 2018 – Libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University
  47. March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson
  48. March 12, 2018 – Prause’s Liberos Twitter account suspended for posting Gary Wilson’s private information in violation of Twitter Rules
  49. March and April, 2018 – Prause files bogus DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to hide her harassment and defamation
  50. Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials
  51. Others – April 11, 2018: Prause falsely claims medical journal Cureus engages in fraud and is predatory
  52. May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple usernames to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page (banned for defamation & sock-puppetry)
  53. Others – May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the NoFap Wikipedia page
  54. Others – May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit “Sex Addiction” & “Porn Addiction” Wikipedia pages
  55. May 20, 2018 – Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier
  56. May 30, 2018 – Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice
  57. From 2015 through 2018 – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted
  58. Prause’s history of intentionally mischaracterizing porn related research (including her own)

In The Beginning – March & April 2013: The beginning of Nicole Prause’s libel, threats and harassment (after she & David Ley target Wilson in a PT blog post)

  • Key point: Prause initiated all direct contacts with Gary Wilson. Prause continues to publicly harass and libel Wilson while simultaneously (falsely) claiming he is under a court’s “no contact” order. This is like punching an innocent person in the face while simultaneously screaming “Stop hitting me!”

March 5, 2013

Author of “The Myth of Sex Addiction,” David Ley, and Nicole Prause team up to write a Psychology Today blog post with the strategic title: “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” (Your Brain On Porn is a website founded by Wilson.) It was about Nicole Prause’s unpublished, yet to be peer-reviewed EEG study (“Sexual desire, not hypersexuality, is related to neurophysiological responses elicited by sexual images”).

It’s important to note that only Ley received access to Prause’s unpublished study (it was published 5 months later). The blog post linked to Wilson’s ‘Your Brain on Porn’ website and suggested that YBOP was in favor of banning porn (untrue).

  • Second key point: Five months before Prause’s EEG study (Steele et al., 2013) was published, both Prause and Ley were targeting Gary Wilson and his website.

March 7, 2013

Wilson published a Psychology Today blog post responding to the content in the David Ley post. Ley’s blog post and Wilson’s response were eventually removed by Psychology Today editors, as the underlying study wasn’t yet available. You can find the original Ley and Wilson blog posts archived here. It’s important to note that Wilson’s blog post clearly states it was only responding to Ley’s description of the Prause study. Later Nicole Prause would falsely accuse Wilson of misrepresenting her study (that only she and Ley had seen, and were making public claims about – which were later shown to be unfounded).

March 7, 2013

Wilson posts under David Ley’s article requesting the study:

“Hey David – I’m wondering how you got your hands on a study that has yet to published, or mentioned anywhere else. Are you willing to send me a copy?”

David Ley did not respond.

April 10, 2013

In response to the above comment, Prause contacted the Psychology Today editors, commented under my PT article, and emailed Wilson the following. In the email, Prause attacks Wilson personally, and mistakenly states that he did not ask for the study. He had, in fact, asked David Ley for it. The email:

Psychology Today (no-reply@psychologytoday.com)
4/10/13
To: _______@hotmail.com

From: Nicole Prause <nprause@________>
Dear Mr. Wilson,

It is illegal for you to misrepresent our science having never even requested a copy of the manuscript. It will be treated as such. Our article actually is very balanced. Unlike you, I have peer-reviewed publications on both sides of this issue. You have attempted to discredit it by describing things that were not done. I am pursuing this with Psychology Today now, but I would advise  you to remove the post yourself before I am forced to pursue further action.

You also do not have permission to quote any portion of this email. It is private communication.

Sell your books on your own merit. Don’t try to make money off the backs of scientists doing their jobs. I can tell this study clearly panics you because  the design and data are strong, but it is egregious to have not even asked  for a copy of the manuscript and just make up content. Shame on you.

Nicole Prause, PhD
Research faculty
UCLA

In addition, Psychology Today editors forwarded a second email from Prause:

Date: April 10, 2013 5:13:30 PM EDT
Topic: Comment on the Blogs

From: Nicole Prause, PhD <nprause@_____________

To whom it may concern:

I was surprised to see an article written about a study of mine by Gary Wilson on Psychology Today.

I have no problem with him representing his own views and interpretations of studies, but he does not and could not have had access to mine. It is under review and he never requested a copy from any of the authors. I notified him that it should be removed. He has not yet done so. Of course, once it is public record, he will have access to it and be able to represent it (hopefully) more accurately.

Of course, knowingly misrepresenting a person to denigrate them is illegal. I hope Psychology Today will take this matter seriously. I will contact other board members as well, in case your cue is full and may take longer to respond.

Thank you for your help in resolving this matter.

sincerely,
Nicole Prause, PhD

At the same time, Prause posted this comment under Gary Wilson’s Psychology Today post:

Study not requested nor reviewed

Submitted by Nicole Prause, PhD on April 10, 2013 – 1:54pm.

Unfortunately, these authors never requested access to our manuscript, so they actually did not review it. They have made a number of egregious errors misrepresenting the science in this article. I am investigating who to contact to remove this article given the lack of due diligence by the authors.

We are now using this as our course example of the misrepresentation of science in the media now, though, so thank you for that opportunity.

The groundless legal threats, false claims, and playing the victim begin in her very first contact with Wilson. Nothing Prause says is true:

  1. Wilson did not describe Prause’s study or misrepresent it in any way. He only responded to Ley’s description of the study. Read Ley’s and Wilson’s blog posts and judge for yourself.
  2. To this day Prause has yet to refute a single word in Wilson’s March, 2013 Psychology Today post, or the analysis Wilson wrote in July after her EEG study finally was published. Nor has Prause refuted a single word in five peer-reviewed critiques of her 2013 EEG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
  3. Wilson makes no money off of this endeavor.
  4. Wilson asked for a copy of the study (Prause refused to supply it).
  5. Prause initiated all contact with Wilson.

Wilson’s email response to Nicole Prause:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, gary wilson <> wrote:

Hi Nicole,

I commented under your comment. Have a look.

We make no money on this. My website has no advertising and we accept no donations. We have no services to sell. I have no book to sell. My wife’s book, which appears on PT, is not about porn.

If you want to be truly fair, please send us the full study and give us permission to blog about it – as you did with Dr. Ley.

I’ll be anticipating your study,

Gary Wilson

April 12, 2013

Two days later Prause contacted Wilson again threatening further legal action. She somehow tracked down one of Wilson’s comments on the porn-recovery site Your Brain Rebalanced. It was posted on a long thread about David Ley’s original blog post. Wilson’s comment was meant to explain why both Ley’s and Wilson’s Psychology Today posts had been removed by Psychology Today. This signaled Prause’s pattern of cyberstalking, as a not even a Google search could locate that post. How did Prause know about this thread on a porn recovery forum?

The Prause email:

Nicole Prause (nprause@_______)
4/12/13

Dear Mr. Wilson,

In your post: http://yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?topic=7522.50
You falsely claim: “I responded to her rather nasty emails with a request to see her study, and she refused.”

This is libel. Please remove this post or I will follow up with legal action.

Nicole Prause

Wilson responds:

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, gary wilson <> wrote:

Dear Nicole Prause,

Maybe you didn’t know that my wife is a graduate of Yale law school.  I said nothing libelous. In fact, my statements are quite accurate.

1) You have refused to hand over your unpublished study.

2) You were nasty and threatening, as you are now.

3) In addition, you falsely stated that I make money from guys struggling to recover from porn addiction.

4) You also mischaracterized my PT post, as it was a clear response to David Ley’s description of your unpublished study. You chose not correct Ley’s description or make the full study available to me, even when I asked about it in the comment section one month ago.

You have yet to answer my original questions (posed in the comments section):

1) Why did you release your study to only David Ley? As the author of the “Myth of Sex Addiction,” and someone who claims porn addiction cannot exist, why was only he the only Chosen One?

2) Why haven’t you corrected David Ley’s interpretation of your study? It has been up for over a month, and you’ve commented twice on it in the last month.

3) You commented under Ley’s post one month ago. I immediately posted a comment under you comment, with several specific questions directed to you about your study. That was your chance to both respond and offer the study. You did neither. Why?

I’m fine with making our exchange public. Won’t it be interesting when you file a lawsuit against a couple of PT bloggers who dare to take on your research?

Best,
Gary Wilson

Prause emails again with more crazy claims & legal threats [Note: Neither Wilson nor his wife ever initiated contact with Prause. She is the one who repeatedly contacted them and threatened them with groundless legal action.]

From: nprause@_________ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:01:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [PT] Inquiry via Psychology Today

Dear Gary,

This is to notify both you and your wife that your (both you and your wife’s) contact is unwanted. Per stalking statutes in your home state (http://courts.oregon.gov/Lane/Restraining.page), any additional harassing contact will be interpreted as actionable harassment.

You do not have my permission to share this private communication in any forum.

Nicole Prause

Wilson sends his final email to Prause, to set the record straight: that she is the one initiating all contact and the only person making threats (and false claims):

From: ______@hotmail.com

To: nprause Subject: RE: [PT] Inquiry via Psychology Today

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:44:12 -0700

Dear Nicole Prause,

Harassment? I have not initiated one email exchange with you, including this one.
The first, initiated by you on 4/10/13, where you had the last email. And the one below, where you are trying to create a false impression that someone is harassing you, when in fact you are threatening me for the second time.

You are also the one who contacted Psychology Today’s editor to interfere with my blog post. My wife has had no contact with you whatsover.

We do not need your permission.

Gary Wilson

The end of the beginning with Nicole Prause.


Late July, 2013: Prause publishes her EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Wilson critiques it. Prause employs multiple usernames to post lies around the Web

In late July 2013 Prause’s EEG study (Steele et al., 2013) was finally published. It arrived with much press coverage, including this Prause Interview by a Psychology Today blogger: New Brain Study Questions Existence of “Sexual Addiction.” A few days later Gary Wilson published his detailed analysis of Steele et al., 2013 and Prause’s claims put forth in the above interview and elsewhere. Wilson posted it on his Psychology Today blog as Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab’s New Porn Study. Incidentally, Psychology Today, apparently in response to Prause’s threats, ultimately unpublished not only Wilson’s critique of this study, but also the critiques of two professional experts in the field who wrote about the study’s weaknesses.

Ultimately, Prause’s findings and claims in the media were re-analyzed and critiqued repeatedly by various other experts and by five peer-reviewed papers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. All five papers agree with Gary Wilson’s analysis that Steele et al. actually supports the porn addiction model, and that Prause misrepresented her findings to the press. Prause’s two claims versus the study’s actual findings:

1) Prause claimed that subjects “brains did not respond like other addicts”.

Reality: The study had no control group for comparison. More importantly, the study reported higher EEG readings (relative to neutral pictures) when subjects were briefly exposed to pornographic photos. Studies consistently show that an elevated P300 occurs when addicts are exposed to cues (such as images) related to their addiction (see more).

2) Prause suggested that her subjects simply had “high sexual desire”.

Reality: In line with the Cambridge University brain scan studies, Steele et al. reported greater cue-reactivity (higher EEG readings) to porn correlating with less desire for partnered sex. To put another way – individuals with greater brain activation to porn would rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Prause claimed that porn users merely had “high libido”, yet the results of the study say the exact opposite: their desire for partnered sex was dropping in relation to their porn use (see more).

With her unsupported claims exposed by Gary Wilson, John A. Johnson PhD and Don Hilton MD, Prause then resorted to behind the scenes maneuvering at Psychology Today, cyberstalking, and various forms of intimidation. To this day Prause and others continue to cite her work as “debunking the field,” without mentioning or offering any response to any of the formal criticism apart from ad hominem attacks on some of the authors.

Within a few days of publishing Wilson’s critique, various usernames began posting comments wherever Gary Wilson’s name appeared. The comments were all very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that 1) Wilson had never taught anatomy & physiology or attended college, 2) Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site, 3) Wilson has a police report filed on him. In the beginning many comments posts were written by GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud, and a few other sock puppets. An example from under Wilson’s TEDx talk:

Of course the above is ludicrous, but the false claims about stolen “pictures on a porn site” and “a police report has been filed” incriminate Prause as the cyberstalker posting these and future comments. (A call to the Los Angeles police and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems.) Below is an example taken from Wilson’s YouTube inbox (7/26/13):

Key point: Both the cyberstalker and Nicole Prause have stated that Wilson “stole photos of a woman” and “had a police report on file for stealing these photos.”

1) “Photos stolen” “on a porn site”

Here’s the reality: Gary Wilson wrote this Psychology Today blog post about this Nicole Prause Psychology Today Interview (which contains a picture of Prause). Psychology Today required at least one picture (all of Wilson’s Psychology Today articles contained several pictures). Since this blog post was about Nicole Prause’s interview and her EEG study, it seemed appropriate to use a picture of Prause from a UCLA website. The picture that accompanied Wilson’s Psychology Today blog post was also used with this same article on YBOP.

The photo of Prause came from what Wilson reasonably assumed was a UCLA website – SPAN Lab – and it was apparently the photo Prause had chosen to represent herself. Everything about SPAN Lab’s website gave the impression it was owned and run by UCLA. At the bottom each SPAN Lab page was the following (Prause has recently forbidden the “Internet WayBack Machine” from showing SPAN Lab’s archive pages, so as to conceal this fact):

Copyright © 2007-2013 SPAN Lab, All Rights Reserved University of California, Department of Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA 90024

A screenshot of the SPAN Lab front page from August, 2013:

It was unclear how Prause could be claiming copyright to a photo that was on a website that claimed its copyright was owned by UCLA. UCLA is a California state school answering to taxpayers. Presumably, its images are public. Many months later when Wilson wrote UCLA concerning Prause’s libelous PDF (below), UCLA stated that SPAN Lab was Prause’s site, and not on UCLA servers(!). Why did Prause misrepresent her website as being owned by UCLA? That was the first time Wilson learned this. Undisputed fact: Prause never contacted Wilson to request that her picture be removed from the blog post. Wilson knew nothing until Prause filed a DMCA request (below) and Wilson found the picture missing from the article critiquing Prause’s interview and study.

So, that’s the “stolen photo’s” claim: A single picture, selected by Prause herself, from (what appeared to be) a UCLA lab website was used in an article about a study published and promoted by UCLA & Nicole Prause. The “porn site” was YBOP, a claim that is laughable, as it is a porn recovery support website without x-rated content.

Addendum: Prause is now claiming in an AmazonAWS PDF that Wilson migrated the picture of Prause (and the associated article) to other servers. This is completely false. The picture of Prause accompanied a single critique that appeared on two separate websites, PornStudySkeptics and YourBrainOnPorn.com. These two identical articles have remained on those two websites since July, 2013: Article 1, Article 2. In her PDF Prause also claims that Wilson’s ISP told him that they would “close his website if he did it a fourth time.” This is fabricated nonsense.

2) “police report filed”

It’s been about 4 years and Wilson has never been contacted by the police (a call to the Los Angeles police department and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems). Although Prause has repeated this undocumented claim dozens of times, she has also failed to divulge what law Wilson supposedly violated.

Evidence directly connecting Prause to these many groundless comments about “stolen pictures” and “a police report.”

  1. Prause filed a DMCA take down of her SPAN Lab picture on July 21, 2013 – http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1091617 and the server removed it before Wilson saw the related email notices. Wilson removed the photo from its other location when asked via a second DMCA filing, even though UCLA, not Prause, appeared (as far as he could tell) to be the copyright owner.
  2. Prause has tweeted that she filed a police report on Wilson (see details below under “Prause & Ley attack NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes“). A call to the LAPD and UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their system.
  3. Nicole Prause published a PDF on her SPAN Lab website (more on this in the next section) with all the usual claims and lies echoing all the preceding comments. It also lied that:

“Wilson has been found guilty of stealing other people’s images”

Again, this was apparently a reference to the same picture that accompanied the Psychology Today post, and the Psychology Today post was about Prause’s interview on Psychology Today. It was the same picture she had chosen for the top of her SPAN Lab website (which falsely proclaimed it was a UCLA site).

To summarize July 2013:

  1. Dozens of comments containing false statements arrived a few days after Wilson published Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab’s New Porn Study.
  2. Most of these comments claimed that Wilson “stole” and placed Prause’s picture on a pornographic website.
  3. Prause never contacted Wilson about the picture.
  4. Prause filed a DMCA take down of her picture, which forced the company hosting YBOP to remove the picture without first contacting Gary Wilson.
  5. Similar groundless comments continue to be posted to this day (more below).

Others – August, 2013: John A. Johnson PhD debunks Prause’s claims about Steele et al., 2013; Prause retaliates

At the same time that Prause was engaging in cyberstalking and threatening groundless legal action against Wilson, she went after senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson. Prause was enraged by Johnson’s saying that spokesperson Prause made claims that did match her actual results (as Wilson had also said). Commenting under the Psychology Today interview of Nicole Prause, Professor John A. Johnson commented twice:

A gap in logical inference

Submitted by John A. Johnson Ph.D. on July 19, 2013 – 2:35pm

Mustanski asks, “What was the purpose of the study?” And Prause replies, “Our study tested whether people who report such problems [problems with regulating their viewing of online erotica] look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images.”

But the study did not compare brain recordings from persons having problems regulating their viewing of online erotica to brain recordings from drug addicts and brain recordings from a non-addict control group, which would have been the obvious way to see if brain responses from the troubled group look more like the brain responses of addicts or non-addicts.

Instead, Prause claims that their within-subject design was a better method, where research subjects serve as their own control group. With this design, they found that the EEG response of their subjects (as a group) to erotic pictures was stronger than their EEG responses to other kinds of pictures. This is shown in the inline waveform graph (although for some reason the graph differs considerably from the actual graph in the published article).

So this group who reports having trouble regulating their viewing of online erotica has a stronger EEG response to erotic pictures than other kinds of pictures. Do addicts show a similarly strong EEG response when presented with their drug of choice? We don’t know. Do normal, non-addicts show a response as strong as the troubled group to erotica? Again, we do not know. We don’t know whether this EEG pattern is more similar to the brain patterns of addicts or non-addicts.

The Prause research team claims to be able to demonstrate whether the elevated EEG response of their subjects to erotica is an addictive brain response or just a high-libido brain response by correlating a set of questionnaire scores with individual differences in EEG response. But explaining differences in EEG response is a different question from exploring whether the overall group’s response looks addictive or not. The Prause group reported that the only statistically significant correlation with the EEG response was a negative correlation (r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. In other words, there was a slight tendency for subjects with strong EEG responses to erotica to have lower desire for sex with a partner. How does that say anything about whether the brain responses of people who have trouble regulating their viewing of erotica are similar to addicts or non-addicts with a high libido?

Two months later John Johnson published this psychology Today blog post which he linked to in a comment under the same Prause interview.

Perhaps Prause’s preconceptions led to a conclusion opposite of the results

Submitted by John A. Johnson Ph.D. on September 22, 2013 – 9:00pm

My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports
higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice.

How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could be due to her preconceptions–what she expected to find. I wrote about this elsewhere.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201308/preconceptions-may-c…

Johnson post: Preconceptions May Color Conclusions about Sex Addiction. Key take-away: In his post Johnson describes Prause’s behind the scenes behavior, such as legal threats (as she had done with Wilson) and battering Psychology Today editors with threats, forcing them to remove two blog posts critical of Prause’s unsupported assertions (1 – Gary Wilson’s critique of “Steele et al., 2013″, 2 – critique by Robert Weiss, LCSW & Stefanie Carnes PhD). He also describes receiving disturbing and threatening emails from Prause:

When I first conceived this blog post and began to compose it about a month ago, my original intention was to describe in exquisite detail the specific ways in which I saw the proponents of opposite sides of the debate exaggerating or overextending their arguments beyond the actual data in the study. I subsequently changed my mind when I observed a firestorm of emotionally-charged rhetoric erupting among the debate participants. Not arguments about what the data logically implied, but ad hominem threats, including threats of legal action. I saw a PT blog post disappear, apparently because one of the parties demanded that it be taken down. I even received a couple of angry emails myself because one of the parties had heard that I had raised questions about the proper interpretation of the research in question in a scientific forum.

So, I have decided to quietly tip-toe out of the room. I have also decided to go ahead and post here what I had already composed a month ago, simply to present an example of my empirical claim that science is not a purely objective enterprise, and that actual scientists can become very personally and emotionally involved in their work. The controversy in question is also an excellent example of a common trend among U.S. researchers to overestimate soft-science results.

This angered Prause who argued (using fake names) with Johnson in the comments section of his Psychology Today blog post about Prause’s 2013 EEG study (note that Johnson doesn’t really have an opinion on sex addiction).


November 2013: Prause places a libelous PDF on her SPAN Lab website. Content mirrors “anonymous” comments around the Web

In November 2013, Nicole Prause placed a PDF on her SPAN Lab website attacking Gary Wilson (screenshot below). It contained several instances of libel. The PDF’s contents are very similar to hundreds of other comments that were posted by various usernames. Posts were written by GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud and other sock puppets. Such comments continue to this day on various recovery forums and other venues, posted with other usernames.

If there was ever any doubt as to who was actually behind these comments, the PDF puts an end to it. Gary Wilson contacted UCLA to report the PDF’s defamatory statements, as he still believed SPAN Lab was a UCLA website (at the time, SPAN Lab’s copyright was owned by UCLA and its address was within a UCLA building). UCLA acknowledged the existence of the PDF, and its subsequent removal in a letter. Its URL was – http://www.span-lab.com/WilsonIsAFraud.pdf.

How did Gary Wilson discover the above PDF? His Internet browser was redirected to the PDF when he visited the SPAN lab website (representing itself as a UCLA website). Knowing Wilson’s IP address, Prause made a habit of redirecting Wilson’s Internet browser to other URLs, such as porn sites or pictures of mutilated penises. This started before the PDF appeared, and continued after the PDF was removed. More evidence that Prause is likely the one responsible for cyberstalking events (only a small portion of which are detailed on this page). For example, two PDFs containing material nearly identical to Prause’s libelous PDF were uploaded onto DocStoc a few days after Wilson published his critique of Prause’s 2013 EEG study:

Contrary to claims the “documents” show nothing, except that Prause is the person who published both PDFs. Wilson complained to UCLA about Prause’s libelous PDF. The UCLA reply:


December 2013: Prause’s initial tweet is about Wilson & the CBC: “RealScience” posts same false claims on same day

On December 18. 2013 Nicole Prause’s maiden tweet for her new Twitter account was about Gary Wilson and a CBC interview. We can’t link to the tweet as Prause’s original Twitter account was permanently suspended for harassing Todd Love, PsyD, JD, whose review of the literature dared to criticize her work (more below). Prause’s original Twitter URL was https://twitter.com/NicolePrause/. If interested you can read Wilson’s response to the CBC here.

On December 18th & 19th “RealScience” posted several similar, equally misleading comments as the one below on sites that mentioned Gary Wilson (see several more posts on December 18th & 19th by “RealScience” or “Real Scientist”). Who else but Prause could be responsible for these posts, which entirely misrepresent the exchange with the CBC and its response to Wilson?

In this comment on YourBrainRebalanced Prause (as RealSceince) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?”.

A screenshot of the above, along Gary Wilson’s answer where he inadvertantly wrote “Miss Prause” in reponse to a juvenile question about his penis, is the supposed “proof” Prause uses that Gary Wilson is a mysogynist. Here Prause tweets a hard-to-read version of her “RealSceince” comment:

Here’s an enlarged version of the image she included in the above tweet. Link to Wilson’s full answer.

