(This section was created after sections 2-9 were created.)
I was under the impression that people looked to Retraction Watch for responsible, thoroughly vetted articles about research. After my recent experience however, I can only ask, “Who’s watching Retraction Watch?” To whom or what is Retraction Watch accountable for oversight when it engages in irresponsible journalism?
On June 13, Retraction Watch (RW) published an inaccurate and biased account of events surrounding Behavioral Sciences paper Park et al., 2016. Among other distortions, the piece omitted material details about Nicole Prause’s unsuccessful (and unseemly) 3-year campaign to have the paper retracted (documented in the next 8 sections).
Prause, a former academic, apparently contacted RW personnel and fed them the particulars she wanted in print – and RW apparently swallowed them whole and duly published them. My response appears underneath the Retraction Watch article. However, RW edited my comment substantially before it would post it. Here I supply various missing details.
First, my comment is a redacted version of an email I sent to Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky of RW shortly after the piece appeared. After 3 days of back-and-forth emails, RW eventually posted some of the proposed content (from my email), but demanded that I remove content that revealed the ways in which RW had not performed its journalistic duties.
Here is more of the story.
1) Senior author, and Naval officer, Andrew Doan MD PhD requested that Adam Marcus speak to me for clarification on details surrounding the paper (after Marcus contacted him). Doan did this because he and my other 6 co-authors are Active Duty in the US Navy and “cannot speak about the paper in detail without permission from the public affairs office US Navy.” Marcus chose not to contact me. Instead he ran with everything Prause fed him. From my original email:
I’ve read your piece, “Journal corrects, but will not retract, controversial paper on internet porn.” As the prime objective of Retraction Watch is integrity in publishing, I believe you will want to correct this article in numerous important respects. In its current form it contains many errors and much defamatory misinformation. I regret that you didn’t contact me as Dr. Doan suggested, so that these errors could have been avoided.
2) RW principals Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky were copied on the May, 2018 MDPI-Prause email exchanges. As I said in one of my emails to RW:
I am deeply concerned about Retraction Watch’s selective use of bits of the MDPI emails that Dr. Prause copied you on. As I was also sent those emails, I know there was a lot of other information in them. The omitted bits included lies and unprofessional attacks on others by Dr. Prause. While Dr. Lin’s metaphor was unfortunate (English is not his first or second language), I think his remark needs to be ‘heard’ in light of the fact that Dr. Prause has been badgering his company directly, and indirectly via COPE, for almost two straight years. His exasperation is easily understood. Giving Dr. Prause a “pass” on her offensive behavior while highlighting his was unkind and, more important, leaves your readers with a very skewed perspective.
It must be noted that RW was not copied on the endless stream of emails, from the previous 3 years, where Prause harassed MDPI, the US Navy, the 7 Navy doctors, The Reward Foundation, the publisher of my book, etc., etc. Nor is anyone privy to her many private emails to COPE and its officers.
3) In the May, 2018 MDPI-Prause email exchanges, Marcus and Oransky were twice given this extensive page documenting Prause’s long history of harassing researchers, authors, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, a former UCLA colleague, a UK charity, men in recovery, a senior TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, MDPI, and the head of the academic journal CUREUS. In essence, RW ignored Prause’s documented misbehavior to publish its Prause-inspired hit piece.
4) In a follow-up email asking why RW had failed to post my (redacted) comment, I mentioned to Marcus and Oransky that the core assertion of RW’s hit piece was mistaken:
As things stand, even the premise of your article is false. 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).
5) In both my emails to RW, I clearly addressed the second primary assertion in their article:
It is also important to clarify that Dr. Prause’s “77 unaddressed points” claim is untrue. I have the documentation of these points and our team’s responses (and the documentation that 25 of the 77 “points” had nothing to do with the Behavioral Sciences paper).
See this section for more details surrounding Prause’s so-called “77 points,” and her unprofessional involvement with an earlier, much different version of our paper, submitted to Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.