Prause frequently trolls porn recovery forums citing junk science or harrasing members who are attempting heal addictions or porn-induced ED.


May 2014: Multiple sock puppets post information on YourBrainRebalanced.com that only Prause would know (many more examples)

The day the Max Planck study on porn users was published (suggesting that porn use may have measurable effects on the brain), four aliases including “touif” and TrickyPaladin posted approximately 100 comments on YourBrainRebalanced.com. What’s left of their comments is here, as the troll deleted her comments within a few hours. Most of the touif and TrickyPaladin comments were either attacks on Wilson or meticulously detailed ‘defenses’ of Prause’s 2013 EEG study. Below are few examples caught by a YBR member’s cell phone where TrickyPaladin and touif make detailed assertions about Steele et al., 2013 that only a handful of people could produce (and only Prause would care about):

—-

I’ll ask, who (other than Prause herself) would know details of a complex EEG study well enough to attempt defense of it, or want to post 100 times on a porn recovery forum to defend it? (If you bothered to read the above comments, know that any and all such claims have been dismantled by this extensive critique, and five peer-reviewed papers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

While Tricky (and other sock puppets) deleted most of her comments, she left a few describing a “yet to be published chapter by Prause” supposedly chronicling Gary Wilson’s evil deeds:

Who but Prause would know details of an unpublished chapter by Prause? The above comment is from May, 2014. The “upcoming” Prause chapter was in fact published 8 months later in this book – “New Views on Pornography: Sexuality, Politics, and the Law. Of course, Prause did not identify Wilson in the chapter, as her claims of “horrible things” are fabricated nonsense.

As mentioned, sock puppets posting Prause-like comments continue to this day on porn recovery sites such as reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap. Right from the beginning Prause had an odd habit of frequently creating usernames from 2-4 capitalized words (i.e. GaryWilsonStalker). The following reddit usernames were all created the day the comments appeared on r/pornfree and r/nofap. While the usernames and comments are often deleted by the sock puppet, a few examples with content remain:

Just a few examples of deleted reddit usernames who posted Prause-like comments:

A few examples of Prause sockpuppets on Quora where Gary Wilson occasionally answered questions about porn addiction. All names only commented under Wilson’s answers. Note that Quora requires members to use their actual names. Mods ban trolls who use fake names (as they did with Prause’s fake names):

And these are just the ones we happen to see when visiting r/pornfree and r/nofap to gather recovery accounts. In addition, many more such usernames and comments appeared on YourBrainRebalanced.com, but were deleted by the moderators.


OTHERS – Summer 2014: Prause urges patients to report sex addiction therapists to state boards

Prause makes it no secret that she vehemently opposes the concepts of sex and porn addiction. In the summer of 2014 Prause placed the following notice on her SPAN Lab website. You can read for yourself that Prause is encouraging all individuals being treated for sex addiction to report their therapists to the state board (it contains a handy hyperlink):

This is unprofessional, and also unethical as both the DSM and the ICD permit reimbursable diagnoses for the disorder. In case anyone missed this, Prause followed it up with this tweet:

A month later Prause reminds us all again to report our local sex addiction therapist. It’s free and easy!

Prause doesn’t stop with tweets directed at a profession. She ups her game, falsely accusing psychotherapists of fraudulent therapy. Isn’t this rather reckless for a psychologist, especially given that (1) diagnoses of compulsive sexual behavior can be made using the World Health Organization’s ICD-10 and (2) Section F52.8 of the DSM itself recognizes the diagnostic validity of excessive sex drive as a valid, reimbursable disorder? In short, Prause is mistaken and behaving unethically.


Fall 2014: Documentation of Prause lying to film producers about Gary Wilson and Donald L. Hilton Jr., MD

Documentary producers forwarded the following email to Gary Wilson:

Re: Documentary on porn

Hi **********

I am open to chatting with you, but I should probably clarify two items.

First, I do believe, and have published, some negative effects of sex films. It is fair to say that I do not believe it is addicting. If it is useful to you to have a scientist who can talk about both the benefits and possible problems with sex films, I am probably best-suited to that type of role.

Second, I am not willing to be placed in opposition to Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, or Don Hilton. None of these individuals are scientists, and all have attacked me personally, making it unsafe for me to be put in a direct confrontation with them. For example, they claimed that I was secretly funded by pornography, falsified my data, and wrote me and my university chancellor many times trying to harass me at home and work. If you were considering these individuals, I would be happy to get you in touch with some actual scientists who support that sex films can lead to addiction. These individuals, in my opinion, would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for a film.

I realize this information may be in direct opposition to your desire to have free artistic reign, so I understand if I might not be useful to your film given this information. Regardless, best of luck with your project!

Nikky

Nicole Prause, Ph.D.

Associate Research Scientist

University of California, Los Angeles

www.span-lab.com

Prause is once again lying. As addressed below, Wilson never said that Prause had “falsified her data” or that she was “funded by pornography.” While Gary Wilson wrote UCLA chronicling Prause’s harassment and cyberbullying (see below), he never attempted to contact Prause directly at home or at work. (In reality, it is Prause who initiated all direct contact with Gary Wilson as documented in the first section.) Donald Hilton Jr. MD confirmed that he has never attempted to contact Nicole Prause or UCLA, nor did he say what Prause claims in the above email.

Key point: There is reason to believe that this behind-the-scenes defamation of Wilson and others is standard procedure for Prause. See further example relating to TIME magazine and Gabe Deem below. Note how Prause tries to control who is being interviewed by stating that she is not willing “to be placed in opposition to Gary Wilson or Don Hilton.”


January, 2015: “The Prause Chapter” described 9 months earlier by a YourBrainRebalanced.com troll is finally published

[To recap, a YourBrainRebalanced troll (TrickyPaladin) posted 50 comments or more on the same day the JAMA fMRI study on porn users was published (affirming that porn users’ brains show measurable changes correlating with time/years of use). Most of TrickyPaladin’s comments were either attacks on Wilson or meticulously detailed (attempted) defenses of Prause’s 2013 EEG study. While Tricky deleted most of her comments, she left a few saying a chapter in an upcoming book would detail horrible things done by Wilson.]

The book and chapter now arrive: “New Views on Pornography: Sexuality, Politics, and the Law.The chapter in question (“The Science and Politics of Sex Addiction Research.”) is authored by Nicole Prause and Timothy Fong. It consists mostly of a discussion of the appropriate “model” for understanding compulsive pornography use. Only two paragraphs are devoted to Prause’s undocumented and unsupported claims of being harassed. The most outlandish claim is that “individuals mapped routes to the laboratory address.” In other words, Prause is claiming that Google maps told her when people were searching for her lab’s address. Of course Prause did not name Wilson or anyone else in her chapter.

  • Key point: Knowing the details of an unpublished chapter 9 months before it is published incriminates Prause as TrickyPaladin. As do the meticulously detailed comments defending Prause’s flawed 2013 EEG study.

The chapter also implicates Prause as GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud and the many other aliases posting diatribes right after Wilson’s critique was published. The claims in those posts and the PDF are identical to these two found in Prause’s chapter:

  1. Prause had “photographs stolen
  2. Some individuals repeatedly emailed her after we had requested contact to stop… resulting in a police report”

Both claims are aimed at Wilson, and both are false.

[As explained above, here’s the reality behind each claim:

1) “Photos stolen”

A single picture, selected by Prause herself, from (what appeared to be) a UCLA lab website was used in an article about a study published and promoted by UCLA & Nicole Prause. The “porn site” was YBOP, a preposterous claim, as it is a porn recovery support website without x-rated content.

2) “Individuals repeatedly emailing me….police report filed”

Police Report: Wilson has never been contacted by the police. A call to the Los Angeles police department and UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their system.

Email Claim: It was Prause who initiated all contact with Wilson after he wrote a Psychology Today blog post. Prause’s harassing emails contained threats and false statements, and it was Prause who continued to harass Wilson. See above.]

In the chapter Prause also stated:

“Noticeably absent from these attacks are published critiques from any scientist.”

Contrary to Prause’s claim 12 peer-reviewed critiques of her studies have been published:

In the chapter Prause made this pronouncement:

“The research was never stopped by these attempts.”

As for Prause’s research at UCLA never stopping, it’s important to note that UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s employment contract (although she continued to claim publicly that she was still a UCLA researcher employed at the medical school). Prause hasn’t been employed by UCLA or any other university since late 2014 or early 2015.


OTHERS – 2015 & 2016: Prause falsely accuses sex addiction therapists of reparative therapy

David Ley and Nicole Prause team up again. This time falsely accusing sex addiction therapists of practicing reparative therapy or conversion therapy. It started with Ley publishing “Homosexuality is Not an Addiction” which not so subtly, falsely accused members of IITAP and SASH of trying to turn their gay clients straight. (In response to complaints, Ley was later forced to alter the post and Psychology Today eventually deleted the comments.)

Prause tweeted the Ley post:

Prause was the first to comment, falsely accusing IITAP of harboring reparative therapists, and claiming to have emailed IITAP the names of the accused. While Prause’s comments were later deleted, she commented a few weeks later groundlessly accusing (gay!!) therapist Michael J. Salas of practicing reparative therapy as follows:

Having received no response to her groundless accusations, Prause “outed” Salas as a reparative therapist. She took a sentence out of context, hoping no one would actually visit his website. On his website, however, readers discover that Salas specializes in therapy for the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender community. He is a member the “Texas Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues in Counseling”, Salas also states:

“For clients who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, I provide LGBT Affirming Therapy. There is no such thing as changing someone’s sexual orientation”

It doesn’t end there. On November 22, 2015 Psychology Today blogger Joe Kort published “Why I Am No Longer a Sex-Addiction Therapist,” which created a brouhaha on all fronts. Nicole Prause immediately commented about her email exchanges with IITAP (Prause mistakenly called the organization CSAT, which is IITAP’s certification):

We did report and they refused to investigate

Submitted by Nicole prause on November 23, 2015 – 6:21pm

On submitting specific names and concerns, CSAT did not respond. After pressed with three queries and by other professionals they responded that te allegations were false. They provided no investigative process. For this writer to inquire would change nothing and make him yet another target of that community. I would discourage anyone from tangling with a group with no intention of addressing its problems.

I am happy to share the emails with you privately. They were disgusting to me as a licensed psychologist too.

Actually, any investigation shows her claims were completely false. Click on the link to Prause’s comment and you see no replies. That’s because Joe Kort deleted all comments challenging Prause, leaving her fabrications unchallenged. We have reproduced those (now) deleted comments below. The first 2 comments have CSAT Michelle Saffier asking Prause for data, and Prause responding:

The 3 Prause “complaints” were nothing more than cyberstalking. Michelle Saffier received no data or emails from Prause. The next comment challenging Prause was posted by anonymous:

Again, Joe Kort deleted the comments challenging Prause, while allowing Prause’s defamatory claims to remain. Kort’s actions drew a Twitter response, and an unsatisfactory response (Joe Kort later deleted his Twitter replies to Michelle and others). Joe Kort’s deletion of comments drew yet another comment under his blog post (since deleted).

Joe Kort closed all comments and deleted the above comment. Prause’s comment remains unchallenged to this day. Prause continues her unsupported and libelous claims concerning CSAT therapists. For example, this March, 2016 Tweet with compatriot David Ley.

Another CSAT therapist using “sex addiction” as a justification for reparative therapy. #IITAP stop supporting now.

It is, predictably, entirely untrue.


OTHERS – March, 2015 (ongoing): Prause and her sock puppets (including “PornHelps”) go after Gabe Deem

Gabe Deem recovered from severe porn-induced ED by quitting internet porn use. He now runs Reboot Nation and occasionally appears on TV and radio to discuss his and other men’s experiences with porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. In May, 2015 Gabe published a detailed critique of the Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus paper, “Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction.” Everything in Gabe’s page is accurate, documented, and unassailable. Gabe’s critique aligns with a Letter to the Editor of the journal where the paper appeared, by Richard A. Isenberg MD, though it provides more details about the Prause paper’s glaring discrepancies and unsupported statements.

A long debate ensued when user “FapSlap” posted the Prause & Pfaus paper on reddit/nofap. Prause-apologist “FapSlap” (who appears to be a researcher) eventually claimed to contact Nicole Prause looking for ammunition to defend the Prause paper. Here’s FapSlap’s comment confirming not only his/her email exchanges with Prause, but a future response to her critics:

Really don’t care if you believe me or not. You can email her yourself. http://i.imgur.com/3xjtBph.png

Of course you will probably say ‘fake is fake.’ But believe me it’s not. Out of respect I am not posting the conversation. You will have proof soon enough for the journal, trust me :) And I will be quite happy to see your ‘bullet in the barrel’ critique be thrown out the window.

FapSlap was indeed prescient, as “the real” Nicole Prause soon commented with the username “DataScienceLA” (notice her claims, in bold):

Actually, he did just write me and he is correct. We collected the full IIEF in many studies in which we do not ultimately publish the data. Sometimes we choose not to, sometimes reviewers tell us to remove them because they are not relevant.

We are publishing a follow-up letter in the journal to show all the counts remain correct. All the analyses remain correct. The conclusions stand.

I will not be responding to any follow-up posts. I posted here only out of compassion, because you are lying to this poor person. Wait for the letter. It is to appear in April and will dispel all the myths RebootNation is propagating to the poor people they are using to fund their speaking travel and fees and false “counselor” titles.

The promised response did not address any of Isenberg’s concerns (as pointed out subsequently by Deem) and merely added new unsupported claims and untrue statements. Prause also falsely states that Gabe (RebootNation) is lying and that he makes money from RebootNation and speaking fees. While none of this is true, these same exact claims soon appear again via “PornHelps” and several r/pornfree sock puppet user names.

On March 31, 2016, the TIME cover story featuring Gabe, and other men who had recovered from porn-induced sexual problems, was published. On April 1 the following post by TruthWithOut appeared on reddit/pornfree: Gabe Deem admits profiting of NoFAP Reboot Nation. The original post, the “TruthWithOut” username, and a few of her comments, were later deleted (though most of her comments remained). The original post, claiming TIME had “outed” the nefarious Deem:

The reddit/pornfree moderator “Iguanaforhire” recognizes the sock puppet has previously posted the same false content:

It doesn’t. Person made a new account just to bother us. Again.

You can read TruthWithOut’s remaining comments and see the same false claims repeated over and over: 1) Gabe is lying about everything, 2) he never had ED, 3) he makes money from both RebootNation and speaking fees, and, 4) he’s unemployed. All untrue. One example:

And I’m waiting on that evidence Gabe. ANY shred of evidence that you are not just lying. No one has seen anything validating any part of your story. Not your supposed girlfriend, no doctor, no one. You could easily provide it, but you haven’t.

You are just taking trips and money from guys you stir into a panic with your made up tales.

The facts? The TIME Magazine article incorrectly stated that Gabe Deem made money through speaking fees. While this is not true (and was later publicly corrected by TIME), TruthWithOut used this journalistic error to launch an attack, claiming a series of lies. A few days later Deem tweeted the correction from the print version of TIME Magazine. (TIME formally acknowledged that it had erred in saying that Deem makes money from his activities connected with RebootNation.) End of story. Nonetheless, several other Prause sock puppets posted similar allegations (that “Deem lied about everything“) on Reddit/pornfree and elsewhere. A few examples:

It seems SoManyMalts is upset. We have yet another Prause sock puppet (AskingForProof) posting this:

On yet another r/pornfree thread started by Prause sock puppet DontDoDallas (Deem resides in Dallas):

Speaking of lies, the above Newsweek article never mentioned Gary Wilson or YBOP.

As outlined later, evidence suggests that Prause shares the @pornhelps twitter account with others and created the PornHelps Disqus username.(@pornhelps later deleted their twitter account when outed as Prause) Below is a PornHelps Disqus comment published around the same time as the r/pornfree lie “Gabe Deem admits profiting”:

Look everybody! It’s Gabe Deem back again reposting anti-sex rants again and puppeting his own upvoted post! You might remember him from the Reason post where he was shredded for posting this anti-science message with links back to his own website. He has no college degree, no job, and is paid (see Time article) for speaking about his erectile problems he claims (with no doctors’ evidence) were “due” to porn.

I know I know, you are going to repost a long list of links hoping no one actually follows them and knows the truth, but this is it. And I’m not engaging further. Hopefully the folks form the previous time you did this will find your posts again Gabe Deem.

PornHelps references the TIME article, making the same false claims as the many Reddit sock puppets. This is no coincidence. Below you will see that Prause as Prause (i.e., using her own name) called TIME journalist Luscombe and NoFap.com founder Alexander Rhodes ‘liars’ and ‘fakers’.


OTHERS – September, October 2015: Prause’s original Twitter account permanently suspended for harassment

Nicole Prause’s Twitter account – https://twitter.com/NicolePrause – was permanently suspended shortly after she violated Twitter’s rules by (twice) posting the personal information of one of the authors of this paper “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015). The paper critiqued Prause’s two EEG studies on porn users: Critique 1, Critique 2.

Immediately after Prause’s Twitter account was suspended, this defamatory post appeared on reddit/pornfree, attacking Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem, the author of the above paper, and others. Three newly created usernames commented most. Two usernames were later deleted, but EvidenceForYouremained. Several comments suggest Nicole Prause is the author of these comments – most notably by stating that lawyers are now involved, or that Wilson is about to be sued:

Link – Gary Wilson, they have your IP and all the records courtesy of a subpoena. We’re not chasing these new lies too, just going to stop the one’s you have already been telling. Prepare to file for bankruptcy again.

Link – When they cannot fight the science, they fight the person. They fail, so they spread false rumors that are currently the subject of a lawsuit. This proves it.

Link – For example, in reviewing a (non-existent) critique, they claim the scientist is no longer employed: http://yourbrainonporn.com/our-response-rory-reids-critique-nicole-prause-study This, by the way, is a recent update (seeing these posts and panicking Gary? Too late, we already sent her attorney the screen shots.) watered down from the earlier “fired”.

A week or two later (October 15, 2015) Gary Wilson received a ‘cease and desist’ letter from a lawyer representing Nicole Prause. It stated that Gary Wilson had made four false and misleading statements about Prause. Of course, all four were untrue (such as Wilson saying that “Prause starred in porn films”….unbelievable!). Wilson responded with a letter stating all were false, and asked for proof of these claims (reproduced later on this page). There was no response by the lawyer or by Prause. Just another example of Prause’s continued pattern of harassment while simultaneously playing the victim.


OTHERS – November, 2015: John Adler MD blogs about Nicole Prause & David Ley harassment

John Adler MD, who is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Cureus, wrote a blog post about his harassment at the hands of Nicole Prause and David Ley and their cronies: Intellectual Fascism. In it Adler describes behaviors we have come to expect from Prause & Ley:

Two individuals, whose specialty overlapped the erroneous article [Prause and Ley], attacked the article for its political misstatement, and by extension, Cureus’ journalistic integrity for missing this error during our pre-publication review process.

I immediately invited these critics to set the record straight via our liberal comment and scoring processes, but in a series of personal (and necessarily confidential) emails, the critics refused, insisting on remaining anonymous. Over the next several days they recruited a chorus of similarly-minded colleagues who insisted that the article in question represented serious scientific misconduct and demanded it be retracted… period!

… In parallel, I stumbled upon the existence of a listserv community of likeminded researchers including the two critics, whose major modus operandi is to fiercely act en-mass, hyena-like, oftentimes via social media, when certain partisan political issues arise, such as the article Cureus had unwittingly published.

If ever I witnessed intellectual fascism, this was it; the only thing missing was a goose-stepping mustached man….

By the way, we know he is talking about Ley and Prause because 1) both Ley and Prause engaged in a Twitter storm against Adler prior to his post appearing (we have tweets by Adler, but Prause’s tweets are unavailable because her account was eventually permanently suspended due to her misconduct). 2) David Ley posted all about this on a sexology listserve.

As part of the storm Adler wrote about, former porn star and current radio show host Melissa Hill, tweeted that Dr. Adlers son “managed to get @NicolePrause PhD’s account suspended!”:

The above is entirely false as Prause’s Twitter account was permanently suspended for posting the personal information of one of the authors of this paper “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015). Trip Adler had nothing to do with it, as Prause caused it herself. The logical conclusion is that Prause fed Melissa Hill this false story. It seems they are friends. Prause has appeared on Melissa Hill’s radio show several times, and Prause re-tweeted a photo of her and Hill together on the red carpet of the Adult Video awards. A few days later, the Free Speech Coalition (the lobbying organization for the porn industry) offered Prause assistance, suggesting she contact Diane, the CEO of the Free Speech Coalition (FSC).

Question: Why is the porn industry offering high-level assistance to Nicole Prause? Whatever the reason, Melissa Hill and the FSC join up to harass Adler’s son (Trip Adler) – all because Prause told Hill and the FSC her fabricated accusation that Trip Adler got her thrown off twitter:

A few weeks later Prause’s new Twitter account promised an upcoming news story about her permanent suspension.

The promised story has yet to appear, and Prause has given no formal (or truthful) explanation for her permanent Twitter suspension. Three years later, Prause is still dishonestly blaming Adler’s son for the permanent suspension of her first Twitter account:

Prause has never provided a single iota of evidence for her tall tale that the CEO of Twitter personally deleted her first twitter account. The truth about Prause’s permanent suspension is right here.


OTHERS – March, 2016: Prause (falsely) tells TIME Magazine that Gabe Deem impersonated a doctor to write a formal critique of her study (letter to the editor) in an academic journal (and the letter was traced to Gabe’s computer).

On March 31, 2016, the TIME cover story (“Porn and the Threat to Virility”), by Belinda Luscombe, featuring Gabe Deem, Nicole Prause and many others, was published. It was a year in the making and TIME had the author and other TIME employees (fact checkers) follow-up on claims made by each person interviewed. In the process, TIME fact-checkers presented Gabe Deem with a final set of questions for him to confirm or to deny.

One fact to confirm or to deny was an allegation put forth by Nicole Prause. Prause had told TIME that Gabe Deem had impersonated a medical doctor to write the letter to the editor of an academic journal (described above) critiquing a paper the journal had published by Prause & Pfaus. Below are snapshots from TIME‘s email to Gabe. They include the email intro and the allegation from Prause, but omit other, unrelated questions:

The Intro to the email:

The last of many questions in the email:

——-

Richard A. Isenberg, a medical doctor and author of multiple academic papers, specializing in Uro-Gynecology, is the one who wrote the critique (A letter to the editor), which was published in “Sexual Medicine Open Access,” the same journal that published Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus’s paper, “Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction.” Since Gabe also wrote a critique of the same paper, Prause appears to be accusing Gabe of writing Isenberg’s critique as well! More astonishing still, Prause claimed that UCLA had traced the Isenberg critique to Gabe Deem’s computer. Of course, no evidence was supplied to back up any of these unbelievable assertions.

How likely is it that UCLA would hack the computers of men recovering from porn-induced ED? The thing that makes Prause’s claim about UCLA particularly unstable is that Isenberg’s Letter to the Editor was published 6 months after UCLA did not renew Prause’s employment contract – and yet she claims UCLA was engaging in cyber-espionage on her behalf! All this reveals just how far Prause is willing to go. And unlike much of her unscrupulous behavior this attempt at defamation is documented by a third party (TIME magazine’s staff).


OTHERS – June, 2016: Prause and her sock puppet PornHelps claim respected neuroscientists are members of “anti-porn groups” and “their science is bad”

Nicole Prause, a Kinsey grad, in a tweet about this study posted for commentary (since published in Neuropsychopharmacology), falsely claimed that its 9 researchers (including top researchers in the addiction neuroscience field) were members of “anti-porn groups,” and that their new study was “bad science.” Prause’s tweet (pictured here) appeared on the same page as the study (Can pornography be addictive? An fMRI study of men seeking treatment for problematic pornography use), but was later deleted.

As usual her claims are preposterous. First, it’s an excellent study, now formally published despite all the incomprehensible resistance. Second, its authors received first prize for this very research at the European Society for Sexual Medicine conference in 2016. Third, the authors have no affiliation with Prause’s imaginary “anti-porn groups” (which Prause never names).

For example, the lead author is Dr. Mateusz Gola, who is visiting scholar at UC San Diego, and has 39 publications to his name. Another author is Marc Potenza MD, PhD, of Yale University, who is considered by many to be one of the world’s preeminent addiction researchers (way out of Prause’s league). A PubMed search returns over 430 studies by Dr. Potenza.

As Matuesz Gola explained to “PornHelps” in the comments section, BioRxiv (where Prause found it) exists for pre-publication papers, and functions to elicit feedback from researchers in order to improve papers. It should be noted that “PornHelps’s” comments and Prause’s tweet appeared at the same time. Coincidence?

It’s clear that Prause is disturbed by any neurological study lending scientific support to the porn addiction model (all do). But there’s more to this story. Matuesz Gola also published a formal critique of Prause et al., 2015, which explained that Prause’s findings align with two established addiction models (3 reviews of the literature agree with Gola) – contradicting Prause’s claim (that she had disproved (or, as she likes to say publicly, “falsified”) the addiction model with her single paper).

Marc Potenza was coauthor of the 2014 Cambridge University study that analyzed Prause’s flawed 2013 EEG study. In interviews Prause incorrectly claimed her findings didn’t align with the addiction model. In the Cambridge fMRI study, Potenza and 10 other neuroscientists explained why Prause was mistaken. Perhaps her attack on Gola & Potenza study was attempted pay-back for daring to point out the flaws in her conclusions.

Addendum: Is Prause tweeting for Porn Helps? Porn Helps later tweets that she has “15 years studying as neuroscientist”:

Perhaps. Prause, a Kinsey grad, calls herself a neuroscientist, and appears to have started college about 15 years ago. More on @pornhelps below. (Update – @pornhelps later deleted its twitter account and website when it became apparent to others that Prause often tweeted with this account and helped with the website)


OTHERS – July, 2016: Prause & David Ley attack NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes.

Upset that Alexander Rhodes’s story was published in the NY Times, Ley and Prause attack Rhodes on Twitter.

How ethical is it for psychologists to personally attack individuals trying to remove porn from their lives and recover? Ley has a history of attacking Rhodes and NoFap, and harassing young men trying to quit porn. Prause, a psychologist, tweets again, making fun of Rhodes appearance:

Rhodes eventually responded, and Prause accused Alexander of faking his porn-induced sexual dysfunction:

The only so-called science that Prause relies upon is her own roundly criticized paper (not a real study), which did not find what she has claimed.

Prause did not name Wilson, so she may be off the hook, legally speaking. All claims are false as Wilson has 1) never been contacted by the police, 2) never threatened her lab, 3) is not under any “no-contact order” except threats from Prause herself after Prause harassed him. This tweet once again incriminates Prause as the individual responsible for the many defamatory comments described in the first section. Prause ended it all as she usually does: citing no evidence and tweeting Rhodes “I sent you documentation. Do not contact me again.” That’s Nicole Prause’s MO: Initiate a personal attack, follow it up with lies, then end it all by playing the victim. By the way, Prause sent no such documentation. Yet another lie. Others were watching the Twitter storm, which led to an article detailing it, and more Prause tweets attacking yet another person (below). Meanwhile, consider the fact that it is a violation of APA (American Psychological Association) principles for psychologists to attack those trying to recover.

Over the next few months Prause takes every opportunity to belittle and attack Alexander, NoFap.com, and men recovering from porn addiction:

———–

———–

———–

———

——–

Prause went so far as to falsely accuse another “quora” user of being Alexander Rhodes and thus holding a “trademark”.

As explained here, Prause was eventually banned from Quora for harassment of Gary Wilson. In this out of the blues May, 2018 tweet attacking Nofap, Prause cited an opinion piece in the journal “Sexualities” falsely stating that the article had “shown by science to denigrate women”.

—–


OTHERS – July, 2016: Prause falsely accuses @PornHelp.org of harassment, libel, and promoting hate

The day after the above Alexander Rhodes/Nicole Prause dustup, @PornHelpdotorg published a blog post detailing the events: “Reflections on a Twitter Skirmish,” and tweeted it to Rhodes, Prause, and David Ley. This set off another Twitter conversation, which you can read in entirety here (prause has delted all herPrause’s first response once again claims documentation:

 

Once again Prause performs her usual dance: Start with false unsupported claims. When asked to support the claims, she cannot. Finally, Prause resorts to legal threats, instead of the requested documentation or examples. As always end with “do not contact me”.


OTHERS – July, 2016: Prause & PornHelps attack Alexander Rhodes, falsely claiming he faked porn-induced sexual problems

Evidence points to Prause sharing the @pornhelps twitter account and using the PornHelps disqus username. As described above, Prause published (then deleted) a bizarre tweet about this Matuesz Gola study. PornHelps simultaneously commented under the Gola study using the jargon of a researcher. In addition, the following @pornhelps tweets arise from Los Angeles, where Prause lives. (Update – @pornhelps later deleted their twitter account and website as it became apparent that Prause often tweeted with this account)

We start with a tweet  by the author of the TIME cover story, “Porn and the Threat to Virility“, Belinda Luscombe:

This was followed by @pornhelps calling both Alexander and Belinda liars. @NicoleRPrause eventually chimed in to call TIME journalist Luscombe a liar (more in the next section). The back and forth contains too many tweets to post here, but most can be found in these threads: Thread 1, Thread 2, Thread 3. Below is a sampling of @pornhelps’s unstable-sounding tweets falsely claiming that Alexander faked his story of porn-induced sexual problems:

  • @luscombeland @nytimes “Brave”? Faking a problem to promote his business? You failed to verify any part of his story
  • @GoodGuypervert @luscombeland exaggerating makes them money, esp in his case. These guys are mostly unemployed, no college…got $$$ somehow
  • @AlexanderRhodes & @luscombeland are creating fake panic to sell their wares. Disgusting.
  • @AlexanderRhodes @luscombeland @GoodGuypervert  uh-oh, he’s gone full ad-hominem BC he got caught faking to make money off young scared men.
  • @AlexanderRhodes @luscombeland @GoodGuypervert then I await your proof that any of your claims actually happened to you, fake profiteer.

Alexander answered several times, with no resolution. Eventually Belinda tweeted the following:

Pornhelps responds, seeing if a lie will stick: “I heard you got blackballed for false reporting”.  Eventually Prause’s “NicoleRPrause” Twitter account chimes in calling Luscombe a liar (below). Hmm…how did @NicoleRPrause know about this Twitter thread? Another bit of evidence suggesting Nicole Prause masqueraded as @pornhelps.

In this same Twitter thread Pornhelps tweeted about a just published David Ley interview of Nicole Prause.

In the Ley interview Prause claims to have unpublished data falsifying any connection between “porn addiction” and penile injures (Prause also said she will never publish the data). It’s important to know that both Prause and Pornhelps had been saying that Alexander lied about his masturbation-induced penile injury and porn-induced sexual problems.

Is it any coincidence that 3 days after multiple @pornhelps tweets called Alexander a liar, Ley and Prause publish a Psychology Today blog post directed at one of Alexander’s complaints (that he injured his penis from excessive masturbation)? Interestingly, their own data apparently showed that a fifth of those surveyed had experienced similar injuries. But again, Prause refuses to publish the data, while claiming her data somehow (inexplicably) prove that Alexander must be a liar. In any case Prause’s blog claims remain unsupported as she did not assess “porn addiction” or compulsive porn use in her subjects (read the comments section of Ley’s post).

UPDATE: December 12, 2016. Prause falsely claims that @Nofap drove gay teen to suicidal feelings (also calls Alexander Rhodes an “anti-porn profiteer”). Prause’s tweet linked to a radio show about Jehovah Witnesses and sex abuse, which contained a segment about a 14-year old gay teen whose mom found his stash of porn magazines. Since being gay is against JW doctrine, the church insisted the gay teen no longer masturbate to images of men. The gay teen was driven to thoughts of suicide because he was a homosexual stuck in the JW facing the very real prospect of being tossed out of the church and shunned by his family and friends. The radio segment did not mention NoFap. Here’s Prause’s tweet (notice that only David Ley liked it):

Prause’s twisted and libelous tweet attempting to smear NoFap in connection with an entirely unrelated event demonstrates just how far she is willing to stretch the truth in pursuit of her agenda. The NoFapTeam responded with 3 tweets:

Not so coincidentally, a rambling hit piece about NoFap, featuring Nicole Prause, was published a few days later by Medical Daily. Of course Prause tweeted it, saying “claims busted by scientists.” By “scientists” Prause means herself. This goes to show that Prause has many contacts in the media, and uses them to her advantage. Prause also called NoFap “woo woo and cult-like.” Medical Daily author Lizette Borreli went so far as to label NoFap an “anti-sex group.” Anyone who has visited Nofap knows that nothing could be further from the truth. Many experiment with NoFap to regain their sexual function. NoFap decided to set the record straight with a few tweets of its own (1, 2, 3, 4), including this one:

It sure seems that Prause tweets more about NoFap and Alexander Rhodes than she does about her own research. Prause claims to be licensed psychologist. What ethical psychologist would go out of the way to call a young man recovering from compulsive porn use a liar, especially without evidence? Ethics violation? Violation of APA principles?


OTHERS – July, 2016: Nicole Prause & PornHelps falsely accuse TIME editor Belinda Luscombe of lying and misquoting

Luscombe has been with TIME Magazine since 1995, becoming a senior editor in 1999. (See her Wikipedia page and her TIME page.) Luscombe spent a year investigating porn-induced sexual problems in young men, which resulted in the March, 31, 2016 TIME cover story “Porn and the Threat to Virility.” Both Prause and Ley have attacked the TIME article, even though both were featured in it and quoted (minimally).

Unfortunately for the public, usually Prause and Ley are the only “experts” featured in most mainstream porn-addiction articles, while the true addiction neuroscientists and their work are not even acknowledged to exist. Not this time. Two world renowned neuroscientists, who have published fMRI studies on porn users, were interviewed for the TIME article. So was a urologist, as well as several young men who have recovered from porn-induced erectile dysfunction. Put simply, the TIME article was more carefully researched than any other article on this subject, and its content reflected both reality and the (then) current state of the science. Since then, even more support for the possible link between internet porn use and sexual dysfunctions has come out in the peer-reviewed literature.

In response to Belinda’s earlier tweet (pictured above) about working the story for a year, we have @pornhelps, tweeting the following:

Pornhelps is psychic: she knows “for fact” how long Belinda worked on the story. Ten minutes later Prause tweets claiming Belinda misquoted her and “lied about her sources”:

As always, Prause provides no examples and no documentation. Not being tagged, how did Prause know about Belinda’s tweet or @pornhelp’s reply? Maybe Prause is psychic too?

Reality Check: It is Prause and @Pornhelps who are lying. As many can verify, Luscombe contacted Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem, Alexander Rhodes, Noah Church, David Ley, and others, during the year before the TIME cover story was published. In addition, Luscombe and several TIME Magazine fact-checkers contacted each individual several times to corroborate each interviewee’s claims.

We know that Wilson’s former employers were contacted, as were the girlfriends of the men with porn-induced sexual problems. Interviewees were also asked to deny or confirm claims given to TIME by David Ley and Nicole Prause. This was done in writing, often 2-3 times for each claim.

For example, Nicole Prause falsely claimed to TIME magazine that Gabe Deem masqueraded as a medical doctor to write this peer-reviewed critique of Prause & Pfaus 2015 (in fact written by a medical doctor/researcher). Even more astonishingly, Prause told TIME that UCLA had traced the “Richard A. Isenberg MD” critique (Letter to the Editor) to the young man’s computer. This outlandish attempt to defame Deem is all documented above.

In an attempt to end the conversation Belinda tweets the following on July 25:

“PornHelps” tweets two more unstable responses (Update – @pornhelps later deleted their twitter account as it became apparent that Prause often tweeted with this account):

No one responds to feed the troll. More examples of Prause’s acknowledged twitter account continuing to attack TIME and Belinda:

——

—-

—–


OTHERS – April, 2016: A Nicole Prause sock puppet edits the Belinda Luscombe Wikpedia page

On March, 31, 2016 TIME published Belina Luscombe’s cover story “Porn and the Threat to Virility.” The very next day, a Wikipedia user appeared, indentified only by an IP address, and added the following to the Belinda Luscombe Wikipedia page:

Despite claiming that she is “not a science writer,” she continues to try to cover scientific topics. This often results in required retractions by the scientists then forced to clean up her poor writing.

The above comment was reversed the next day by another Wikipedia editor. Without checking this user’s other comments, it’s evident that this was likely done by Nicole Prause. Moreover, an investigation of this user’s only other 3 Wikipedia edits erases all doubt that this is Prause’s handiwork:

Only Nicole Prause would have made theses edits, especially the last 3:

  1. Largest neuro study mysteriously left off previous edits.” This is referring to Prause et al., 2015, which is the study that only Prause boasts (inaccurately) is the largest neurological study on porn addicts. No one else calls her EEG study the “largest study” because: 1) Many of Prause’s subjects were not really porn addicts; 2) two other neurological studies assessed greater numbers of subjects.
  2. Removing pseudoscience by Gary Wilson.” Who else would (falsely) accuse Gary Wilson in a Wikipedia edit? In the section below we reveal other Prause Wikipedia sock puppets who attack Gary Wilson, including a sock puppet with the user name “NotGaryWilson.”
  3. inaccuracies in writing”: This is Prause lashing out in impulsive frustration at the TIME article, as she did months later as both @PornHelps and @NicoleRPrause.

This vicious failed attack on veteran TIME editor Belinda Luscombe for doing her job well (and giving short shrift to Prause’s “alternative facts”) is classic Prause vindictiveness.


OTHERS – September 2016: Prause attacks and libels former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. 2 years earlier “TellTheTruth” posted the exact same claims & documents on a porn recovery site frequented by Prause’s sock puppets.

On September 15th, 2016 Nicole Prause posted a fake press release on the website PROLOG. Prause’s “press release” attacked and libeled several individuals including Gary Wilson, Donald Hilton MD, Utah state senator Todd Weiler, and Dr. Todd Love. This is what remains of the press release, as ProLog removed the content 2 days later because it violated their policies. Not to be denied, Prause placed the press release’s content on her AmazonAWS account. Here we examine her comments about UCLA researcher and former colleague Rory Reid PhD. Excerpt from Prause’s rant:

“Psychologist” and “LCSW” are both regulated titles licensed with the state of California that Rory Reid was using to advertise his services to patients but did not actually possess. Rory Reid also has falsely described that he attended and is on faculty at Harvard University and is an “assistant professor” at UCLA. Reid was never faculty at Harvard University and is an adjunct, not tenure track faculty, at UCLA. Reid is listed as a full-time employee of the State of California’s Office of Problem Gambling at UCLA, so it is unclear how Reid would be able to study sex films and contact politicians about sex films without violating his state contract.

A little background on Rory Reid and former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause is useful here. Rory Reid has been a research psychologist at the David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA since before Nicole Prause’s brief stint at UCLA began in 2013. Reid’s research areas are hypersexuality and gambling addiction.

Reid, like Prause, has often argued against the existence of “sex addiction.” Reid stated in a 2013 article that his office was right next door to Prause’s at UCLA. In 2013 Nicole Prause listed Rory Reid as a member of her “SPAN Lab.” As stated, Prause’s UCLA contract was not renewed while Reid remains a researcher at UCLA. Whatever he did to displease her, Prause is now attacking a former colleague publicly and brutally.

But there’s more to the story. Months earlier, in December 5th, 2014 several comments mirroring Prause’s “press release” (urging readers to report Rory Reid to California authorities) were posted on the porn recovery site YourBrainRebalanced by a brand new member. As we saw above, Prause made a habit of commenting on YBR using various aliases. The first of these comments, by TellTheTruth, contained 2 links. One link went to a PDF on Scribd with supposed evidence supporting TellTheTruth’s claims (Prause regularly use aliases with 2-4 capitalized words as usernames).

Two more comments by TellTheTruth that mirror Nicole Prause’s “press release” (now) published nearly 2 years later.

——

The TellTheTruth comments and PDF from December, 2014 along with the Prause’s press release incriminate Nicole Prause as cyberstalking Rory Reid at about the time she was leaving UCLA. Key point: The documents that Prause placed on her AmazonAWS account about Reid are the same documents that TellTheTruth placed on YourBrainRebalanced 2 years earlier. Note the same “2013 copyright State of California” for Prause’s current screenshot and TellTheTruth’s 2-year old screenshot:

Prause’s current document: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/NoLicenseInCaliforni… (note the URL in this screenshot & the 2013 copyright)

TellTheTruth’s document she posted 2 years earlier on the porn recovery forum YourBrainRebalanced. Notice the 2013 copyright and how TellThe Truth pasted Reid’s picture into her PDF:

 

Here’s why we know TellTheTruth was Nicole Prause: The current license search has a 2016 copyright notice! Prause was harassing and cyberbullying her UCLA colleague Rory Reid in December, 2014 (about the time she was leaving UCLA), and she’s still using the same screen shots to do it.

Here’s another another example of duplicate documents by Prause-2016 and TellTheTruth-2014. Prause’s current AmazonAWS document – https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/BevHillsClinicalPrac…

Incidentally, it looks like Nicole Prause “stole” Rory Reid’s picture and placed on a website without his permission. Should he file a police report? And here’s TellTheTruth’s document from December, 2014. You can see from the URL stamp and heading that this was a PDF on SCRIBD:

Same documents, same claims, same spinning of the truth by both Prause and TellTheTruth. Here’s the Key point: Rory Reid is still a researcher at UCLA while Prause’s contract at UCLA was not renewed.

One has to ask why UCLA would willingly part with an up-and-coming researcher able to (1) debunk entire fields of science with a single study (in this case, the field of porn addiction research), and (2) persuade the media she has done so. Things are not always what they seem.


September, 2016: Prause libels Gary Wilson and others with Amazon AWS documents (which Prause tweeted dozens of times)

Back to the September 15th, 2016 fake press release Nicole Prause posted on the website PROLOG. Prause’s “press release” also attacked and libeled several individuals including Gary Wilson, Donald Hilton MD, Utah state senator Todd Weiler, and Dr. Todd Love. Again, this is what remains of the press release, as ProLog removed the content 2 days later because it violated their policies. Not to be denied, Prause placed the press release’s content on her AmazonAWS account (Amazon refuses to arbitrate content disputes). Since September 15, Prause has tweeted dozens of times about her document. Here we examine Prause’s comments about Gary Wilson.

Prause: Dr. Prause had to file a police report and close and hide her UCLA laboratory under threat from this blogger and now requires physical protection at all her public talks from him. He has since been spotted in Los Angeles near the scientist’s home and LAPD threat management has been alerted.

Closed her Lab? Armed guards? Spotted near her home? All this because YBOP critiqued her 2013 EEG study? All these claims are untrue, and the claim that “Wilson has been spotted seen near the scientist’s home” is also fiction. Wilson hasn’t been to LA in years. A call to the Los Angeles police and the UCLA campus police revealed no police report about Wilson in either system. That is the only fact here.

Prause: He wrote the UCLA chancellor over a dozen times claiming Prause had faked her data, faked her title, and more, all of which UCLA refuted.

False. Wilson wrote (or copied) the chancellor 3 times in late 2013 and early 2014 to complain about Prause’s ongoing harassment. The first letter informed UCLA about Prause’s multiple instances of harassment, frivolous legal threats and libel targeting Wilson and two others. This letter also documented Prause’s intimidation of Psychology Today editors (who acquiesced and removed Wilson’s critique and a critique by two other Psychology Today bloggers (both experts)). In one paragraph Wilson described how Prause misrepresented the finding of Steele et al., 2013 to the press. Five peer-reviewed papers have since supported Wilson’s assertion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) Nowhere did Wilson say that Prause had “faked her data” or “faked her title.” Both Wilson and UCLA possess the original letters. Their content proves that Prause is libeling Wilson.

Wilson sent a second letter to UCLA (December 2, 2013) to complain about Prause placing a document libeling Wilson on the SPAN lab website (as described above). It was assumed that UCLA controlled the content as each SPAN Lab page contained the following:

Copyright © 2007-2013 SPAN Lab, All Rights Reserved University of California, Department of Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA 90024

Reproduced below are the first several paragraphs of Wilson’s letter to UCLA Chancellor Block:

Two weeks later a letter was sent to Vice Dean Jonathan R. Hiatt to inform him that Prause’s libelous PDF remained. Shortly thereafter the PDF was removed, although no official response was received until March, 2014. The Vice Dean informed Wilson that the SPAN Lab website was Prause’s own site, and not a UCLA website at all(!). Reproduced below is a portion of UCLA’s response to Gary Wilson’s letter:

So Wilson did not “write the UCLA chancellor over a dozen times.” This can be confirmed by UCLA. We must state again that Prause not only personally attacked Wilson, but attacked UCLA colleague Rory Reid PhD (see above section). UCLA did not renew Prause’s contract.

Prause: He also broke into her private online account to stalk her after receiving a no-contact order. He stole her personal photos from that account, posted them to his porn website, then migrated them to try to evade DMCA take downs until his ISP threatened to shutter his website.

All false. The “stolen photos” claim was addressed above. To recap, Wilson wrote this Psychology Today blog post about this Nicole Prause Psychology Today Interview (which contains a picture of Prause). Psychology Today required at least one picture (all of Wilson’s PT articles contained several pictures). Since this blog post was about Nicole Prause’s interview and her study, it contained a picture of Prause. The picture that accompanied Wilson’s Psychology Today blog post was also used with this same article on YBOP. The photo of Prause was chosen by her, and appeared on a site she falsely claimed was run by UCLA, with this notice on each page: “Copyright © 2007-2013 SPAN Lab, All Rights Reserved University of California, Department of Psychiatry, Los Angeles, CA 90024.”

Addendum: Prause is now claiming in an AmazonAWS PDF that Wilson migrated the picture of Prause (and the associated article) to other servers. This is false. The picture of Prause accompanied a single critique that appeared on two separate websites, PornStudySkeptics and YourBrainOnPorn.com. These two identical articles have remained on those two websites since July, 2013: Article 1, Article 2. In her PDF Prause also claims that Wilson’s ISP told him that they “would close his website if he did it a fourth time”. This did not occur.

Prause: Her name appears over 1,350 times on one website alone of an obsessed blogger.

This claim may actually be true. The website Prause is referring to is this one: YourBrainOnPorn.com. Approximately 700 of the 1,350 mentions are on this page alone. Why would YourBrainOnPorn.com contain an alleged additional 650 instances of “Prause”? YBOP contains about 9,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. Nicole Prause has published multiple studies about porn use and hypersexuality, and by her own admission, is a professional debunker of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.