6) In both my emails to RW, I clearly stated that Prause was lying about the California investigation:
Next, it is crucial to correct Dr. Prause’s false assertion that California’s investigation of her behavior is over and that she has prevailed. It is not over; an investigator has invited me to testify in the coming months (date TBD).
It’s quite telling that Marcus and Oransky
(1) did not correct the RW article’s false assertions and misleading statements,
(2) redacted evidence in my proposed post that they were very aware of Prause’s defamatory statements and long history of harassment and proceeded anyway,
(3) chose not communicate with me prior to publication, even though the paper’s senior author requested they do so,
(4) subtly suggested I was the harasser by falsely stating that the California investigation was complete and decided in Prause’s favor, and by linking to a Daily Beast account of events, and
(5) have not corrected or unpublished their hit piece as irresponsible journalism, nor publicly apologized to the authors and journal whose reputations they smeared without cause.
A few more points about the RW article not covered in my comment. The first paragraph states:
“After publication, critics asked COPE to look at the paper.”
“Critics” plural? It was only one “critic” who emailed either MDPI or COPE: Prause. She emailed the US Navy multiple times, reported the 7 doctors on the paper to their medical boards, and turned to social media to harass me, MDPI, and researchers who publish in MDPI – as part of a long campaign to avoid writing a formal scholarly reply to the paper and instead to try to have it retracted via behind-the-scenes maneuvering and public misinformation.
The article said:
“COPE, which has no enforcement authority, said in an email to the publisher that it would have recommended retraction of the article.”
COPE was only concerned about one issue (based on the “facts” fed to it): consent. COPE said the following:
“should this case have been raised at one of our COPE forums, we feel the recommendation would have been to consider the retraction of the article on the basis of consent requirements not following expectations”…..
While COPE’s answer is hypothetical, based on whatever “facts” Prause apparently supplied it, the authors and MDPI are truly puzzled by the response. In reality, 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.
The RW article also said:
“Among the the [sic] claims is that one of the authors, Gary Wilson, failed to adequately disclose his work with The Reward Foundation,”
This is false. 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).
In the absence of adequate oversight, RW readers may want to be skeptical about ingesting RW’s blog posts without independent investigation. RW seems to be willing to allow itself to be used by agenda-driven forces even when alerted that further investigation is needed.
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. Prause has a long history of cyberstalking and defaming Wilson, chronicled in this very extensive page. The two papers:
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, accurately criticized the paper. (There was not enough space in Park et al. to address all the weaknesses and unsupported claims in Prause & Pfaus, 2015).
Prause immediately 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. It must be noted that Prause attacks Wilson and his website constantly and publicly.
Instead of publishing a formal comment, she unprofessionally turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al., of which I am a co-author with 7 US Navy physicians (including two urologists, two psychiatrists and a neuroscientist). In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association. She then filed complaints with all 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 also complained repeatedly to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). COPE finally wrote MDPI with a hypothetical inquiry about retraction, based on Prause’s narrative that the “patients weren’t consented.” MDPI thoroughly re-investigated the consents obtained by the doctors who authored the paper, as well as US Navy policy around obtaining consents.
Please note that the Naval Medical Center San Diego’s IRB 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.
Accordingly, MDPI declined to retract the paper. This was explained to COPE, without further objection from COPE. As long as researchers comply with their institution’s IRB consent rules (which was the case here), there is no problem. Yet Prause continues to claim falsely that this issue was unresolved and that “the patients were not consented” and retraction is appropriate.
Prause also complained to COPE that I had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Background: I disclosed my affiliation with The Reward Foundation in the paper from the start. This is not a conflict of interest. In 2018, the journal issued a correction that changed the language describing my affiliation to make it crystal clear (even to Prause) that no conflict of interest existed. It mentions my book, the fact that my proceeds from the book go to The Reward Foundation, and the fact that my affiliation is an unremunerated position. Prause has continued to claim (falsely) that I have been accepting thousands of pounds from the charity. Proof that she is mistaken is documented elsewhere on this page.