A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography returns about 9,000 pages. She’s quoted in hundreds of journalistic articles about porn use and porn addiction. She has published several papers related to pornography use. She’s on TV, radio, podcasts, and YouTube channels claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily criticized) study. So Prause’s name inevitably shows up a lot on a site functioning as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects.

Not only are Prause’s studies on YBOP, so are hundreds of other studies, many of which cite Prause in their reference sections. YBOP also has publsihed very long critiques of six Prause papers. YBOP contains at least 12 peer-reviewed critiques of Prause’s studies. YBOP contains at least a dozen lay critiques of Prause’s work. YBOP contains many journalistic articles that quote Nicole Prause, and YBOP often responds to Prause’s claims in these articles. YBOP also debunks many of the talking points put forth by Prause and her close ally David Ley. Finally, YBOP members comment here asking about Prause’s studies or her claims in the media. However, YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.

Prause plays the misogyny card

Over the last few years, Dr. Prause appears to have taken great pains to position herself as a “woman being subjected to misogynistic oppression when she tells truth to power.” She frequently tweets this infographic that she apparently also shares at her public lectures, suggesting she is being victimized “as a woman scientist,” and painting herself as a trailblazer forging ahead to prove porn’s harmlessness despite prejudiced attacks. She has even been known to tweet combinations of misogyny claims and claims that (legitimate, peer-reviewed) science with which she disagrees is “fake.” Any suggestion that Wilson, Deem or Rhodes are motivated by misogyny is fabricated, as their objections have nothing to do with Dr. Prause as a person or as a woman, and only to do with her untrue statements and inadequately supported claims about her research.

As for the Infographic, Prause’s only evidence of misogyny is that Wilson supposedly once wrote “Miss Prause” and once incorrectly spelled her first name as “nicki.” That’s it. Neither of these examples are on YourBrainOnPorn.com, and Prause provides no documentation as to where either supposedly appear. Misspellings/autocorrects occur in the digital age.

The info-graphic also claims that Alexander Rhodes is sexist because he defended Wilson against Prause’s libelous claims that “Wilson was recently seen outside Prause’s residence.” When did the refutation of lies become misogyny?

If YBOP is truly sexist why are the majority of the authors we critique men? This page lists the studies and papers YBOP has critiqued.

  • The total number of authors listed on all the papers: 56
    • Male authors: 42
    • Female authors: 14

Once again, facts debunk propaganda.

Finally, no one named on this page – whom Prause has accused of sexism and misogyny  – endorses, or encourages, either. Speak with them and you will discover that the very opposite is true. All support the respectful treatment of women. Their issue with Prause is with her tactics and her unsupported claims about her research, not with her as a woman or a woman scientist.


Others – Prause falsely accuses Donald Hilton Jr., MD

Curious about Prause’s claim that Don Hilton, MD, “called her a child molester,” we contacted Dr. Hilton. Here is his response:

With regard to Prause’s claim, the facts are presented here. I did not call her a child molester.

About 6 or 7 years ago I spoke in 3 Idaho cities in one day for a group called Citizens for Decency. I spoke on evidence supporting an addictive model related to problematic porn use, which was mainly molecular biology at that point. This model has since been substantiated by structural and functional MRI studies.

At the end of my talk a young woman came up and basically said that she did not think there was any evidence supporting the addiction model. I only learned later that it was Nicole Prause, who was then employed in Idaho. Next, she said she had trained at the Kinsey Institute, implying that she was an expert on sexuality.

I asked her if she supported the research and methodology of the namesake of her institution, Alfred Kinsey. I explained to her that Kinsey had collaborated with pedophiles, and trained and instructed them to time with stopwatches how long it took children they molested to reach orgasm. I asked her if she supported Kinsey and his methodology. At that point she became hostile.

Her claim that I said she was a child molester is untrue; I didn’t know her, her name, or anything about her other than that she admired Kinsey. My point was that the person she considered her philosophical mentor had knowingly collaborated with child molesters. This is perfectly true. Attached is attached a copy of Table 34 from the Kinsey book on male sexuality published in 1948 [reproduced below]. The youngest child is 5 months old, and is described as having 3 orgasms. Note that most sessions are timed.

Incidentally, Paul Gebhard (coauthor of Kinsey’s female sexuality book published a few years after the male book), was interviewed by J.Gordon Muir years later. This is an excerpt from the interview:

Muir: “So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?”

Gebhard: “Ah, they do if we tell them we’re interested in it!”

Kinsey, Pomeroy (an early president of AASECT), Gebhard, and others worked with 2 child molesters, Rex King and a Nazi named Fritz Ballusek. Ballusek’s trial is well documented, but King was never caught. An example of the collaboration is from a letter on Nov 24, 1944 from Kinsey to King:

“I rejoice at everything you send, for I am then assured that that much more of your material is saved for scientific publication.”

Kinsey also warned his pedophiles to be careful not to be caught. For documentation, see Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, whose author confirmed to me that she has the original tapes of the phone interview in her archives.

Although I did not call Nicole Prause a child molester, I did ask her then, and I ask her now, if she condones or refutes the collaboration of Kinsey, his coauthors, and the Kinsey Institute with child molesters. I am still waiting for her answer.

Once again Nicole Prause has been caught in a lie.

Dr. Prause is obsessed with Dr. Hilton because he dared to critique the claims she made about her 2013 EEG study (Steele et al., 2013). Prause touted in the media that her study provided evidence against the existence of porn/sex addiction. Not so. Steele et al. 2013 actually lent support to the existence of both porn addiction and porn use down-regulating sexual desire. How so? The study reported higher EEG readings (relative to neutral pictures) when subjects were briefly exposed to pornographic photos. Studies consistently show that an elevated P300 occurs when addicts are exposed to cues (such as images) related to their addiction.

In line with the Cambridge University brain scan studies, this EEG study also reported greater cue-reactivity to porn correlating with less desire for partnered sex. To put it another way – individuals with greater brain activation to porn would rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a real person. Shockingly, study spokesperson Prause claimed that porn users merely had “high libido,” yet the results of the study say the exact opposite (subjects’ desire for partnered sex was dropping in relation to their porn use). Five peer-reviewed papers explain the truth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Key point: Prause was given full opportunity by the journal to formally respond to Hilton’s critique. She declined. Instead, Prause attacked Hilton on social media and defamed him in emails.

Below are a few examples of Prause posting her lies on social media. Prause created a slide (naming Hilton, Gary Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Nofap, Alexander Rhodes) “proving” everyone she doesn’t like is “misogynist,” and continues to tweet it repeatedly to this day (maybe 40-50 times… so far):

———–

Notice how Prause tagged her friends at AVN (Adult Video Network, a porn producers interest group) in her tweet:

———-

Prause and David Ley on Facebook:

———–

In 2017 Prause tweeted the following about Dr. Hilton’s 2013 critique, while falsely stating that her Lancet commentary addressed criticisms put forth in the 5 peer-reviewed papers:

 

In reality Prause’s 200-word opinion piece failed to address Hilton’s paper or even mention Prause’s own 2013 paper (Steele et al., 2013). In fact, Prause’s commentary also failed to address the content of the original commentary by Marc Potenza: Is excessive sexual behaviour an addictive disorder? (Potenza et al., 2017).

Dr. Prause even resorted to posting on IMDB to attack Dr. Hilton:

While Prause claims the film contained “misrepresentations and falsehoods about the science”, she couldn’t name any. Not one. She never does. Look at all of Prause’s tweets, Quora posts, Facebook comments, or even her two op-ed’s. She never provides any specific examples of misrepresentations. No excerpts from a study. No quote from the offender. Prause’s prime tactics are ad hominem and other defamation.

—————————

Prause created over 25 usernames to post on reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap. Here’s one of her many sockpuppets attacking Dr. Hilton:

As always, Prause lied. The journal in question is not predatory – and it’s the same journal that published her own 2013 EEG study – Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology.


Others – September 25, 2016: Prause attacks therapist Paula Hall

Prause calls Hall a “pseudoscientist” and misrepresents Hall’s views on a study:

Known “pseudoscientist”? That’s not even a real word. A month after Prause’s tweet Paula Hall was listed as a coauthor on this Cambridge University brain scan study of porn addicts (published in the journal Human Brain Mapping): Compulsive sexual behavior: Prefrontal and limbic volume and interactions, 2016.


Others – October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Alexander Rhodes of NoFap

As described above Prause has a history of personally attacking Alexander Rhodes (it is always Prause who initiates the harssment with her tweets). For example, (again) here’s Prause (on a thread she initiated) claiming that Alexander Rhodes lied about experiencing porn-induced sexual problems:

@AlexanderRhodes and @NoFap follow Gary Wilson on Twitter. On October 1st Wilson responded to James Guay LMFT (who had tagged him with this libelous and harassing tweet). James Guay appears to be a friend of Prause. Guay also re-tweeted Prause’s libelous AmazonAWS document. Wilson and Guay exchanged tweets, with Wilson asking for any documentation to support Prause’s claims.

So you did not read all that we have documented here: Provide documentation for your defamatory claim.

James Guay provided no documentation, yet continued to harass Wilson with several more tweets. It must be noted that Wilson has never engaged Prause or her Twitter allies directly about her string of false accusations. It was James Guay who directly engaged Wilson on Twitter. Alexander Rhodes joined in posting a humorous tweet to Guay concerning Prause’s ridiculous claim that Wilson “has been seen outside Prause’s residence.” It contained a picture of a guy lurking in the bushes:

How did you get to another state so quickly to stalk? You also behind all of the mysterious clown sightings?

Key point: The above tweet no longer contains this picture of a man hiding in the bushes, which was used under the copyright “fair use” exclusion because it is evident the image’s purpose was for meme/parody:

As Alexander Rhodes describes in subsequent tweets, Nicole Prause falsely claimed ownership of the “man in the bush” picture and filed a bogus DMCA takedown request via Twitter. In doing so Prause committed perjury. Rhodes tweets the evidence:

Tweet #1 documenting of Prause’s perjury:

 

One must keep in mind that Prause is always the initiator of harassment, and her claims about Wilson constitute both libel and harassment.

Tweet #2 by Alexander explaining that calling out slander is not harassment:

 

Finally Alexander complains about having to reveal his personal information to Prause:

Libel, perjury, and harssment – all documented.  Prause reponded with this tweet and her ” misogyny infographic”, which she has tweetd about 30 times:

UPDATE – January, 2018: In response, Alexander Rhodes eventually sent in a counter notice, explaining to Twitter Inc. that as Dr. Nicole Prause is not the copyright holder or an  authorized representative of the copyright holder, inconsistent with what she falsely asserted in the DMCA take-down notice sent to Twitter, the copyright infringement notice was baseless. In response, Twitter gave Dr. Prause a window of opportunity to respond to Rhodes’s counter-notice, in which she did not. While Twitter Inc. said that they would reinstate the  censored tweet, the image has yet to reappear as of January 2018, despite the copyright  decision being reversed. This demonstrates that while Alexander Rhodes and NoFap LLC  successfully provided a legal argument against Prause’s censorship, she still was successfully able to permanently remove an image posted on Twitter through perjury without any tangible repercussions for breaking the law.


2015 & 2016: Prause violates COPE’s code of conduct to harass Gary Wilson and a Scottish charity

On August 5, 2016 the academic journal Behavioral Sciences published the following paper: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (2016). Seven US Navy doctors and Gary Wilson are the authors of this scholarly review of the literature. All authors are required to list their affiliations. Key point #1: Gary Wilson’s affiliation was accurately listed as “The Reward Foundation” (a registered Scottish charity).

An earlier and significantly different version of this paper was first submitted in March, 2015 to the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine for possible inclusion in its “Addiction” issue. Normal procedure is for the journal to have two academics review a paper to provide commentary and criticism. Key point #2: This paper was the only place Wilson’s affiliation with the Reward Foundation could be found outside of Foundation personnel. In other words, only the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine editor and the two reviewers knew about this affiliation.

In April, 2015 an email by someone using a fake name (“Janey Wilson”) was sent to The Reward Foundation and to the organization housing several charities, including The Reward Foundation:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Janey Wilson <++++++++++++++@gmail.com> wrote:

I now have documentation that Gary Wilson himself is claiming to be a member of the Reward Foundation. While he is not listed on the new website page, this represents a rather worse transgression…. [Reward Foundation personnel] may not even be aware he is making these claims, I am not sure, but he has now made them publicly.

Key Point #3: Only one of two reviewers of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine submission could have sent this email (Prause later self-identified as one of the two reviewers). The information was not public, but only made available to the journal.

Around the time that “Janey” (1) wrote The Reward Foundation to tell it about my “false” claim of affiliation, and (2) reported the charity itself to the Scottish Charity Regulator, “Janey” also wrote the Edinburgh organization where the charity is domiciled with false claims about me and The Reward Foundation. The Edinburgh entity is called “The Melting Pot.” It’s an umbrella organization that hosts various small enterprises. They contained the now familiar personal attacks on Wilson (described above), and even threats of legal action. No one took the bizarre rantings and unsupported claims seriously and “Janey” would not supply proof of her identity. “Janey” apparently simultaneously posted about this on the redddit/pornfree porn recovery forum – Gary Wilson is profiting from YBOP:

The above is hardly surprising as Prause has employed many sock-puppet identities to post, primarily on porn-recovery forums, about Wilson. For exmaple hundreds of comments by Prause’s apparent avatars can be found at the links below. And, they are but an incomplete collection:

Another reddit/pornfree post that appeared about the same time (Prause deleted her sockpuppet’s username, as she often did after posting):

Janey/Prause made the irrational claim that I was “paying off” The Reward Foundation for a TEDx talk opportunity that occurred years earlier, in 2012. It had been arranged in 2011, years before the charity was conceived of or organized. Obviously, no such subterfuge was needed. I had the right to give my book proceeds to anyone at any point, or put them in my pocket. I chose the Reward Foundation because I respect its balanced, educational objective.

Neither organization (the Scottish Charity Regulator nor the Melting Pot) responded to “Janey,” as she offered no evidence, and wouldn’t identify herself, claiming “whistleblower status” (although, of course, she wasn’t an employee of either, and was not under threat). Had the charity not had a strong, respected relationship with the Melting Pot, and had it already been required to file financial statements with the Scottish Charity Regulator, “Janey’s” malicious claims might have done a lot of damage to the charity’s reputation and initiated a time-consuming, costly audit, etc.

In late 2016, Prause outed herself as “Janey Wilson” when she demanded (repeatedly and unsuccessfully) that Dan Hind of Commonwealth Publishing confirm my connection with the Scottish charity called The Reward Foundation to Prause in writing. Copying both MDPI (the ultimate publisher of the paper discussed earlier) and a publication ethics organization (COPE), Prause told Commonwealth’s Hind that he had already written her to this effect.

However, the only correspondence Hind had with anyone on the subject of Wilson and The Reward Foundation was with “Janey,” and he has stated this in writing. Thus, Prause has now outed herself as the former “Janey.” When Hind didn’t respond to Prause’s repeated demands, she then demanded the information via Commonwealth’s web designer – accompanied, as usual, by defamation and threat:

You may wish to encourage the site content owner that you designed to clarify that his author was caught claiming to “donate” proceeds  from a book that actually went into his own pocket. Mr. Hind has failed to respond to inquiries with the Committee on Publication Ethics. I assume you would not want your name entangled in fraud like this in any way.

Prause seems to believe that the fact that my share of book proceeds goes to a Scottish registered charity, which I listed as my affiliation for purposes of two academic papers published in 2016, means that I am somehow pocketing the proceeds (from my own book) – and thus have a conflict of interest, which is purportedly grounds, in her mind, for my paper being retracted. Does any of this make any sense in light of the facts?

In fact, I am not on the Board of the charity, and certainly have no say over the book proceeds it receives as a consequence of my irrevocable donation. Incidentally, my affiliation is now public, as it is mentioned in both papers I published in 2016. In short, there is nothing hidden or improper going on, and no conflict of interest whatsoever – despite Prause’s claims behind the scenes and publicly.

Within days of Nicole Prause (as herself) emailing MDPI to demand that they retract Park et al., 2016, Twitter account “pornhelps” attacked Mary Sharpe of The Reward Foundation. In the tweet @pornhelps all but admits she is Prause:

Prause, a Kinsey grad and former academic, calls herself a neuroscientist, and appears to have started college about 15 years earlier. Not long after this revealing tweet “pornhelps” deleted both its Twitter account and website (pornhelps.com) – as it became apparent to others that Prause often tweeted with this account and helped with the website.

The following sections of this page provide examples of Prause and “pornhelps” simultaneously attacking and defaming some of Prause’s favorites targets (men who run porn-recovery forums, porn addiction researchers, TIME editor Belinda Luscombe, who wrote a cover story Prause didn’t approve of):

The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine was informed of this behavior (apparently engaged in by one of their two reviewers). When it was suggested that Prause might be behind these bizarre emails and the paper’s initial rejection, the editor didn’t deny it. The paper was promptly accepted…and then not published after all, based on a claim that it was too late to meet the print deadline for YJBM’s “Addiction” issue.

A different, substantially updated version of the paper was then submitted to the journal Behavioral Sciences. After a few rounds of reviews and rewriting it was accepted as a review of the literature. Its final form was quite different from the original YJBM submission. During this process, the paper was reviewed by no fewer than 6 reviewers. Five passed it, some with some suggested revisions, and one harshly rejected it (Prause, again). As part of this process, the authors were given all of the comments by the reviewers (but not their identities). The reviewers’ concerns were thoroughly addressed, point by point.

From these comments, it became evident that the “harsh reviewer” of the Behavioral Sciences paper had also reviewed the paper at YJBM. About a third of the 77 points raised did not relate to the Behavioral Sciences submission at all. They referred to material that was only present in the earlier version of the paper, the one that had been submitted to YJBM.  At a much later date, Prause submitted the original YJBM version to a regulatory board (in an effort to have the published paper retracted), thus confirming she was the person behind the many harassing “Janey Wilson” emails.

In the course of her attacks on the paper’s authors, Nicole Prause has violated the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) code of ethics for academic reviewers multiple times. Section 5, in the “Guidelines on Good Publication Practice” PDF (on this page) outlines eight rules for peer reviewers. Nicole Prause has violated at least three COPE’s rules:

(2) The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.

  • Prause broke confidentiality. She used Wilson’s affiliation with The Reward Foundation to harass the officers of the Reward Foundation and to pepper the Scottish Charity Register with false allegations about Wilson.

(3) The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.

  • Prause kept the manuscript and later submitted it to regulatory boards as part of a frivolous demand for retraction. (Apparently, she never realized the paper had been accepted by YJBM once her review was disqualified.)

(4) Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission.

  • Prause used specific content of the YJBM submission as a part her bogus claim to regulatory boards without the authors’ permission.

Update: In May, 2018 Prause falsely claimed to journal publisher MDPI (and others) that, based on the charity’s recent public filing (with a name redacted, as is standard), expense reimbursements paid to a charity officer were in fact paid to me. I forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation, who debunked Prause’s claims: See for the documentation.


October, 2016 – Prause publishes her spurious October, 2015 “cease and desist” letter. Wilson responds by publishing his letter to Prause’s lawyer.

On October 15, 2015 Gary Wilson received a cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing Nicole Prause. A year later Prause published her cease and desist letter on AmazonAWS, and linked to it under a petition to Psychology Today (asking the organization to reconsider its editorial policy). Prause commented under the petition multiple times saying that members of two organizations (IITAP & SASH) were all “openly sexist and assaultive to scientists.” In a strange disconnect, the main evidence Prause supplied for this blanket statement was the cease and desist letter sent only to Wilson, reproduced below. Wilson is not a member of SASH or IITAP.

There is no other way to say this: All four claims in the above cease & desist letter are bogus. The most absurd claim is that Wilson said that Prause appeared in porn. Gary Wilson wrote the following letter asking both Prause and the lawyer to provide evidence to support their allegations. Wilson’s letter in full:

In the intervening 30 months neither Prause nor the lawyer have responded. Neither has provided any evidence to support Prause’s allegations – because the allegations are false. It’s clear that Prause’s motivation was threefold:

  1. to intimidate Wilson so that he might remove his critiques of Prause’s studies,
  2. to create a letter she could show her allies as “proof positive” that Wilson is harassing her (even though it is proof of nothing and merely made up),
  3. to produce an “official letter” to show journalists so as to discourage them from contacting Wilson.

October, 2016 – Prause had co-presenter Susan Stiritz “warn campus police” that Gary Wilson might fly 2000 miles to listen to Prause say porn addiction isn’t real

Prause continues to spin a fable that Gary Wilson has threatened to “show up” at one of her talks. This is poppycock. Prause has provided no evidence to support this claim, and Wilson has no desire to hear Prause speak (let alone pay to hear her speak). In mid-October, 2016 Nicole Prause placed the following PDF on AmazonAWS. Prause posted a link to the PDF under a petition to Psychology Today (which was gathering support to ask the organization to reconsider its editorial policy).

While nothing in this message (below) can be verified, it appears to be written by Susan Stiritz. It also appears to be describing Stiritz relaying Prause’s fabricated claim to a campus policeman to the effect that Gary Wilson was planning to attend the AASECT summer institute. Put simply, Wilson was claimed to be planning to fly 2000 miles, pay for 4 nights in a St Louis hotel, and pay over $1000 to AASECT, just to hear Prause and David Ley explain how porn addiction has been “debunked.” Prause even provided a picture of Wilson, which she must have “stolen,” because he didn’t send it to her (reproduced below).

So this is the “proof” that Gary Wilson is dangerous: a made-up tale by Prause, told to a friend, who relayed it to a campus cop 2000 miles from where Wilson lives via message, which Prause now offers as “proof” of Wilson’s evil actions. What’s missing from all of this claptrap is one iota of evidence that hints that Wilson ever indicated that he intended to attend a Prause lecture – or threaten her in any way whatsoever.

While Prause claims Wilson is “dangerous,” the only danger of having Wilson in the audience is that he might, with awkward questions, debunk Prause’s claims by citing more than 3 dozen neurological papers that support the porn addiction model, and 80 studies that link porn use to sexual dysfunctions and lower sexual & relationship satisfaction. That’s the real reason she doesn’t want Wilson attending her lectures.


Ongoing – Prause silencing people with fake “no contact” demands and spurious cease & desist letters

Prause has a history of sending cease and desist (C&D) letters to people who question her academic credentials and expertise. She claims to have sent (at least) seven such letters, which she has repeatedly mischaracterized on social media as “no contact orders.” Only courts and regulatory bodies issue “orders,” as that word is commonly understood, and only then after giving both parties the chance to be heard. Prause’s C&D letters to anyone who questions her come from her lawyer, not a judge, and seem expressly intended to stifle criticism and honest debate.

Worse, on the basis of merely sending these unsubstantiated letters, Prause insists she has the legal right to prevent anyone who has received such a letter from defending against, or replying to, her demeaning online statements about them or others – even if they simply wish to supply evidence that counters her untrue statements. When those letter recipients try to speak out, she publicly and falsely accuses them of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest these people are acting illegally.

To our knowledge, Prause has never obtained a court or regulatory order against any C&D letter recipient. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations instead appear calculated to bully and intimidate her detractors into silence.

Prause has also used a modified version of this tactic against Rhodes and PornHelp.org, among others by attacking them and their speech online, then if they dare to correct or defend, publicly demanding they “not contact [her] by any means.” If they subsequently dare to correct a falsehood or call her out, she accuses them of violating a “no contact” and threatens to sue.  And then, despite her demand, she continues to attack them online in the future.

A number of the C&D letters Prause has posted online or sent are reproduced as images below. Prause placed links to three of her C&D letters on her Amazon AWS pages (C&D 1, C&D 2, C&D 3), presumably so that she could easily link to each in tweets, on Facebook, and in the comment sections under online articles. To repeat: we are not aware of Prause ever acting on any of the aggressive, albeit empty, threats in these letters. We believe they are intimidation tactics, pure and simple. Finally, the recipients of the C&D letters emphatically state that Prause’s lists of wrongdoings were manufactured lies. Anyone can pay an internet-based lawyer to write spurious C&D letters.

Four of the five C&D letters are reproduced below. The 5th C&D letter, and Wilson’s reply to Prause’s lawyer, are in this section.

Linda Hatch PhD (who is addressed as “Ms.” instead of “Dr.” in the letter, an error that Prause has repeatedly insisted is incontrovertible proof of “misogyny”) Note that Prause had her lawyer cruelly copy the editor of a site where Dr. Hatch regularly blogs. Prause then posted both of these publicly on amazonaws.com. It’s clear that the bogus C&D letters were meant to “punish” the recipients for thoughtfully critiquing Prause’s flawed studies and challenging Prause’s unsupported claims.

————————————————

Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S

 

In the above C&D letter Prause claims that Weiss misleadingly stated that Prause no longer has a university affiliation. While there is no evidence that Weiss said this – Prause isn’t affiliated with any university.

————————————————

Marnia Robinson, JD

It’s entertaining that Prause accused Robinson of saying that Prause is no longer employed by a university and that her contract with UCLA was not renewed – when both are true.  The reality behind Prause’s so-called no-contact request is exposed in the very first section of this page. Since Prause’s April, 2013, no-contact request Prause and her sockpuppets have posted hundreds of libelous comments on social media and elsewhere. In Prause’s twisted world it’s OK for her defame and harass others, but no one is allowed to defend themselves from her abuse.

————————————————

Gabe Deem, who recovered from porn-induced ED, founded RebootNation, and dismantled a Prause paper with this critique: Nothing Adds Up in Dubious Study: Youthful Subjects’ ED Left Unexplained – by Gabe Deem (2015)

These same 4 bogus assertions of wrongdoing were copied and pasted from Prause’s C&D to Gary Wilson (see Wilson’s response to Prause’s lawyer).

In addition, Prause falsely (we believe) claimed to have sent cease & desist letters to the 4 panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast.


OTHERS – October, 2016: Prause states falsely that SASH and IITAPboard members and practitioners are openly sexist and assaultive to scientists

On October 12, 2016 a petition to Psychology Today (asking the organization to reconsider its editorial policy) was published on “petitionbuzz.com” The next day Nicole Prause & Jim Pfaus posted four comments under the petition. Prause & Pfaus co-authored this paper (it’s not an actual study), that they claim debunked porn-induced ED. Two peer-reviewed papers (paper 1, paper 2) and three lay critiques say otherwise (1, 2, 3). As do 25 studies linking porn use to sexual problems. Under the petition, Jim Pfaus calls SASH and IITAP “addiction cults” and “snake oil salesmen” (Pfaus is not a therapist). He also falsely claims that there’s “no empirically-based clinical or biological science supporting porn addiction or the negative effects of porn use.”

Pfaus is not telling the truth: 37 neurological studies & 12 reviews of the literature support the porn addiction model, and 80 studies link porn use to sexual dysfunctions and lower sexual & relationship satisfaction. Not a single neurological study falsifies the porn addiction model, including this one. There are codes in both the ICD and DSM that allow reimbursable diagnoses of the disorders, and “compulsive sexual behavior disorder” is proposed for inclusion in the ICD-11. (Note: Like Prause, Jim Pfaus has a history of misrepresenting the research, and even making false statements – as he did here about Prause & Pfaus 2015.)

In a reply comment, Prause echoed fellow troll Pfaus calling “IITAP/CSAT’s” snake oil salesmen. Now that’s an unbiased researcher.

Nicole Prause posted 3 more comments, including this one where she claims that all members of IITAP and SASH are “openly sexist” and “assaultive to scientists”:

What evidence does Prause provide to incriminate all the members in these two very large and diverse organizations, accusing them all of “sexism and assaults on scientists?” Prause posts links to her fabricated claims about Gary Wilson (described above).

Since Wilson is not a member of either organization, it’s baffling how Prause’s ramblings about Wilson incriminate over a thousand therapists, PhDs, medical doctors and psychologists belonging to these two organizations. Once again, we have inflammatory and defamatory claims without a shred of evidence.


OTHERS – November, 2016: Prause asks VICE magazine to fire infectious disease specialist Keren Landman, MD for supporting Prop 60 (condoms in porn)

California Proposition 60 would have mandated condom use in porn films. It was supported by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), a nonprofit HIV/AIDS care and advocacy organization, and vehemently opposed by porn producers and interestingly enough, Nicole Prause and colleague David Ley. In the run up to the 2016 election, Prause and Ley seemed obsessed with defeating Prop 60, while relatively unconcerned about graver issues such as health care, immigration, or jobs. Both Prause and Ley spent considerable effort tweeting and re-tweeting attacks on Prop 60, and support for the Free Speech Coalition, the lobbying arm for the porn industry (tweet1, tweet2, tweet3, tweet4, tweet5, tweet6, tweet7, tweet8, tweet9, tweet10, tweet11 – NOTE: Prause deleted many of these tweets in April, 2016). One such example of Prause supporting the porn industry:

David Ley even wrote a Psychology Today article denouncing Proposition 60: Condoms in Porn: A Solution in Search of a Problem. More Tweets by Prause in support of the porn industry:

Prause lets us know how she voted:

———-

In a series of tweets, Prause joins an “adult actor” in attacking a Keren Landman, a medical doctor specializing in infectious disease.

In Prause’s esteemed opinion, VICE magazine should have fired expert Dr. Landman for writing an article supporting Prop 60:

Freelancer? While Prause’s degree is in statistics, Keren Landman MD is a researcher, medical epidemiologist, and infectious disease specialist who once worked for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV infection is one of her specialties, having published several papers in the field. Once again, we have Prause personally attacking experts in a field, while simultaneously failing to support her position with empirical evidence. (Does anyone believe Prause’s claim that “every independent scientist supports prop 60″?) Whatever anyone thinks about Prop 60, Dr. Landman’s position is supported by research, and Nicole Prause’s is not.

The question remains: Why are both Prause and Ley such outspoken supporters of the porn industry, and so eager to attack anyone and everyone who suggests porn use or sex without a condom may pose problems?


OTHERS – November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast

On November 10, 2016 “Mormon Matters” published the following podcast: 353–354: Championing the “Addiction” Paradigm with Regard to Pornography/Sex Addiction. It was a response to an earlier Mormon Matters podcast (episodes 347–348) where Prause and three therapists tried their very best to debunk porn addiction and sex addiction. In Podcast 353–354, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon was joined by four panelists: Jackie Pack (LCSW, CSAT–S, CMAT), Alexandra Katehakis (MFT, CSAT-S, CST-S), Stefanie Carnes (Ph.D., CSAT-S), and Donald Hilton (M.D.).

Within a few minutes of the podcast going live, Nicole Prause and, apparently, her sock puppets (“Skeptic”, “Lack of expertise on panel”, “Danny”) posted a dozen comments attacking the four panelists. Prause & sock puppets was joined in her ad hominem fest by Jay Blevins and Natasha Helfer-Parker (two of the therapists who collaborated with Prause on episodes 347-348). Over the next few days, Prause, Jay Blevins, and Natasha Helfer-Parker posted dozens more ad hominem comments. Nicole Prause posted her typical lies about Gary Wilson stealing photos, having to lock down her lab, and “fortifying her home” (maybe she installed a bomb-shelter to protect her from unfavorable blog posts). Also, in one of her numerous comments, Prause claimed that:

  1. She had sent Cease & Desist letters to members of the panel
  2. Two of the panelists are currently under APA investigation

Prause’s comment:

We contacted the panelists, and it was confirmed that:

  1. No panelist has received a cease and desist letter from Dr. Prause, and
  2. No panelist has been contacted by the APA (the American Psychological Association).

Once again, we have evidence that Nicole Prause is making false statements. And suppose Prause had actually sent cease and desist letters? It would be evidence of nothing, as anyone can pay a lawyer to send a spurious cease and desist letter (as Prause is wont to do).

Update: All of the many comments under podcast: 353–354, including several libelous ones by Prause, have mysteriously disappeared. Is this another instance of Prause trying to cleanup her public image? (In April of 2018 she deleted hundreds of her libelous and harassing tweets.)


OTHERS – December, 2016: In a Quora answer Prause tells a porn addict to visit a prostitute (a violation of APA ethics and California law)

Below is a screenshot of Prause’s original answer posted in response to this Quora question: How can I overcome masturbation and/or porn addiction? What are the best methods? While Prause’s post was written in September, 2016, its existence was further publicized in this December 14th IITAP blog post that responded to AASECT’s proclamation that porn and sex addiction are myths. (Thereafter the original Prause response was deleted.)

Here is the paragraph from IITAP’s response that linked to the Prause Quora post. (Keep in mind that Prause was an instrumental figure in misleading a small band of AASECT therapists that porn and sex addiction had been debunked – not the case).

On the other side, many clinicians are expressing worry that people who truly are sexual addicts are harmed by well-meaning sex therapists who without insight or full understanding of these issues discount the problematic nature of these symptoms, thus writing off a client’s compulsive sexual behavior patterns as normal and non-consequential, even suggesting that clients’ issues are related more to their attitude about sex than the sex itself. This stance is clearly harmful to those clients who are getting and sharing STD’s with unwitting partners and/or losing marriages, jobs and educational opportunities due to self-described excessive porn use, online hook-ups and the like. Consider, for instance, the recently published blog from a well-known researcher, and AASECT faculty member that recommended that someone with a porn addiction should go see a sex worker instead of masturbating to porn (since the posting of this article this blog has been removed). From the IITAP educational perspective, such blatant disregard of compulsive behavior can without question be harmful to the client and those close to him or her.

Prause’s suggestion to visit a prostitute is in the last paragraph:

While this is not harassment, it’s relevant because it shows a complete disregard for professional ethics, ethical and social norms, and the rule of law. This theme permeates everything revealed about Nicole Prause on this page.


OTHERS – December, 2016: Prause reports Fight the New Drug to the State of Utah

Nicole Prause seems to tweet more about Fight The New Drug (FTND) than she does about her or others’ research. A quick look reveals that Prause tweeted 35 times about FTND in November & December 2016.

On December 19, 2016, Prause wrote an e-mail to the Utah State Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), in which she accused Fight the New Drug in its online Fortify program (an online educational curriculum for teens and adults seeking to overcome compulsive pornography use) of  both “soliciting sexual stories from children” without parental consent and “coercing” children to provide these stories. While underscoring that she was a “licensed psychologist in California (CA #27778)” and a “mandated reporter” the single reference she provided to support her initial claim was a hit-piece from an online website called “Harlot Magazine.”

Nicole CC’d the CEO of Fight the New Drug (FTND), Clay Olsen, on her complaint to DCFS. Subsequent phone calls from FTND to DCFS revealed that (while they could officially neither confirm nor deny whether an investigation was taking place) (1) the accusation from Prause meets none of the criteria for something DCFS investigates, and (2) it was not necessary for FTND to meet with DCFS since there was “nothing to investigate” and “nothing to explain.”

Despite all this, Prause continued publicly tweeting her concerns about “@FightTheNewDrug child victims” and posted the following request to all her twitter followers, “if your child completed @FightTheNewDrug Fortify program, asking sexual hx, Utah DCFS wants to talk to you. This how to get heard.”

Thus Prause continues her pattern of misusing regulatory bodies for unwarranted complaints – partly as a way to intimidate individuals and organizations and partly as a way for her to subsequently use her own specious and defamatory accusations in broader media opportunities.


OTHERS – January, 2017: Nicole Prause tweets that Noah B. Church is a scientifically inaccurate non-expert and religious profiteer

Once again, Prause launches an unprovoked, defamatory twitter attack on a man who recovered from porn-induced ED. The following Prause tweet seems to be related to Noah’s appearance on the DearSugarRadio segment “My Fiancé Is Addicted To Porn“.

Was Noah scientifically inaccurate? Nope. As is usual, Prause fails to describe the supposed inaccuracies.

Is Noah an expert? Yes indeed, as Noah has:

Is Noah religious? Nope. He is an atheist, which he has stated many times in past.

Is Noah a profiteer? His book, videos and website are all given freely. Noah only charges for one-on-one coaching because it’s so time-consuming.

We assume that Dr. Prause doesn’t treat clients for free (if she sees clients). We know that Prause offered (for a fee) her “expert” testimony against sex addiction and porn addiction. She also receives payment for speaking engagements where she debunks porn and sex addiction.

Finally, consider the fact that it is a violation of APA (American Psychological Association) principles for psychologists to attack those trying to recover.


OTHERS – January, 2017: Prause smears professor Frederick M. Toates with a bogus claim

Prior to the publication “The Routledge International Handbook of Sexual AddictionPrause tweets that the book’s “only neuroscience chapter was written by a person with no neuroscience training”:

The chapter in question is 3.2 – “The Neuroscience of Sexual Addiction” and was written by Frederick M. Toates DPhil DSc.

The 73-year old Toates is Emeritus Professor of Biological Psychology at The Open University and Vice-President of the Open University Psychology Society. He is not only trained in neuroscience, he is a professor of biological psychology (neuroscience).

With two doctoral degrees, Frederick Toates is a pioneer in the study of motivational systems (the reward system), especially in relationship to sexual desire and motivation. His latest book: How Sexual Desire Works: The Enigmatic Urge. Professor Toates was publishing biological research and authoring neuroscience books before Nikky Prause was a gleam in her parents’ eyes. While Professor Toates is still actively publishing and working in academia, non-academic Prause hasn’t been associated with a university for over 2 years.

With Prause’s targets expanding, it appears that there is no lie too outrageous to tell nor target too unassailable to smear. Welcome to the club, Professor Toates.


OTHERS – January, 2017 (and beyond): Prause defames publisher MDPI, calling Behavioral Sciences a “fake journal”

MDPI is the Swiss parent company of numerous academic journals, including Behavioral Sciences. Prause is obsessed with MDPI because (1) Behavioral Sciences published two articles that Prause disagrees with (because they discussed papers by her, among hundreds of papers by other authors), and, (2) Gary Wilson is a co-author of Park et al., 2016. The two paper:

The second paper (Park et al.) didn’t analyze Prause’s research. It cited findings in 3 of her papers. At the request of a reviewer during the peer-review process, it addressed the third, a 2015 paper by Prause & Pfaus, by citing a scholarly piece in a journal that heavily criticized the paper. (There was not enough space in Park et al. to address all the flaws and unsupported claims found in Prause & Pfaus.)

A few days after Park et al.‘s publication Prause insisted that MDPI retract it. The professional response to scholarly articles one disapproves of is to publish a comment outlining any objections. Behavioral Sciences’s parent company, MDPI, invited Prause to do this. Prause declined the offer and demanded (unwarranted) retraction instead. Since Park et al.’s publication Prause has been trying every weapon in her arsenal to have the paper retracted (including sending bogus complaints to the medical boards of all 7 physicians who co-authored the paper). Her emails to MDPI officials, filled with spurious claims and easily debunked allegations, have failed to achieve her goal. No one on the receiving end of her invective had ever witnessed such bizarre behavior by a researcher.

Most unprofessionally, she has turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al. In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association and the doctors’ medical boards. She also pressured the doctors’ medical center and Institutional Review Board, causing a lengthy, thorough investigation, which found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the paper’s authors.

Having failed to bring about an unmerited retraction, Dr. Prause has continued to make untrue statements about the journal itself, claiming that Behavioral Sciences is a predatory journal (it isn’t – it’s PubMed indexed), and that Park et al. was never reviewed (normally a journal sends a paper to 2 reviewers for comments and criticisms). In reality, the paper was reviewed at least 6 times that we know of (for Behvavioral Sciences alone), including one very antagonistic review from Dr. Prause – who later indirectly identified herself as the person who reviewed not only the Behavioral Sciences submission, but an earlier, much shorter version of the paper, submitted to Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (YJBM).

In many of her emails to MDPI (and others), Prause mentioned her “77 criticisms” and falsely claimed that they had not been addressed. In reality, many of the 77 so-called problems were carelessly copied and pasted from Prause’s review of the YJBM submission; 25 of them had nothing to do with the Behavioral Sciences submission. In other words, the only reviewer to condemn the paper had cut and pasted dozens of criticisms from a review done at another journal (YJBM), which no longer had any relevance to the paper submitted to Behavioral Sciences. This is highly unprofessional.

Even apart from that glaring irregularity, few of the 77 problems could be considered legitimate. Yet, we carefully combed through each comment mining for useful insights, and wrote a comprehensive response to all comments for Behavioral Sciences and its editors. Almost all of the remaining 50 critical comments were either scientifically inaccurate, groundless, or were simply false statements. Some were repetitive. The authors provided MDPI with a point by point response to each so-called problem.

In her frustration and obsession, Prause resorted to Twitter (and to Wikipedia) to wage her battle, lying in the following tweet:

Prause is claiming that publisher MDPI is on predatory journal list cataloged by librarian Jeffrey Beall. This assertion is false, and there’s no list associated with the link Prause tweeted. MDPI does not publish predatory journals. In fact, it was investigated years ago after it was mistakenly placed on a predatory list, and formally determined to be a legitimate publisher. See: http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/534. The man (Jeffrey Beall) who made the error eventually deleted his entire operation

MDPI responds:

Prause Twitter rampage has continued (a few of her tweets below):

 

MDPI responds to Prause:

CEO of MDPI Franck Vazquez, Ph.D, also responds, as does Prause:

Prause keeps going (MDPI eventually ignores her Twitter tagging):

Has Prause been trying to have MDPI thrown out of PubMed and other indices based on her untruths? Three tweets from August, 2016 – just a few weeks after Park et al., 2016 was published:

Second tweet:

Third tweet:

Another tweet from November, 2017 suggesting Prause is still harassing regulatory agencies about MDPI (https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/935983476775387136):

From a hit piece containing several false statements by Prause: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/12/op-ed.html. One article referred to is Park et al., the review co-authored by 7 Navy doctors and me. The other is co-authored by other experts, including Todd Love PsyD – whom Prause has also harassed. (Again, MDPI was formally exonerated and removed even before Beall took his list down.)

Prause has also tried to interfere with other MDPI journal issues by defaming MDPI:

———-

Here are examples of Prause unprofessionally shaming others for collaborating/publishing with/receiving awards from MDPI:

——

———-

——–

Here Prause plays her favorite card – accusing others of misogyny – without a shred of evidence (just as she has done with me and multiple others).

More false accusations of misogyny:

Prause falsely claims the Behavioral Sciences paper she attacked was retracted. This is both defamatory and unprofessional.

The Twitter conversation continues:

After a lengthy, thorough, time-consuming investigation, MDPI decided not to retract the paper, and circulated a draft editorial criticizing Prause’s unprofessional behavior. As soon as Prause was informed, she initiated an unprofessional, untruthful email exchange with MDPI – copying bloggers David Ley (her close colleague) and Retraction Watch among others. On the same day of this email barrage harrasing and threatening MDPI, Prause employed multiple Wikipedia usernames (which violates Wikipedia rules) to edit Wikipedia, inserting false information about MDPI and attacking the authors of Park et al., the MDPI president, and two others in the organization.

While Prause’ email threats are not on social media (yet), she has copied bloggers who are positioned to damage the reputations of MDPI in the media, if they choose. Ley blogs on Psychology Today and has often served as the Mouth of Prause. Neuro Skeptic has a popular blog that disparages legitimate (and sometimes dubious) research. Adam Marcus writes for Retraction Watch. Prause also copied Iratxe Puebla, who works for COPE, an organization that addresses publication ethics. Already, a blogger from Retraction Watch has begun investigating the matter, demanding comments on various unsupported, Prause-like claims of impropriety.


January, 2017 (and earlier): Prause employs multiple sock puppets (including “NotGaryWilson“) to edit Wikipedia pages

The use of multiple user accounts to edit Wikipedia pages violates Wikipedia rules and is referred to as “sock puppetry” (or simply “socking”). We have already revealed one of Prause’s sock puppets, who edited the Belinda Luscombe Wikipedia page that day after TIME published Luscombe’s cover story, “Porn and the Threat to Virility,” which Prause disapproved of. It’s clear from the comments, content, and usernames that Nicole Prause has created several more accounts to edit Wikipedia articles, such as “pornography addiction,” “sex addiction” and “effects of pornography.”

First, here’s a list of edits done by a Prause sock puppet identified only by an IP address (75.82.147.215). Note the comment associated with this one particular edit:

·  19:06, 19 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-9,453)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (This section talked only about delta fos-B, which has never been investigated with respect to erotica. Gary Wilson, a known porn blogger who makes money from porn “addiction” added this section, as he is the only one promoting it. It should be removed.) (Tag: section blanking)

Naming “Gary Wilson” is a dead give-away that the above user account is Nicole Prause. Reality Check: Gary Wilson makes no money related to this endeavor, and he did not add the DeltaFosB section to the “Pornography Addiction” Wiki page. As time passed, Prause fell back into her usual pattern of creating usernames with 3-4 capitalized words. For example:

While the above edits suggest that all are Prause as they consistently attack IITAP, Carnes, the addiction model, and falsely claim there’s no science supporting either porn or sex addiction. If there was any doubt, two of them once again comment about Gary Wilson and DeltaFosB. First, a telling “PatriotsAllTheWay” comment:

04:55, 21 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-9,433)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (Delata fos B has never been linked to sexual behaviors in humans, not once. This section was added by Gary Wilson, promoting his book for profit of the same idea.) (Tag: section blanking)

A few comments: 1) All of Gary Wilson’s profits from the sales of his book go to charity, and his website is otherwise entirely non-commercial; 2) Contrary to Prause’s claim, DeltaFosB is present in humans and all neuroscientists studying its mechanisms agree that DeltaFosb is involved with multiple physiological functions, including sensitization to sexual activity and addiction.

A Wikipedia “user-page” is automatically created for every username that edits a Wikipedia article. “NotGaryWilson” is the only Prause sock puppet to have made a comment on its user page. Here’s what “NotGaryWilson” wrote about the “Sex Addiction” article:

As you are probably aware, anti-porn groups repeatedly sabatoge these pages for profit. Delta FOSb has no direct support, but is a pet idea from Gary Wilson, paid anti-porn activist. So, yes, I did mean to remove the text and will go ahead and remove it again. I will add the justification back. There is no evidence supporting the connections Wilson makes, which is why it is so easy to spot his writing.