Pre-MDPI history: The Yale Journal of Biology & Medicine, and “Janey Wilson”
The story of Prause’s efforts relating to the paper that was ultimately published as Park et al. 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 my share of my book’s proceeds. (I am the author of Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction.) A detailed account of “Janey’s” extensive, groundless harassment is set forth at the bottom of this page.
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. She even filed a nuisance report with the Scottish Charity Regulator, to no avail.
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 version of Park et al.
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 (guess who?).
Phase one of this process unfolded as follows: The paper was reviewed twice, one of them the 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 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 regulatory boards (see above), in which she shared her YJBM review of the obsolete version of the paper.
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 the earlier review.
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. They 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 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. Several complained about the presence of quotations from the 3 patients, even though the paper was submitted as “a review with clinical reports.” Some made claims about some of the sources we cited, but the claims were simply not supported by the papers themselves. More than 10 comments insisted that the doctors were not competent to examine their patients for the case studies(!).
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.
The paper was rewritten and revised. Next, two more reviewers and a supervisory editor 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.
Retraction efforts
Immediately Prause began demanding that the paper be retracted. Among other efforts, she sent this unprofessional private email message threatening MDPI with bad press if they refused to retract the paper:
“This was filed August 24, 2016. It is now November 12, 2016….. If I do not hear anything within the next two weeks, we will begin by writing the board of that journal with the facts of the case. Multiple retraction watchdogs are already aware and waiting to hear that retraction is occurring, but will instead publish about the failure to retract if necessary.”
Here’s another of her private threats to MDPI on Mon, Nov 14, 2016:
“Behavioral Sciences is the definition of a predatory journal and was recognized on Beall’s predatory journal list until you threatened him to remove it. The first media coverage of this should appear late this week in a national outlet. We gave you every chance to retract this fake paper.”
MDPI disagreed with Prause’s concerns or assessment of the paper, and did not retract the it, pending further investigation of her assertions. The saga continues, and a summary of it appears at the very end of this page.
In any event, after her dubious retraction demands, Prause began defaming MDPI (and its journal Behavioral Sciences) as “predatory” on social media.
Prause uses social media to harass MDPI, researchers who publish in MDPI journals, and anyone citing Park et al., 2016
Out of nowhere Prause attacks MDPI in November, 2017, tweeting an article that has nothing to do with MDPI:
MDPI responds:
This causes Prause to go on a Twitter rampage (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 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:
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 the review 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 countless others).
More unfounded accusations of misogyny:
Prause falsely claims the Behavioral Sciences paper she attacked was retracted. This is both defamatory and unprofessional.
The Twitter conversation continues:
“Pornaddiction recovery” tweets two YBOP lists, which causes Prause to tweet a paper by Gary Wilson and Navy doctors. Prause falsely claims that she badgered COPE into suggesting a retraction. It’s all bullshit.
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 various bloggers she hoped would take her word for things and publish defamatory articles. Retraction Watch has already complied with her demand.
It’s 2019 and Prause continues to search twitter for unrelated material so she has an excuse to tweet her falsehoods and the bogus Retraction Watch article:
On February 16, 2019, a sexual medicine specialist presented a talk at the 21st Congress of the European Society for Sexual Medicine on the Internet’s impact on sexuality. A few slides describing porn-induced sexual problems, citing Park et al., 2016, were tweeted. The tweets caused Nicole Prause, David Ley, Joshua Grubbs and their allies to Twitter-rage on Park et al., 2016.
Several of Prause’s tweets allude to a keynote address by Gary Wilson scheduled for the 2018 ISSM conference. Suddenly and without explanation my talk was mysteriously cancelled. It seems likely that Dr. Prause was behind the cancellation as she is the only one to report (boast about?) the cancellation (repeatedly) on social media. She has a long history of making false reports to organizations and governing bodies.
It’s likely that Prause fed the ISSM conference organizers her usual collection of falsehoods. For example, I suspect she pointed out that I had been reported to the Oregon Board of Psychology (without cause) for “practicing psychology without a license.” I say this because, not long after the conference, I received a letter from the Board exonerating me of doing so (they could not reveal who had filed the malicious complaint).