As with the “Pornography Addiction” Wikipedia page, Gary Wilson in fact added none of the DeltaFosB material to the “Sexual Addiction” Wikipedia page. As stated, Wilson is paid by no one, and makes no money on this endeavor. Finally, only non-academics David Ley and Nicole Prause ever assert that DeltaFosB is not involved with initiating addiction-related brain changes. (Prause is particularly obsessed discrediting with DeltaFosB.) Contrary to their unsupported rantings, DeltaFosB’s role in addiction and sensitization is well established in both animal and human studies (see list 1 and list 2 for DeltaFosB studies). A veteran Wikipedia editor responds to the above comments by “NotGaryWilson”:

I’m C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Sexual addiction without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don’t worry; the removed content has been restored.

And,

It’s pretty clear from your username that you have an axe to grind with the topic. Chopping broad sections from the article is not a constructive way to go about this. You need to discuss your changes on the talk page and get broad support for them.C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Don’t hold your breath for broad (legitimate) support for unsupported claims about Wilson or DeltaFosB. Sometimes Prause uses an IP address as a username. This Wikipedia user only edited “Sex Addiction” blabbering on about “FosB” and CSATs & IITAP – two of Prause’s favorite targets:

It appears that Nicole Prause employed two additional usernames to edit the Fight The New Drug Wikipedia page (FTND is one of Prause’s favorites targets):

What makes us suspect that both usernames are Nicole Prause? Not only did both usernames edit only the FTND Wikipedia page, both created the section featuring Prause’s often-tweeted op-ed that appeared in the Salt Lake City Tribune. Prause wrote the critique of Fight the New Drug’s previous op-ed, then persuaded 7 of her PhD buddies to sign off on it. Prause’s op-ed cited only a few irrelevant citations, while offering no neuroscience-based studies. It also made several false statements about the content and references in the earlier FTND op-ed. Several experts responded with this dismantling of the Prause op-ed: Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016).

In late November, 2017 Prause once again asked the ICD-11 to delete the proposed diagnosis of “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” (sex addiction, porn addiction). Her entire argument on the ICD rested upon a press release by 3 non-profit kink organizations (Center for Positive Sexuality, National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, and The Alternative Sexualities Health Research Alliance), and AASECT’s  2016 proclamation. (In addition, she falsely claimed that ATSA supported her views.) YBOP wrote an article dismantling the “group position” paper opposing porn and sex addiction (November, 2017). A few days later Prause used two new usernames to edit the Sex Addiction Wikipedia page adding content that mirrors her ICD-11 request to abolish “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder”:

In a rare turn of events, the Nicole Prause Wikipedia page was created by a Wikipedia employee. Whatever this employee’s motivation, there is little doubt that two primary usernames editing thsi page are Prause herself:

As pointed out above, Prause’s usernames often conatin 2-3 capitalized words. The last user name – OMer1970 – likely stands for “Orgasmic Meditation”, as this user’s edits are about Prause’s study on the effects of “Orgasmic Mediation”(commonly called “OM”). Prause is receiving a whole lot of money to study “the benefits” of OM, which involves a man straddling a woman and stroking clitoris. A 3-day workshop OM workshop costs $3,999.00 per person (if paid in full).


OTHERS – April, 2017: Prause insults Professor Gail Dines, PhD, perhaps for joining the Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography?

Prause, who has not been affiliated with any academic institution for more than 2 years, attacks Professor Dines in a Tweet:

This public insult was part of a thread where Prause scathingly assailed a university student in Sweden for endeavoring to study abuse of porn performers.

Another tweet calling both Gail Dines and Fight The New Drug (FTND) liars and “anti-LGBT” and “anti-woman”:


OTHERS – May, 2017: Prause attacks SASH (Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health)

Background: Prause has asserted that she has “debunked” and “falsified” the work of dozens of expert addiction neuroscientists with a single flawed study. That study has been formally critiqued repeatedly in the academic literature, as explained below.

Perhaps upset that SASH’s new Position Paper dared to look to the preponderance of neuroscientific evidence on the subject of sexual behavior addiction instead of looking to Prause’s assertions, Prause tweeted the following unjustifed, retaliatory claims. SASH has never commented on Prause.

Tweet #1 to SASH:

Tweet #2 to SASH:

————


OTHERS – May, 2017: In response to paper presented at a urology conference Prause calls US Navy urologists “activists, not scientists.”

Prause’s typical tactics are two-fold: 1) disparage every study that links porn use to negative outcomes, 2) personally attack those involved with the study. These behaviors serve her goal, which is to “prove” that porn use is rarely harmful, and almost always beneficial. In this tweet she disparages a study by US navy urologists, saying they are “activists, not scientists.”

Prause follows this attack with her own “official” press release attacking the study, which Prause has never seen. A second Prause tweet asserts that the medical doctors “ducked from reporters due to shame.” This is found nowhere in the article Prause tweeted and Prause did not attend the urology conference where the paper was presented:

It must be noted that Prause’s own “ED paper,” Prause & Pfaus 2015,  wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which addressed erectile dysfunction. Additional problem: The data in the Prause & Pfaus (2015) paper do not match the data in the four earlier studies. The discrepancies are not small and have not been explained.

A comment by researcher Richard A. Isenberg MD, also published in Sexual Medicine Open Access, points out several (but not all) of the discrepancies, errors, and unsupported claims (a lay critique describes more discrepancies). Nicole Prause & Jim Pfaus, the paper’s co-authors, made a number of false or unsupported public claims associated with this paper.

Many journalists’ articles about this study claimed that porn use led to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews, both Prause and Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and that the men who used porn had better erections. In this Jim Pfaus TV interview Pfaus states:

“We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab.”

“We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In this radio interview Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

“The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.”

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab or “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s not clear from the underlying papers that even that actually happened in the case of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

“No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience.”

Nowhere in Prause & Pfaus 2015, or the 4 underlying papers, were lab measures of erectile functioning mentioned or reported. Truth? What’s that?


OTHERS – September 14, 2017: Prause claims all who believe porn can be harmful and addictive are “science-illiterate & misogynistic”

Link to twitter thread

——–


OTHERS – January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaint against therapist Staci Sprout

Continuing her behind-the-scenes pattern of filing baseless, harassing complaints against anyone whose views Prause disagrees with, Prause filed a complaint against therapist Staci Sprout, accusing Sprout of “conspiracy theories.” This was after falsely accusing her on a Facebook post comment of practicing without a license. Note that Prause tried to persuade the State of Washington to hide Prause’s bogus complaint from Sprout. Because the complaint was baseless, Prause was not considered a whistleblower, and identity was not protected.

————————————————————————————

According to the records, Washington received Prause’s complaint on January 24th, and the case was opened on January 30th. Two days later (February 1st) the State of Washington dismissed the empty complaint (without an investigation) and closed the case, declaring that even if the allegations were true, no violation of law would have occurred.

To understand Prause’s dishonesty and irrational action look at her “complaint” to the State of Washington. Prause targeted the following Sprout post, which is found on the Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder section (CSBD) of the ICD-11 (you can’t read the comments unless you create a username):

Again let us not neglect to consider the financial interests of those who benefit by the billions from unidentified, untreated compulsive sexual behavior. Two easy examples: “free” pornography sites who are paid for advertising, and drug manufacturers of ED drugs. They might even have lobbyists.

Context: The above comment was made in a general response to dozens of Nicole Prause comments where Prause personally attacked therapists and organizations (IITAP, SASH, ASAM) for supposedly “profiting from sex and porn addiction.” Prause has spent the last 2 years obsessively posting on the ICD-11 beta draft, doing her best to prevent the CSBD diagnosis from making it into the final manual. In fact, Prause has posted more comments than everyone else combined.

When Sprout dared to point out the more likely profiteers, Prause reported her to Washington State! Here’s Prause complaint to the Board:

Violation: Stated that we had “lobbyists” and that “pornography sites who are paid for advertising, and drug manufactures of ED drugs”. None of this is true. Neither I nor any of my colleagues who publish peer-reviewed science have any “lobbyist” efforts. These conspiracy theories appear promoted to support her own books and profit her therapy practice.

Notice how Prause lied, saying that Sprout’s comment was about Prause and unnamed colleagues – and not, as Sprout actually wrote, about the billions made by “free pornography sites” (most owned by wealthy Mindgeek) and “drug manufacturers of ED drugs”. In short, this is not a legitimate complaint; it’s simply harassment.

—————

Update (5-14-18): Prause harasses & defames Staci Sprout on her Facebook page:

————–

Update (6-8-18): The beta draft of the upcoming ICD-11 (the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases – the world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual) is online, and available for interested parties to comment on. (A simple sign-up is needed to view and participate.) The ICD-11 is predicted to come out in 2018, or soon thereafter. Its mental-health-expert authors have included a diagnosis that can be used to diagnose anyone suffering from compulsive sexual behavior (including sexual behavior addictions) called “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.” Note: Prause has posted more comments in this comment section than everyone else combined. In the comments section under this new proposal, Prause attacks Staci Sprout, falsely claiming that Sprout “is under continued investigation” by the State of Washington.

Prause is lying, as evidenced by the documents presented above.


OTHERS – January 29, 2018: Prause threatens therapists who would diagnose sexual behavior addicts using the upcoming “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” diagnosis in the ICD-11

Her aggression is absurd given the fact that experts who serve on the ICD-11 wrote, in the world’s top psychiatry journal that,

Currently, there is an active scientific discussion about whether compulsive sexual behaviour disorder can constitute the manifestation of a behavioural addiction[5]. For ICD-11, a relatively conservative position has  been recommended, recognizing that we do not yet have definitive information on whether the processes involved in the development and maintenance of the disorder are equivalent to those observed in substance  use disorders, gambling and gaming[6]. For this reason, compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is not included in the ICD-11 grouping of disorders due to substance use and addictive behaviours, but rather in that of  impulse control disorders. The understanding of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder will evolve as research elucidates the phenomenology and neurobiological underpinnings of the condition[7].

Anyone who considers the proposed disorder itself can see that it is intended to encompass sexual behavior addicts by whatever label.


OTHERS – February, 2018: Prause lies about a brain scan study (Seok & Sohn, 2018) by well-respected neuroscientists

This section concerns an internet porn study by Korean neuroscientists Seok and Sohn (PubMed indexed studies for Ji-woo Seok) – Gray matter deficits and altered resting-state connectivity in the superior temporal gyrus among individuals with problematic hypersexual behavior (2018). Prause falsely claims states that there were “no controls for literally any confound”:

Not so, but before we get to the truth it’s worth noting that her claim is very bold indeed, as  3 Prause studies on porn users failed to control for much of anything, including screening to establish that they were addicted to porn (Prause et al., 2013Steele et al., 2013, Prause et al., 2015). In fact, these 3 Prause studies chose to ignore numerous standard exclusion criteria normally employed in addiction studies, such as psychiatric conditions, other addictions, psychotropic medications, drug use, other compulsions, depression, religiosity, age, sexuality, gender, etc.

In reality, Seok & Sohn, 2018 carefully screened subjects for “sex addiction” (PHB). PHB was defined by two qualified clinicians based on clinical interviews using PHB diagnostic criteria set in previous studies, Table S1. Seok & Sohn also controlled for multiple variables. From Seok & Sohn, 2018:

We used the following exclusion criteria for PHB and control participants: age over 35 or under 18; other addictions such as alcoholism or gambling addiction, previous or current psychiatric, neurological, and medical disorders, homosexuality, currently using medication, a history of serious head injury, and general MRI contraindications (i.e., having a metal in the body, severe astigmatism, or claustrophobia).

In addition, Seok & Sohn 2018 assessed (controlled for) multiple psychological variables, including depression. From their study:

To identify comorbid tendencies among subjects with PHB, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1996), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) (Beck and Steer, 1990), and Barrett’s Impulsiveness Scale II (BIS-II), as adapted by Lee (1992) were administered. The score of BIS-II was used as a covariate to remove the effects of impulsivity. The BIS-II consists of 35 questions with dichotomized ‘‘yes” (1) or ‘‘no” (0) answers. The total score ranges from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating greater levels of impulsivity. Information about the demographic and clinical characteristics of all participants is presented in Table 1.

Put simply, Prause lied.


March, 2018 – Libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University

Dr. Nicole Prause prepared a libelous blog piece, which she posted on an adult industry website. It was removed after Wilson tweeted this. (original url: http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-…)

Note: Prause often flaunts her close ties to the adult industry. The site describes itself as follows:

Mike South adult industry blog, the premier destination for adult industry news since 1998. Mike South was a small-time porn producer, who won two AVN awards, turned adult news blog pioneer. South was cited on a host of major news sites, and Gawker.com acknowledged him as “the gonzo king of porn gossip”.

In her defamatory piece, she knowingly, falsely stated that,

[Gary Wilson] claims to have been a “professor in Biology”. In reality, he was supposed to be an undergrad instructor, not a professor, for a lab section at Southern Oregon University. He was fired  without pay immediately before completing even a quarter.

In truth, Gary was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and has never claimed to be a professor (although careless journalists and websites – including a now-defunct website that pirated many TEDx talks and described the speakers carelessly without contacting them – have assigned him an array of titles in error).

He taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. He was never “fired,” as can be seen from the employment documents beneath this paragraph. Gary also taught anatomy, physiology and pathology at a number of other schools over a period of two decades, and was certified to teach these subjects by the education departments of both Oregon and California.

——————————————————-

Below is the “un-redacted” copy of the document Prause posted on several websites. Prause claimed it meant that Gary was terminated, when it actually meant “terminate paychecks” as Gary had to resign due to a medical emergency. The Prause versions redacted the COMMENTS section, where SOU stated that Gary resigned due to a health issue.

Furthermore, Gary receives no compensation from the charity to which his proceeds from his book go. His position as Research Officer is an honorary (volunteer) one. Nor does he serve on the Board of the charity or otherwise determine how it disburses its funds.

He hopes that one day TED will remove the unmerited warning that his critics lobbied (long and hard) to have placed on his very popular TEDx talk.

In addition to placing the redacted employment document and associated libelous statements on a porn industry site, Prause used Quora and Twitter to spread her lies. In doing so, Prause was banned from Quora, and suspend by Twitter. See these two sections from the “Prause page”:

Gary also hopes that Dr. Prause will quit libeling and harassing him and others. Although this new instance of libel (her false claim that Gary was fired) isn’t as shocking as her libelous claim that she has a no-contact court order against him, it is equally untrue.

Perhaps it is time for Dr. Prause to grow up and behave like the professional she claims to be.

PS: Southern Oregon University confirmed that Nicole Prause was the only one who sought these records. Email below:

Prause’s usual partner in targeted harassment, David Ley, also falsely stated that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon university:

Both Prause and Ley are obsessed cyberstalkers.


March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson

On March 3rd 2018, Nicole Prause posted a defamatory article on Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-your-brain-on-porn-movement/answer/Nicole-Prause. In her piece, Prause posted redacted copies of Gary Wilson employment records and knowingly, falsely stated that Southern Oregon University had fired Wilson. On the same day she publsihed her Quora article, Prause posted ten more demeaning and untruthful comments about co-author Wilson and his work, all containing a link to her defamatory piece:

  1. https://www.quora.com/How-legitimate-is-yourbrainonporn-Is-PIED-really-a-thing/answer/Nicole-Prause
  2. https://www.quora.com/How-it-will-affect-my-future-if-I-masturbate-every-day/answer/James-Ali-5/comment/55887335
  3. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-really-such-a-thing-as-porn-addiction/answer/Tanner-Edmonds-1/comment/55887156
  4. https://www.quora.com/If-youve-told-your-spouse-over-and-over-that-you-arent-happy-with-the-level-of-physical-contact-youre-getting-and-things-dont-improve-could-you-be-blamed-for-having-an-affair-What-else-can-you-do/answer/Michael-Wells-12/comment/55887111
  5. https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-concentrate-on-my-Passion-while-I-am-addicted-to-Sex-Masturbation/answers/1564714/comment/55878336
  6. https://www.quora.com/A-girl-will-accept-my-proposal-if-I-stop-watching-porn-should-I-do-that-Well-porn-is-not-a-bad-thing/answer/James-Hinds/comment/55878261
  7. https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-I-stop-watching-porn/answer/Roy-Pavel-Drakov/comment/55878221
  8. https://www.quora.com/Habits-What-are-good-ways-to-keep-yourself-from-wanking/answer/Andrei-Rocnea/comment/55878094
  9. https://www.quora.com/If-masturbating-daily-is-good-for-health-then-whats-the-purpose-behind-the-%E2%80%98no-fap%E2%80%99-movement/answer/James-Ali-5/comment/55795714
  10. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-normal-if-my-boyfriend-doesnt-look-at-me-when-Im-naked-but-watches-hot-girls-on-Instagram-all-the-time/answer/Gwen-Sawchuk/comment/55795634

Wilson reported Prause to both Quora and Twitter for violation of terms of service and harassment. Both acted upon Wilson’s complaints, removing his employment document and Prause’s false interpretation of it. Confirmation of Quora acting on Wilson’s complaint (not the first violation for harassing Gary Wilson):

—————————————————

Quora permanently bans Nicole Prause for harassment:

—————


March 12, 2018 – Prause’s Liberos Twitter account suspended for posting Gary Wilson’s private information in violation of Twitter Rules

————————


Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials

In her defamatory articles, tweets, and Quora posts Prause has knowingly and falsely stated that Gary Wilson claimed to be “professor in biology” or a “neuroscientist”. Gary was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and taught human anatomy, physiology & pathology at other venues. Although careless journalists and websites have assigned him an array of titles in error over the years (including a now-defunct page on a website that pirates many TEDx talks and describes the speakers carelessly without contacting them) he has always stated that he taught anatomy & physiology. He has never said he had a PhD or was a professor.

Below is the screenshot Prause posts to “prove” that Gary Wilson has misrepresented his credentials (again, the Gary Wilson page no longer exists). Note: Until Prause produced her “proof,” Gary had never seen this site and has never communicated with its hosts, never uploaded the page in question and never removed it. Thus he certainly never provided a bio, or claims of “professorship.”

On the about page the Keynotes.org website said that it is not an agency and that anyone could upload a video and speaker bio: Keynotes.org is not an agency, but rather, a media site…. Keynotes.org is crowdsourced and fueled by TrendHunter.com, the world’s largest trend spotting website. Thus, it is even possible that Prause uploaded Gary’s TEDx talk with a purposely inaccurate bio in order to fabricate her desired “proof” of misrepresentation. After 5 years of continuous harassment and cyber-stalking, faked documents, libelous assertions, hundreds of tweets, and dozens of usernames with hundreds of comments, nothing would surprise us.

Gary taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. Gary also taught anatomy, physiology and pathology at a number of other schools over a period of two decades, and was certified to teach these subjects by the education departments of both Oregon and California. Gary does not seek speaking engagements and has never accepted fees for speaking. Moreover, YBOP accepts no ads, and the proceeds from Gary Wilson’s book go to a registered charity.


March and April, 2018 – Prause files bogus DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to hide her harassment and defamation

As you can see in the 3 preceding sections, Prause posted Gary Wilson’s Southern Oregon University employment records on Twitter, Quora, and an adult website. In her defamatory posts, Prause knowingly and falsely stated that Gary Wilson was fired and had never previously taught at Southern Oregon University. Wilson was not fired and had previously taught at SOU. These violations resulted in Prause being permanently banned from Quora and suspended from Twitter, with a warning. Wilson sent the adult website (MikeSouth) a DMCA takedown notice, which resulted in the Prause “article” being deleted. (deleted url: http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-…).

In a clear reprisal for having had her impulsive plans foiled, Prause filed her first DMCA takedown request with my website host on 3/29/2018. For those who may not know, DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A DMCA takedown notice is used to have copyrighted materials removed from a website. Prause filed a DMCA takedown as a backdoor way to have this page chronicling her harassment and defamation removed or gutted. Prause is claiming that screenshots of her tweets are copyrighted material. Tweets are generally not copyrightable, and hers are not. Every day thousands of websites and countless Twitter users post screenshots of tweets. A portion of Prause’s first DMCA complaint:

Identification of material that is infringing and which you wish to have taken down or blocked and enough information to allow the OSP to locate the material, e.g., an URL to the offending page;
URL: www.yourbrainonporn.com containing 3,040 references to me. Examples are attached and include pages like: https://yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website

A portion of Gary Wilson’s response to Prause’s DMCA takedown request:

It’s disturbing that Prause claims to be a victim here, as I have documented multiple instances of her harassing myself and others – including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former UCLA colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, and the head of the academic journal CUREUS: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website

No one appears to be stalking Prause. It is she who stalks and harasses others. Most of my site’s references to Prause are on this very long page that chronicles 5 years of Prause harassing and libeling me and others.

As for other places where Prause name appears, YBOP contains about 10,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. Nicole Prause has published multiple studies about porn use and hypersexuality, and by her own admission, is a professional “debunker” of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.

A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography” returns about 11,000 pages. She’s quoted in hundreds of journalistic articles about porn use and porn addiction, in addition to her research related to pornography use. She’s on TV, radio, podcasts, and YouTube channels claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily criticized) study. So Prause’s name is inevitable on a site like mine, which functions as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects. YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.

This DMCA take-down request is just the latest in a long string of harassment incidents by Prause. Dr. Prause has tweeted about me nearly 100 times, while I never tweet about her (other than correcting a few of her lies). Prause has used dozens of fake usernames to post comments about me on porn recovery forums (https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#ybr). Prause has created an amazon AWS page to libel and harass me and many others (https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/PressRelease_DefamationBySenatorWeiler.txt).

Thank you for your attention.

Gary Wilson

After a few back and forths with Wilson the website host suggested, “that the two of you can work out whatever it is that is going on here“.  Gary Wilson responded:

Dear ______

Thank you for your message. Dr. Prause already has my contact information, which you are welcome to provide her again. However, she has demanded that I not contact her directly (even though I have never initiated direct contact with her). Unfortunately, therefore, I’m not sure how it would be possible for us to exchange views or reach an accord in the way you propose.

My website is a clearing house for news related to claims about porn’s effects. It is my understanding, based on legal advice, that Tweets are generally not copyrightable, nor are images of them protected by the DMCA. There are no other images relating to Dr. Prause that I’m aware of on YBOP.

Dr. Prause’s behavior and biases, as documented by her Tweets, are essential reading for anyone trying to understand the politics currently influencing the study and reporting of internet porn’s effects. Thus, without solid reason for their removal, they need to remain on YBOP.

I regret that Dr. Prause has tried to involve [you] in her latest harassment efforts.

Best regards,

Gary

The YBOP hosting service responded by “closing the ticket”:

Greetings,

Thank you for the update on this issue. We’ll pass along your contact email address. I hope this leads to an amicable solution for both of you.

At this time we consider this Copyright Infringement matter resolved. I have set this ticket to automatically close in 96 hours while we continue to monitor for additional complaints.

If you have any questions please let me know.

Not to be deterred, Prause acquired the services of DMCA Defender.com, who filed a second DMCA takedown request on April 17th, 2018. Once again, DMCA Defender claimed that screenshots of tweets are somehow copyrighted. They provided no authority to support the assertion, but did provide the urls of each screenshot. Gary Wilson, once again, responded to Prause’s harassment:

Dear _______

In case you need details for your records, I see that my harasser, Nicole Prause, has now hired a company to assist her in spurious DMCA takedown requests. Prause is falsely claiming that screenshots of her tweets and Facebook comments are copyrighted material. Nearly all of the screenshots the company complains of can be found on the YBOP page that documents Prause’s harassment of myself and others – including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, former UCLA colleagues, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, and the head of the academic journal CUREUS. See – https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website

As stated in response to Prause’s previous DMCA attempt, my website is a clearing house for news related to claims about porn’s effects. It is my understanding, based on legal advice, that Tweets are not copyrightable, nor are images of them protected by the DMCA. With this request, Prause is attempting to remove evidence of her harassment, cyber-stalking and defamation. Unless the law itself changes, the screenshots need to remain.

This DMCA take-down request appears to be the latest in a long string of harassment incidents. Dr. Prause has tweeted about me nearly 100 times, while I never tweet about her (other than correcting a few of her lies). In fact, Prause attacked me yet again on twitter yesterday.

Prause has used dozens of fake usernames to post comments about me on porn recovery forums

Prause has created (and linked to) an Amazon AWS page to libel and harass me and various others: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/PressRelease_DefamationBySenatorWeiler.txt. Prause has an additional 10 Amazon pages about me – all contain false allegations and faked ‘evidence.’

Just prior to Prause‘s first DMCA takedown attempt, she placed my employment records from Southern Oregon University on several venues, including Twitter, Quora, and an adult industry website. Prause falsely claimed that I was fired (I wasn’t), and that I had never before taught at SOU (I had). All explained here:

The outcome was that Prause was permanently banned from Quora, was temporarily banned from Twitter. In response to my request, the adult industry website (http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-dont-fall-22064/) subsequently deleted Prause’s libelous “article.” This incident apparently spurred Prause to attempt to her two specious DMCA takedown requests.

Again, I regret that she is wasting your time in this way.

Gary Wilson

In the end Wilson’s website host closed both cases, finding no merit in Prause’s DMCA take-down requests.

Note: At the same time Prause was attempting her bogus DMCA takedowns, she also deleted hundreds of the tweets were she harassed, libeled, or bullied many individuals and organizations named on this page.


OTHERS – April 11, 2018: Prause falsely claims medical journal Cureus is a predatory journal and engages in fraud

Nicole Prause attacked Cureus on Twitter over a paper that it had merely corrected (slightly). Prause claimed that Cureus is a predatory journal which engages in fraud. Both claims are false as predatory journals always charge for publication and are not PubMed indexed. Cureus does not charge authors for publishing, and it is PubMed indexed. Prause, as expected, provided no examples of Cureus engaging in fraud.

First, the Journal’s twitter acount debunked Prause’s lies:

Next, John Adler, MD stepped in to refute Prause’s claims. She then falsely accused him of violating a non-existent no-contact order, blocked him on Twitter, and phoned in a spurious complaint of harassment to the Stanford’s Dean’s Office.

John Adler’s final reponse, before being blocked by Prause:

Under the retraction watch article we have a Prause comment, followed by Adler’s response:

As Adler pointed out, Prause was given a chance to publish a comment in his Journal but chose instead harass him and his journal on social media and with emails to Stanford University.


May 20, 2018 – Ley & Prause falsely claim that Gary Wilson & Don Hilton gave evidence in a case by Chris Sevier

As they often do, Ley and Prause team up to defame and harass those they disagree with. This time they play twitter tag in a pre-planned attack on Gary Wilson, Don Hilton, and Mary Ann Layden. We know it was a pre-planned event as the “evidence” they both tweeted was in a concurrent email with other untruths about Wilson sent from Prause to MDPI (Ley was cc’d on the email).

In Ley’s first tweet he sets things up for Prause by falsely stating that Chris Sevier was the “creator of porn is public health crisis legislation.” In reality, Utah was the first state to pass a resolution about porn and Sevier had nothing to do with it. Ley’s so-called proof is screenshot from this incredibly long page containing four years of court filings full of allegations in the case, Sevier v. Apple inc.

That’s right, Sevier is suing Apple over pornography. If you want to know more about this case or Sevier read this Daily Beast article: Chris Sevier, who wants to put a porn filter on every internet-connected device, jokingly calls himself ‘the mentally ill stalker who wants to marry his computer.

Anyhow, Ley’s chosen excerpt, from 4 years of Sevier’s unhinged rantings in court filings, surrounds Sevier’s belief that “all Gay people are sex addicts”:

 

Why did David Ley choose this random excerpt about gays from Sevier’s January, 2014 court filing? So he and Prause could falsely assert that Wilson, Hilton, and Layden are anti-gay crazies.

Before we go any further, it must be mentioned that Chris Sevier seems to be universally believed by all who experience a brush with him to be a mentally unstable attention-seeker who chronically lies and harasses individuals and organizations associated with the so-called “anti-pornography movement.” Incidentally, “crazy” supporters are a time-honored strategy for tarnishing and impeding a cause.

Regardless of who his true masters may be, Sevier “makes shit up.” It has grown so bad that organizations (those genuinely behind the “porn as a public health crisis” movement) have been forced to take legal action against Chris Sevier. For example, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) sent Sevier a cease and desist letter and published a statement denouncing Sevier’s actions. An excerpt:

The second matter relates to the author of the HTPA. The bill (sans resolution language) was developed by Chris Sevier, also known as Chris Severe. We have had a difficult relationship with Mr. Sevier over the last several years, to say the least. We have not found him trustworthy in our past dealings and therefore cannot rely on his assertions that those groups and those legislators that he claims are supporters of HTPA are actually in support. That is because, in the past, Sevier has falsely represented that our organization and NCOSE President Patrick Trueman and NCOSE Executive Director Dawn Hawkins are in support of his work. We have demanded that Sevier stop using our names.

In 2015, the office of a United States Senator alerted us to the fact that Sevier was promoting a version of the HTPA at the U. S. Capitol and was representing to U. S. Senate offices that Patrick Trueman was an author of the bill. This was false. A key legal assistant with that senator’s office also said that Sevier was visiting other senate offices claiming that his boss, the senator, was supporting the legislation, which was also false.

Several organizations have contacted us over the past couple years to complain that Sevier was also using their names without authorization and some of those organizations have complained that he was threatening them with legal sanctions when they refused to support him and his work. Several organizations have contacted us over the past couple years to complain that Sevier was also using their names without authorization and some of those organizations have complained that he was threatening them with legal sanctions when they refused to support him and his work.

In 2014, our general counsel had to write a cease and desist letter to Sevier demanding that he cease threatening our organization on various matters and reminding him that as a lawyer he is bound be definitive rules of professional responsibility.

In 2016 Sevier sued the state of Utah following the passage of the above-mentioned resolution developed by our office which declares pornography to be a public health crisis. The lawsuit was ostensibly over the issue of filters (a copy of the complaint is here). It included an extended footnote, part of which we are including here, which attacks NCOSE’s President Patrick Trueman and Executive Director Dawn Hawkins in bizarre terms…..

Very important set of facts: Don Hilton and Mary Ann Layden are on the board of directors of NCOSE and both regularly present at NCOSE conventions and NCOSE-related gatherings. How likely is it that they would be furthering Sevier’s “cause” by contradicting the position taken by NCOSE against Sevier?

With Ley’s set-up, Prause next tweets that Sevier claimed Gary Wilson and “these experts” were ready to testify:

No way! Hilton, Layden and Wilson never agreed to testify for Sevier, and certainly never agreed to testify that “all gay people are sex addicts.” It’s true that “Severe” emailed Gary Wilson in 2014. In Wilson’s response he suggested Severe visit his website for information. Wilson never agreed to testify, and did not respond to further emails from Severe. Don Hilton was asked if he had ever communicated with Sevier/Severe. He said he had not. Put simply, Sevier, and the Prause-Ley tag team, are lying.

With nothing but lies to back him up, Ley caps off the tag-team twitter like this:

Both Prause and Ley are obsessed cyberstalkers, with 200 tweets or more about Gary Wilson alone. Their assertions here are reprehensible and disgusting, yet fully in character.


May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page (and is banned for sock-puppetry & defamation)

In an earlier section we recounted Prause’s harassment of MDPI and its journal Behavioral Sciences. We also chronicled Prause’s long history of employing multiple fake usernames on Wikipedia (which violates its rules) to harass many of the individuals or organizations listed on this page. For example:

Prause’s latest Wikipedia barrage occurred from May 24th to the 27th and involved at least 6 fake usernames (called “sock-puppets” in Wikipedia jargon). The following links take you to all the edits by these particular usernames (“user contributions”):

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Suuperon
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NeuroSex
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Defender1984
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/23.243.51.114
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.51.228.243
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.194.90.6

The first four usernames edited the MDPI Wikipedia page, while 3 of the 6 edited the Nofap Wikipedia page, the Sex Addiction page and the Pornography Addiction page. All 3 pages are obsessions of Prause. Even Wikipedia recognized the usernames as belonging to the same person because all the names were banned for “sock-puppetry.” We can be sure it was Prause editing the MDPI page because:

1) The most recent batch of emails between MDPI and Nicole Prause started on May 22, with MDPI notifying all involved that one minor technical correction and an editorial would be forthcoming. This enraged Prause who responded with a string of demands and threats, followed by false accusations and personal attacks.

2) The edits began with user NeuroSex whose only edit before May 24th was an unsuccessful attempt to have other Wikipedia pages link to the Nicole Prause Wikipedia page (February, 2018). From the NeuroSex talk page:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Nicole Prause has been reverted.

3) The Wikipedia content revolves around one of Prause’s ongoing obsessions: discrediting and attempting retraction of the paper co-authored by Gary Wilson and US Navy doctors: Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016)

4) All theWikipedia edits mirror concurrent Prause tweets and her emails to MDPI (many of which Wilson has seen).

5) The sock-puppets claimed to possess private MDPI emails – which they wanted to post to the MDPI Wikipedia page. Here’s what NeuroSex said in her comment. (Note: In her concurrent emails to MDPI, Prause cc’d RetractionWatch, apparently to threaten MDPI with public retaliation.):

I have images that verify each of the claims (e.g., email from the publisher, email from the listed editor, etc.). RetractionWatch and other outlets are considering writing reviews of it as well, but I cannot be sure those will materialize. How is best to provide such evidence that verifies the claims? As embedded image? Written elsewhere with images and linked?

Let’s provide a few examples of the “NeuroSex” edits (lies) related to Gary Wilson and to Park et al., 2016 – followed by Wilson’s comments:

—————————————–

NeuroSex edit #1: Gary Wilson was by <ref>{{cite web|title=paid over 9000 pounds|url=https://www.oscr.org.uk/downloadfile.aspx?id=160223&type=5&charityid=SC044948&arid=236451}}</ref> The Reward Foundation to lobby in the US on behalf of anti-pornography state declarations.

Wilson comment: NeuroSex linked to a redacted document, claiming that Gary Wilson was paid 9,000 pounds by Scotish charity The Reward Foundation. Two days earlier Prause falsely claimed to journal publisher MDPI, COPE, David Ley, Neuroskeptic, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and others) that, based on the charity’s recent public filing (with a name redacted, as is standard), expense reimbursements paid to a charity officer were in fact paid to Wilson. Prause has not checked her facts, and she is mistaken. Wilson has never received any money from The Reward Foundation. Gary Wilson forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation. His response:

From: Foundation Reward <_____________@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:17 AM
To: gary wilson
Subject: Re: Concerns raised to the attention of COPE by Nicole Prause. Manuscript ID behavsci-133116

Dear Gary:

I have looked into this. Prause said:

 On 22/05/2018 20:48, Nicole Prause wrote:
> It appears Wilson did receive money from The Reward Foundation.  Attached is The Reward Foundation Annual Report. Per item C6 referring to travel that describes Gary Wilson’s travel totaling 9,027 pounds.
>
> I request that any correction include this financial COI, or time be  allotted to properly demonstrate that this was not a financial  conflict of interest.
>
> Nicole Prause, Ph.D. Liberos <http://www.liberoscenter.com>

This is a reference to our 2016-17 Annual Accounts. A version of the accounts with identity redaction was published by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and can be downloaded at https://www.oscr.org.uk/search/charity-details?number=SC044948#results, copy attached. This redaction process is done by OSCR without input from the named charity.

The relevant section with redaction reads as per this screen shot.

The individual referred to in C6 is Darryl Mead, the Chair of the Reward Foundation. I am that person and I made the claim for reimbursement of travel and other costs.

The original document reads as follows:

 

There is no reference to Gary Wilson in any part of the expenditure for the Reward Foundation because there were no payments to him.

With best wishes,

Darryl

In summary, Prause falsely accused Wilson of receiving funds from The Reward Foundation. She then publicized her lie to MDPI, COPE, RetractionWatch, and others, using the redacted document she submitted (just as NeuroSex lied to Wikipedia in her failed attempt to have her related edits accepted).

Update, 6-7-18: For no reason in particular, Prause posted a comment on the ICD-11 about Gary Wilson (must create a username to view comments). In this comment Prause repeats the above lie she stated in an email exchange with MDPI, RetractionWatch, and COPE (and on Wikipedia):

Over the next few days Nicole Prause posted 4 more libelous comments on the ICD-11 attacking Gary Wilson and continuing to falsely assert that he is a paid employee of The Reward Foundation. Darryl Mead, the Chair of The Reward Foundation, eventually responded:

As Expected, Prause rsponded with several more lies and personal attacks.

Update, 6-18-18: Prause created another Wikipedia username to edit the MDPI wikipedia page – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.51.228.245 – and added the following:

In 2016, another MDPI journal, Behavioral Sciences, published a review paper claiming pornography caused erectile dysfunction. Six scientists independently contacted MDPI concerned about fraud and other issues in the article, initiating an independent review by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE recommended retracting the article.[31] The listed paper editor, Scott Lane, denied having served as the editor. Thus, the paper appears not to have undergone peer-review. Further, two authors had undisclosed conflicts of interest. Gary Wilson’s association with The Reward Foundation did not properly identify it as an activist, anti-pornography organization. Wilson also had posted extensively in social media that the study was “by the US Navy”, although the original paper stated that it did not reflect the views of the US Navy. The other author, Dr. Andrew Doan, was an ophthalmologist who ran an anti-pornography ministry Real Battlefield Ministries, soliciting donations for their speaking.[32] Further, the Committee on Publication Ethics determined that the cases were not properly, ethically consented for inclusion. MDPI issued a correction for some of these issues,[33] but has refused to post corrections for others to date as described by Retraction Watch.[31]

Several of the above lies debunked:

  1. There were not 6 scientists – only Prause contacted MDPI.
  2. My association with The Reward Foundation was fully disclosed from the beginning. As explained earlier, my affiliation with The Reward Foundation (TRF) was always clearly stated, both in the initial Behavioral Sciences article and in the recent correction (the original PubMed version). The purpose of the newly published correction was to counter Dr. Prause’s incessant defamatory claims that I receive money from TRF, and that I make money from my book (my proceeds for which, in fact, go to the charity)
  3. I posted that the paper involved 7 US Navy doctors. The Navy had no problems with my comments.
  4. Dr. Andrew Doan is both an MD and a PhD (Neuroscience – Johns Hopkins), is the former of Head of “Addictions and Resilience Research” in the Department of Mental Health at the Naval Medical Center. (He has since been transferred and promoted, and has different responsibilities.) Doan has authored multiple papers on behavioral addiction/pathologies relating to technologies (in some cases with a co-author of the paper you have written about here). In short, he is a qualified senior author. Those other papers can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=doan+klam. His non-profit, Real Battlefield Ministries (RBM), did not discuss pornography prior to publication of the paper. Even if RBM had presented on pornography it would not have been a conflict of interest.
  5. As described above, COPE’s decision was hypothetical and did not apply to our paper as the US Navy doctors more than complied with their Naval Medical Center – San Diego’s IRB consent rules. The Naval Medical Center San Diego’s IRB policy does not consider case reports of less than four patients in a single article to be human subject research and does not require the patients to consent to inclusion in an article. Although the researchers were not required to obtain consent, for two cases, verbal and written consents were obtained. In the third case where anonymity was unlikely to be compromised, no written consent was obtained. Incidentally, at Dr. Prause’s insistence, after the paper was published, the actions of the Navy co-authors with respect to this paper were thoroughly reviewed in an independent Navy investigation. Result? I have a copy of the official report by a Navy lawyer affirming that the co-authors complied with all the IRB’s rules.

——————————————

NeuroSex edit #2: In 2015, the MDPI journal ”” published a paper ”Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports”. It was widely promoted during political attempts in the USA to define pornography as a public health hazard. However, it was soon discovered that many fraudulent statements appeared in the paper, often claiming the opposite of what a cited study had described

Wilson comment: To begin with, NeuroSex (Prause) got the publication date wrong: our paper was published in August, 2016, not in 2015. Second, our paper was not widely promoted. Third, no fraudulent statements were made and we cited all references correctly. A bit of background is in order.

Pre-MDPI history

The story of Prause’s efforts relating to the paper that was ultimately published as Park et a l., 2016 actually begins before the involvement of MDPI and Behavioral Sciences. An earlier, much shorter version of the paper, with the same authors and author affiliations as it had when later submitted to Behavioral Sciences, was first submitted to Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (YJBM). It’s worth reviewing certain conduct in connection with this paper when it was under consideration by YJBM.

One of the 2 reviewers of the paper gave it a scathing review with 70+ criticisms, and it was duly rejected. Around the time that YJBM rejected the paper, a “Janey Wilson” began harassing my book publisher, Commonwealth Publishing, and the registered charity to which I donate all of my share of my book’s proceeds (recounted in this section). I am the author of Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction.

Note: The submission to YJBM was the only place my affiliation with the charity, The Reward Foundation (TRF), could be found, as it was nowhere public. In other words, apart from the Board of TRF and myself, only the YJBM editor and its two reviewers knew about this affiliation. And yet, “Janey” claimed to have evidence of this affiliation, and used my affiliation to fabricate various allegations of wrongdoing by TRF and me.

Later, Dr. Prause submitted her scathing YJBM review with 70+ criticisms to a regulatory board (as part of an effort to have the published paper retracted), thus confirming she had indeed provided the YJBM with an unfavorable review of the paper. (Further evidence that she was a YJBM reviewer turned up during the Behavioral Sciences submission process, as recounted below.) Incidentally, Prause’s actions are a clear violation of COPE’s rules for peer reviewers (Section 5 of the “Guidelines on Good Publication Practice”), which require reviewers to keep confidential anything they learn through the review process.

YJBM was informed of (1) the harassing behavior engaged in by “Janey,” (2) “Janey’s” possible true identity, and (3) the fact that “Janey” may have violated COPE’s rules for peer reviewers by making public confidential information about me.

The paper was promptly accepted by YJBM…and then not published in that journal after all, due to the journal’s decision that it was too late to make the requested revisions and still meet the print deadline for YJBM’s special “Addiction” issue.

Behavioral Sciences

A revised and updated version of the paper was then submitted to the journal Behavioral Sciences. After a few rounds of reviews and further restructuring it was accepted as a review of the literature, with case studies. Its final form was quite different from the original YJBM submission.

During this process, the paper was reviewed by no fewer than 6 reviewers. Five passed it, some with some suggested revisions, and one harshly rejected it (It was Prause again, as she later revealed).

Phase one of this process unfolded as follows: The paper was reviewed twice, one of them a harsh rejection, one favorable. Puzzled by the harsh rejection, Behavioral Sciences sent the paper out for review to 2 other reviewers. These reviewers passed the paper. Behavioral Sciences cautiously rejected the paper but allowed the authors to “revise and resubmit.” As part of this process, the authors were given all of the comments by the reviewers (but not their identities). The reviewers’ concerns were thoroughly addressed, point by point (available upon request).

From these comments, it became evident that the “harsh reviewer” of the Behavioral Sciences paper had also reviewed the paper at YJBM. About a third of the 77 points raised did not relate to the Behavioral Sciences submission at all. They referred to material that was only present in the earlier version of the paper, the one that had been submitted to YJBM.

In other words, the harsh reviewer had cut and pasted dozens of criticisms from a review done of an earlier iteration of the paper at another journal (YJBM), which no longer had any relevance to the paper submitted to Behavioral Sciences! This is highly unprofessional. Moreover, Prause eventually revealed herself as the author of these criticisms in her complaint to the medical boards (see above), in which she shared her YJBM review of the obsolete version of the paper. (Apparently, she never realized the YJBM paper had been accepted by YJBM once her review was disqualified.)

Incidentally, when Prause was asked to review the paper at Behavioral Sciences she apparently did not reveal that she had already reviewed the paper at another journal. It would have been standard reviewer etiquette to reveal her earlier review effort.

Let me summarize Prause’s multiple objections to our paper. Again, 25 or so of them had nothing whatsoever to do with the Behavioral Sciences paper Prause had been asked by Behavioral Sciences to review. These items referred to its first submission at YJBM. This alone should disqualify the entire review from further consideration.

Yet, we carefully combed through each comment looking for any useful insights, and wrote a comprehensive response to all 77 comments for Behavioral Sciences and its editors. Almost all of the remaining 50 critical comments were either scientifically inaccurate, groundless, or were simply false statements. Some were repetitive. In short, while reviewers’ comments always improve any paper to some degree, there really wasn’t the need to “fix” much of the paper itself in light of Prause’s comments. What we did do was strengthen the paper itself with 50 more citations, lest other readers make any of the same errors she had.

The paper was rewritten and revised. Next, two more reviewers reviewed and passed it with various suggestions, including a suggestion to restructure it as a “review with case studies.” Satisfied that all legitimate concerns had been addressed, Behavioral Sciences published the paper.

Immediately after publication in August, 2016 Prause insisted that MDPI retract Park et al., 2016. The professional response to scholarly articles one disapproves of is to publish a comment outlining any objections. Behavioral Sciences’s parent company, MDPI, invited Prause to do this. She declined. That’s right, Prause was given full opportunity to critique the paper in Behavioral Sciences – and she ran the other way.

Instead she unprofessionally turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al. In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association and the doctors’ medical boards. She also pressured the doctors’ medical center and Institutional Review Board, causing a lengthy, thorough investigation, which found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the paper’s authors.

Prause concurrently complained repeatedly to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). COPE finally wrote MDPI with a hypothetical observation relating to (Prause’s narrative about) consents obtained for the case studies in the paper, and a question about retraction. MDPI thoroughly re-investigated the consents obtained by the doctors who authored the papers, as well as US Navy policy around obtaining consents. Written consents had been obtained for the two extensive case studies, and the third case study involved so little identifying information that a written consent was deemed unnecessary. On this basis, MDPI declined to retract the paper.


May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit the Nofap Wikipedia page

As described above, from May 24th to the 27th, 2018 Prause employed six fake usernames to edit the Wikipedia pages of her ongoing obsessions: MDPI, Nofap, Sexual Addiction, and Pornography Addiction. Even though Prause’s main target was MDPI, two of her sock-puppets took the time to attack Nofap, with edits and defamatory comments. As she has done in Twitter comments and in personal attacks on Alexander Rhodes, Prause called members of Nofap dangerous misogynists.

User contributions – Suuperon

User contributions – 209.194.90.6

  • 03:28, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+379)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (‎Support groups: NoFap community has recently raised security concerns paralleling Incels and due to this paper discovering considerable misogynist attacks in NoFap. I suggest removal, but at least should warn people community is not safe.)