Dr. Prause also regularly claims to people, including perhaps the conference organizers, that I hold myself out as a professor. This is also untrue. (See this link for details: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials.) She may also have told the organizers her oft-repeated lies that I have a restraining order against me for her safety, and that I have been reported to the FBI. There is no such “no contact” order, and I have already made public a report from the FBI clearing me and confirming Prause as lying. Below are examples of Prause’s February 16, 2019 Twitter-rage related to Park et al., 2016:
The same day, NatureReviewsUrology (NRU) quoted from the talk, not from our paper. This NRU tweet is the one that drew the most Twitter rage from Pause and her followers attacking our paper, even though our paper did not say the following, and really said nothing about porn addiction. As an aside, Prause’s claims about “falsified data” are untrue and unsupported.
There is no documentation of anything, other than Prause’s endless string of unsupported, defamatory claims, chronicled on these 3 pages:
The truth is, I was most likely uninvited as a keynote speaker by the ISSM due to the behind-the-scenes efforts of Prause and her chum and co-author Jim Pfaus (ISSM member), who used his long-time influence to put the screws to the ISSM committee. As I engaged in none of the accused wrongdoings, Prause clearly fabricated some crazy lies to scare the ISSM off (in keeping with her pattern of behavior documented on this page). A screenshot of Gary Wilson’s scheduled talk at the 2018 ISSM conference held in Portugal:
The committee asked me to speak because: (1) I was on Park et al., 2016, and, (2) I had given a very popular TEDx talk, which touched on porn-induced ED. A screenshot of the formal invitation:
On social media, Prause has stated that she got my talk cancelled because I presented “fake credentials.” For example, Prause’s tweet attacking the ESSM talk, and her claiming that Gary Wilson was uninvited because he “gave false credentials”:
Proof that Prause is lying: in back and forth emails, I reminded the ISSM committee that I did not have a PhD or MD (see below). Still, the committee insisted I present and even paid for my flight to Portugal despite the cancellation (which was not normally done).
More tweets attacking the 2019 ESSM talk and Park et al., 2016:
No, COPE did not suggest retraction, even though Prause harassed them for 3 straight years. As soon as COPE understood that all Navy consent rules had been complied with, all talk of retraction ended.
Another falsehood about “addiction being ruled out.” Diagnostic manuals such as the DSM and ICD do not use the word “addiction” to describe any addiction: they use “disorder.” In reality, the latest version of the World Health Organization’s medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing what is commonly referred to as ‘porn addiction’ or ‘sex addiction.’ It’s called “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” (CSBD).
Out of the blue, Prause tweets an attack on MDPI: The following downgraded rating by Norwegian Register was a clerical error, that was later corrected. See the explanation of the MDPI Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDPI#Reply_1-APR-2019
A link to the corrected version showing that MDPI was not downgraded in 2019 (it was clerical error that was eventually corrected). While the 2020 rating may also be an error, the Norwegian register does show “0’ – but it’s “not again”. Notice that Prause is attempting to fool the public by tweeting 2 screenshots of the ratings; one with only 2020, and a screenshot of the 2019 error that was later corrected. Prause’s screenshots:
First showing only 2020
Second showing the uncorrected error:
Prause is lying about MDPI’s 2019 rating, as seen in a screenshot of the recent ratings:
It appears that the 2020 rating will be adjusted at the beginning of the year.
In response, Prause trolls a 3-month old Frank Vasquez tweet:
————————
August, 2019: Prause and David Ley team up to lie about Park et al., 2016. The paper is posted in a thread were Ley misrepresents the state research, claiming porn addiction doesn’t exist. Immediately Ley responds with defamation – claiming the authors paid to have Park et al., 2016 published:
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”):
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.
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.
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:
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 (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 (again). 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 is above:
From: Foundation Reward <[email protected]>
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 Mead
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 given that I had not posted and no one cited my work or mentioned me, 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 responded 