Prause’s assertions are nonsense as Nofap is simply an online forum for people trying to quit porn – hardly a threat to anyone. Anyhow, one of Prause’s edits involved deletion of a yet to be published paper by researcher Alec Sproten – How Abstinence Affects Preferences (2016). Sproten’s preliminary results, like a handful of other studies, reported significant benefits by participants who ceased using porn. Excerpts from Sproten’s article:

Results of the First Wave – Main Findings

  1. The length of the longest streak participants performed before taking part in the survey correlates with time preferences. The second survey will answer the question if longer periods of abstinence render participants more able to delay rewards, or if more patient participants are more likely to perform longer streaks.
  2. Longer periods of abstinence most likely cause less risk aversion (which is good). The second survey will provide the final proof.
  3. Personality correlates with length of streaks. The second wave will reveal if abstinence influences personality or if personality can explain variation in the length of streaks.

Results of the Second Wave – Main Findings

  1. Abstaining from pornography and masturbation increases the ability to delay rewards
  2. Participating in a period of abstinence renders people more willing to take risks
  3. Abstinence renders people more altruistic
  4. Abstinence renders people more extroverted, more conscientious, and less neurotic

Unfortunately, Prause’s deletion of the Sproten study has not yet been reversed.


May 24-27, 2018 – Prause creates multiple sock-puppets to edit “Sex Addiction” & “Porn Addiction” Wikipedia pages

The previous two sections chronicle Prause’s Wikipedia-based attacks on two of her favorite targets: MDPI and Nofap. In Prause’s recent 4-day Wikipedia blitz three of her sockpuppets edited two other objects of her disdain: the Wikipedia pages on “Sexual Addiction” and “Pornography Addiction” (which her numerous sockpuppets had previously edited over the years). In her many edits Prause attacks familiar targets such as Dr. Todd Love, Fight The New Drug, therapist Staci Sprout, Dr. Patrick Carnes, CEO of MDPI, the American Society for Addiction Medicine, and a protein – DeltaFosB.

Here we present selected edits and remarks from three sockpuppets, followed by our comments:

User contributions: NeuroSex

Comment: Once again, Prause is attacking therapist Staci Sprout, who Prause harassed and defamed in a groundless complaint filed with Washington State Dept. of Health. The State of Washington dismissed the empty complaint (without an investigation) and closed the case. Prause has also attacked Staci Sprout on Twitter and on the ICD-11 comment page  for “Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder.”

———–

User contributions: Suuperon

  • 02:16, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-172)‎ . . Sexual addiction ‎ (‎Controversy: infographic was created by Mormon group Fight The New Drug, an anti-pornography organization. Not neutral and does not accurately reflect history, such as including individuals with no field influence

Comment: Prause’s harassment and defamation of Fight The New Drug (FTND) involves 50 or more tweets, reporting FTND to the State of Utah, posting on the FTND Facebook page that FTND is guilty of science fraud & that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice, and writing 2 op-eds attcking FTND – both of which were addressed and discredited in these 2 responses:

———–

User contributions: Suuperon

  • 02:20, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-3,460)‎ . . Sexual addiction ‎ (‎Mechanisms: Large section about FOSB made no mention of link to sex and had about 7 broken links (numbers clearly pasted from some other source, not properly attributed))
  • 02:01, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-356)‎ . . m Sexual addiction ‎ (‎Mechanisms: Lead claim of “wide acceptance” as addiction in humans linking to only animal studies is more activism on this entry. False

Comment: The above two edits and comments involve DeltaFosB, which Prause sockpuppets have been complaining about for over 3 years now (see 2 of Prause’s earlier posting about DeltaFosB:  “PatriotsAllTheWay” & “NotGaryWilson”). This is nothing new as Prause and David Ley’s 2014 opinion piece on porn addiction railed against DeltaFosB – with the foremost DeltaFosB researcher saying that Ley & Prause’s commentary sounded like a “bad Saturday Night Live parody.”

Contrary to Prause’s claim, DeltaFosB is present in humans, and with high levels seen in the reward centers of human cocaine addicts (post-mortem) who suddenly died. Put simply, all the neuroscientists studying its mechanisms agree that DeltaFosb is involved with multiple physiological functions, including sensitization to sexual activity and addiction.

———–

User contributions: 185.51.228.242

Comment: Over the last few years Prause has defamed and harassed Patrick Carnes, Stefanie Carnes and their educational organization (IITAP) with at least 100 comments on social media and elsewhere. As documented here, Prause went so far as to post several groundless comments stating that all IITAP practitioners were openly sexist and assaultive to scientists.

———–

User contributions: 185.51.228.242

  • 03:16, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-1,180)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (‎Diagnostic status: Todd Love is described as an “addiction researcher”. He has zero research training and no data publications. He represents another false appeal to authority to create a false narrative. The reference describing him falsely as a scientist is removed.) (Tag: references removed)

Comment: Nicole Prause’s original Twitter account was permanently suspended shortly after she violated Twitter’s rules by (twice) posting the Dr. Todd Love’s personal information. Love is the lead author on this 2015 paper, “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (Love, et al.), which critiqued two highly publicized EEG studies by Nicole Prause. The Love paper has been well received from the scientific community. It already has 59 citations listed on Google Scholar. Here Prause is attacking Love’s 2015 paper, arguing that he is not a researcher. What Prause omits is that Love et al., 2015 had 4 other authors including Matthias Brand – who has published more neurological studies on internet pornography than anyone on the planet; Christian Laier – who has published over 10 stduies on internet pornography; and Raju Hajela MD, MPH, one of the leading addiction physicians in the world.

———–

User contributions: 185.51.228.242

Comment: Here Prause’s sockpuppets told 2 (more) bare-faced lies. First, the American Society for Addiction Medicine is hardly a fringe group as its members include 3,000 medical doctors who specialize in addiction treatment. ASAM has been around longer than the DSM. Second, ASAM never stated that “tanning addiction” exists. Just another lie. What angers Prause is that America’s top addiction experts at ASAM released their sweeping new definition of addiction in 2011. ASAM’s definition of addiction explicitly stated that sexual behavior addictions exist and must be caused by the same fundamental brain changes found in substance addictions. From the ASAM FAQs:

QUESTION: This new definition of addiction refers to addiction involving gambling, food, and sexual behaviors. Does ASAM really believe that food and sex are addicting?

ANSWER: The new ASAM definition makes a departure from equating addiction with just substance dependence, by describing how addiction is also related to behaviors that are rewarding. … This definition says that addiction is about functioning and brain circuitry and how the structure and function of the brains of persons with addiction differ from the structure and function of the brains of persons who do not have addiction. … Food and sexual behaviors and gambling behaviors can be associated with the ‘pathological pursuit of rewards’ described in this new definition of addiction.

The World Health Organization is edging into alignment with The American Society of Addiction Medicine. The beta draft of the world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing porn and sex addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”

———–

Update: On June 5th yet another Prause sockpuppet appeared and attempted to edit the Sexual Addiction Wikipedia page – User contributions: 71.196.154.4

The sockpuppet’s comments on the Sexual Addiction Talk Page perfectly mirror Prause’s usual baseless drivel about “sex addiction” being rejected, and that sex/porn addiction can be explained away by either high libido or shame:

Add first line to “is a proposed model” or “is an hypothesized model”. “Addiction” is a scientific model that has not been agreed on by any scientific body, so presenting “sex addiction” as “a state” misrepresents the state of the science, which largely has rejected this model (relative to, for example, impulsivity model, high drive model, social shame model, etc.). 71.196.154.4 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor asks Prause for reputable sources to support her claims:

Please provide a WP:VERIFIABLE source to support your claim.–DBigXray 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Prause’s sockpuppet did not respond.

As for Prause’s cliam that individuals with either sex addiction or porn addiction do not have addiction, they simply have high libidos: there are 2 dozen studies that falsify the claim that sex & porn addicts “just have high sexual desire”.  In addition, 39 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) have reported neurobiological changes in sex & porn addicts that mirror those found in substance abusers. Shame doesn’t cause addiction-related brain changes.  Not coincidentally, a Google Scholar search for the phrase “social shame model” finds only single paper – Prause’s 2016 opinion piece that was thoroughly discredited in this extensive critique. The “social shame model” exists only in the mind of Prause and her chorus of sockpuppets.


May 30, 2018 – Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice.

In a pre-planned attacked, Nicole Prause and four of her usual side-kicks posted one star “reviews” on the Fight The New Drug Facebook page (reviews by the flying monkeys, all posted within a few hours each other: Tammy Johnson Ellis, Anthony Xavier Diaz, Russell Stambaugh, Patrick Powers).

This image with a rant by a non-academic is self-explanatory. For the record, Gary has never received notice of any of Prause’s fictitious FBI or police reports (or done anything to merit them), and FTND relies on an array of respected academic scientists.

As for Prause’s assertion that Wilson is a misogynist, her only bit of proof is that Wilson accidentally wrote “Miss Prause” in his reply to a comment on YourBrainRebalanced where Prause (as RealSceince) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?

Prause’s claim that “their neuroscience is simply false” is just more fiction from a practiced liar. Prause provides no examples of ‘false neuroscience,” while a reading of a FTND article such as “How Porn Can Become Addictive,” reveals peer-reviewed studies supporting every claim. Another example, found in the FTND FAQs (Is Porn Addiction Even A Real Thing?), contains links to about 200 supporting peer-reviewed papers.

Prause’s falsehoods concerning FTND are exposed in her Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed attacking FTND. On the surface it appears legitimate as 7 PhD buddies of Prause signed off on it. However, upon closer examination we find that:

  1. It provides no examples of misrepresentation by “Fight The New Drug”, or anyone else.
  2. None of the claims are supported by citations.
  3. The 8 neuroscientists cited zero neuroscience-based studies.
  4. None of the researchers has ever published a study involving verified “porn addicts.”
  5. Some who signed the Op-Ed have histories of fervently attacking the concept of porn and sex addiction (thus demonstrating stark bias).
  6. Most had collaborated with the lead author of the Op-Ed (Prause) or her colleague (Pfaus).

This 600-word Op-Ed is chock full of unsupported assertions meant to fool the lay public. It fails to support a single assertion as it cites only 4 papers – none of which have anything to do with porn addiction, porn’s effects on relationships, or porn-induced sexual problems.

I and several other experts in this field debunked its assertions and empty rhetoric in this relatively short response – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” we cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature, including many of the following:


Prause’s history of intentionally mischaracterizing porn related research (including her own)

Over the last few years Nicole Prause has not only mischaracterized the current state of porn research, she has misrepresented the findings of her own studies. What’s going on here? By her own admission, Prause rejects the concept of porn addiction. For example, a quote from this recent Martin Daubney article about sex/porn addictions:

Dr Nicole Prause, principal investigator at the Sexual Psychophysiology and Affective Neuroscience (Span) Laboratory in Los Angeles, calls herself a “professional debunker” of sex addiction.

In addition, Nicole Prause’s former Twitter slogan suggests she may lack the impartiality required for scientific research:

“Studying why people choose to engage in sexual behaviors without invoking addiction nonsense”

We will start with Prause’s consistent claims to the media that no studies have been published that support either porn addiction or porn-induced sexual problems. Prause said this in the Congressional Quarterly Researcher (2016, October 21):

Moreover, says Nicole Prause, a neuroscientist and CEO of Liberos, a company that researches sexuality in Los Angeles, there is no proof that pornography is causing a rising rate of erectile dysfunction nor that it is addictive.

The facts:

This Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed (debunking an earlier Op-Ed) contained 85 peer-reviewed studies found on these two lists: 1, 2. Within a few days Nicole Prause and 3 therapists appeared on a Mormon Matters podcast to offer a “rebuttal” to the Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed. When the show’s host asked Prause to address the many studies cited in support of the Op-Ed, Prause said the following:

“Not one of the studies the cited asked about the positive effects of sex films”

False. Most of these 85 studies simply correlated porn use with sexual or relationship satisfaction. A few even reported porn use sexual satisfaction. She also said,

“They were probably not peer-reviewed.”

False. All were peer-reviewed.

“A lot of the studies they cited were in predatory journals.”

False. None were in predatory journals. Many of the papers were authored by some of the top neuroscientists at Yale University, Cambridge University, University of Duisburg-Essen, and the Max Planck Institute.

“So what they are citing is not respected by any scientist.”

False. No scientist has come forth to officially critique any of the papers in those lists of peer-reviewed literature.

It’s telling that Prause failed to provide the name of a single study from those lists that was not peer-reviewed, or that was published in a predatory journal. Once again Prause makes outlandish claims, yet never provides an iota of evidence to support them. It seems as though Dr. Prause is unaware of the Americal Psychological Association’s “General Principles,” one of which is “Integrity.” Excerpt:

Psychologists do not steal, cheat or engage in fraud, subterfuge or intentional misrepresentation of fact.

Prause has also misrepresented the findings of her own studies to the media (which is the primary reason this website has been obliged to critique Prause’s studies/claims). As examples, we examine a few of the claims surrounding Prause’s three most publicized papers, which she repeatedly claims debunk either porn addiction or porn-induced erectile dysfunction.

1) Steele et al., 2013:

Prause, as the Steele et al. spoesperson, claimed that her subjects’ brain response differered from other types of addicts (cocaine was the example). A few interviews of Prause:

TV interview:

Reporter: “They were shown various erotic images, and their brain activity monitored.”

Prause: “If you think sexual problems are an addiction, we would have expected to see an enhanced response, maybe, to those sexual images. If you think it’s a problem of impulsivity, we would have expected to see decreased responses to those sexual images. And the fact that we didn’t see any of those relationships suggests that there’s not great support for looking at these problem sexual behaviors as an addiction.”

Psychology Today interview:

What was the purpose of the study?

Prause: Our study tested whether people who report such problems look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images. Studies of drug addictions, such as cocaine, have shown a consistent pattern of brain response to images of the drug of abuse, so we predicted that we should see the same pattern in people who report problems with sex if it was, in fact, an addiction.

Does this prove sex addiction is a myth?

Prause: If our study is replicated, these findings would represent a major challenge to existing theories of sex “addiction.” The reason these findings present a challenge is that it shows their brains did not respond to the images like other addicts to their drug of addiction.

The above claims that subjects’ “brains did not respond like other addicts” is without support, and is nowhere to be found in the actual study. It’s only found in Prause’s interviews. In Steele et al., 2013, the subjects had higher EEG (P300) readings when viewing sexual images, which is exactly what occurs when addicts view images related to their addiction (as in this study on cocaine addicts). Commenting under the Psychology Today interview of Prause, senior psychology professor emeritus John A. Johnson said:

“My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice. How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results?

Dr. Johnson, who has no opinion on sex addiction, commented a second time under the Prause interview:

Mustanski asks, “What was the purpose of the study?” And Prause replies, “Our study tested whether people who report such problems [problems with regulating their viewing of online erotica] look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images.”

(Said Johnson) But the study did not compare brain recordings from persons having problems regulating their viewing of online erotica to brain recordings from drug addicts and brain recordings from a non-addict control group, which would have been the obvious way to see if brain responses from the troubled group look more like the brain responses of addicts or non-addicts…

Five peer-reviewed papers have since exposed the truth about the lack of support for Prause’s claims about her team’s work: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. For much more see this “debate” between Nicole Prause (as anonymous) and John A. Johnson in the comments section below Johnson’s 2013 Psychology Today article about the sex addiction controversy

2) Prause et al. 2015:

In the first unsupported claim Nicole Prause boldly publicized on her SPAN lab website, proclaiming that her solitary study “debunks porn addiction”:

What researcher would ever claim to debunk an entire field of research and to refute all previous studies with a single EEG study?

Nicole Prause also claimed her study contained 122 subjects (N). In reality, the study had only 55 “compulsive porn users.” The other 67 participants were controls.

In a third dubious claim, Prause, et al. stated in both the abstract and in the body of the study:

“These are the first functional physiological data of persons reporting VSS regulation problems.”

This is clearly not the case, as the Cambridge fMRI study was published nearly a year earlier.

Six peer-reviewed papers disagree with Nicole Prause’s interpretation of her study: 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6. The author of the fourth critique, neuroscientist Mateusz Gola, summed up it up nicely:

“Unfortunately the bold title of Prause et al. (2015) article has already had an impact on mass media, thus popularizing a scientifically unjustified conclusion.”

Finally, for Prause’s claims of falsification and the resulting dubious headlines to be legitimate, all of Prause’s 55 subjects would have to have been actual porn addicts. Not some, not most, but every single subject. All signs point to a good number of the 55 Prause subjects being non-addicts.

The subjects were recruited from Pocatello Idaho via online advertisements requesting people who were “experiencing problems regulating their viewing of sexual images”. Pocatello Idaho is over 50% Mormon, so many of the subjects may feel that any amount of porn use is a serious problem. In a serious methodological flaw, none of the subjects were screened for porn addiction.

Make no mistake, neither Steele et al., 2013 nor Prause et al., 2015 described these 55 subjects as porn addicts or compulsive porn users. The subjects only admitted to feeling “distressed” by their porn use. Confirming the mixed nature of her subjects, Prause admitted in 2013 interview that some of the 55 subjects experienced only minor problems (which means they were not porn addicts):

“This study only included people who reported problems, ranging from relatively minor to overwhelming problems, controlling their viewing of visual sexual stimuli.”

Key point: How can you debunk the porn addiction model if many of your “porn addicts” are not really porn addicts?

3) Prause & Pfaus 2015:

This paper wasn’t a study at all. Instead, Prause claimed to have gathered data from four of her earlier studies, none of which had anything to do with erectile dysfunction.  None of the data from the Prause & Pfaus (2015) paper matched the four earlier studies. The discrepancies were not small and have not been explained. A comment by researcher Richard A. Isenberg MD, published in Sexual Medicine Open Access, points out several (but not all) of the discrepancies, errors, and unsupported claims (a lay critique describes more discrepancies). Prause made a number of false or unsupported claims associated with this paper:

Many of the articles about this study claimed that porn use lead to better erections, yet that’s not what the paper found. In recorded interviews both Prause and Pfaus falsely claimed that they had measured erections in the lab, and the men who used porn had better erections. The Jim Pfaus TV interview Jim Pfaus he states:

“We looked at the correlation of their ability to get an erection in the lab,”

We found a liner correlation with the amount of porn they viewed at home, and the latencies which for example they get an erection is faster.”

In this radio interview Nicole Prause claimed that erections were measured in the lab. The exact quote from the show:

“The more people watch erotica at home they have stronger erectile responses in the lab, not reduced.”

Yet this paper did not assess erection quality in the lab nor “speed of erections.” The paper only claimed to have asked guys to rate their “arousal” after briefly viewing porn (and it’s not clear from the underlying papers that even that actually happened in the case of all subjects). In any case, an excerpt from the paper itself admitted that:

“No physiological genital response data were included to support men’s self-reported experience.”

In a second unsupported claim, lead author Prause tweeted several times about the study, letting the world know that 280 subjects were involved, and that they had “no problems at home.” However, the four underlying studies contained only 234 male subjects, so “280” is way off.

A third unsuported claim: Dr. Isenberg wondered, how is it possible for Prause & Pfaus to have compared different subjects’ arousal levels when three different types of sexual stimuli were used in the 4 underlying studies? Two studies used a 3-minute film, one study used a 20-second film, and one study used still images. It’s well established that films are far more arousing than photos, so no legitimate research would group these subjects together to make claims about their responses. What’s shocking is that in this paper Prause & Pfaus unaccountably claim that all 4 studies used sexual films:

“The VSS presented in the studies were all films.”

This statement is absoluely false and clearly shown in Prause’s own underlying studies.

A fourth unsupported claim: Dr. Isenberg also asked how Prause & Pfaus compared different subjects’ arousal levels when only 1 of the 4 underlying studies used a 1 to 9 scale. One used a 0 to 7 scale, one used a 1 to 7 scale, and one study did not report sexual arousal ratings. Once again Prause & Pfaus inexplicably claim that:

“men were asked to indicate their level of “sexual arousal” ranging from 1 “not at all” to 9 “extremely.”

This too is false as the underlying papers prove.

In summary, all the Prause-generated headlines about porn improving erections or arousal, or anything else, are completely unsupported. Claims in the Prause & Pfaus paper are falsified by Prause’s own studies underlying the paper.


Relevant Material

Article: “When Scientists Lie.”

This article aligns perfectly with what we have seen and experienced. A few excerpts:

Often individuals who engage in scientific fraud are high achievers. They are prominent in their disciplines but seek to be even more recognised for the pre-eminence of their scholarly contributions. Along with their drive for recognition can come charisma and grandiosity, as well as a craving for the limelight. Their productivity can border on the manic. Their narcissism will often result in a refusal to accept the manifest dishonesty and culpability of their conduct. The rationalising and self-justifying books of Stapel and Obokata are examples of this phenomenon.

When criticism is made or doubts are expressed about their work, these scientists often react aggressively. They may threaten whistleblowers or attempt to displace responsibility for their conduct onto others. Such cases can generate persistent challenges in the courts, as the scientists in question deny any form of impropriety.

These fraudulent scientists often use the collaboration of others, including across institutions, to blur the lines of responsibility and make it difficult to identify who has generated particular components of research and whether there has been proper authorisation by relevant ethics committees….

Research misconduct often has multiple elements: data fraud, plagiarism and the exploitation of the work of others. People rarely engage in such conduct as a one-off and frequently engage in multiple forms of such dishonesty, until finally they are exposed.

This intellectual dishonesty damages colleagues, institutions, patients who receive suspect treatments, trajectories of research and confidence in scholarship.

It challenges institutions because those responsible for scientific fraud are often stars in the scholarly firmament and high earners of research funding. They put institutions, be they university departments or research laboratories, on the scholarly map and keep them there.

Exposing their misconduct risks the status of the whole institution and its commercial viability. It’s hardly surprising then that accusations and revelations of such misconduct are often unwelcome, and that too many times the blowtorch of scrutiny is turned on the whistleblower rather than the perpetrator.

Research misconduct generally matters most when it reaches the point of publication. Multiple instances of research fraud have been revealed in recent years, resulting in an unparalleled number of retractions in high profile and reputable journals.

The unpalatable truth is that the check and balance of peer review has repeatedly been shown to be ineffectual, and has been subverted and circumvented. We need to do better if we are to reduce the extent of the phenomenon of fraudulent research.

A second very relevant article: “Blame Bad Incentives For Bad Science.”

A single scientist might be publishing papers, peer-reviewing other peoples’ papers, submitting grants, serving on review committees for other peoples’ grants, editing a journal, applying for a job and serving on a hiring committee — all at the same time. And so the standards for scientific integrity, for rigorous methods, do not reside with the institutions or the funders or the journals. Those standards are within the scientists themselves. The inmates really do run the scientific asylum.

A relevant study: “Need for Drama” is a maladaptive personality trait.

Scientists have begun to investigate a personality trait in which, “people impulsively manipulate others from a position of perceived victimhood.” They have confirmed a three factor model of “Need For Drama” (NFD) consisting of, “interpersonal manipulation, impulsive outspokenness, and persistent perceived victimhood.”

The Need for Drama (NFD) personality can be defined as a compound personality trait in which individuals impulsively manipulate others from a position of perceived victimization. …

We expect individuals with greater NFD to share some characteristics with those who exhibit BPD and HPD features, namely susceptibility to interpersonal conflict, manipulative behaviors, impulsive decision-making, and pervasive perceived victimization. …

For more, see Frankowski, S., Lupo, A. K., Smith, B. A., Dane’El, M., Ramos, C., & Morera, O. F. (2016). “Developing and Testing a Scale to Measure Need for Drama.” Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 192-201.


 “Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

~George Orwell

1 reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] start with the lead author’s hyperbole. Nicole Prause, boldly claimed on her SPAN lab website that this solitary study “debunks porn […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply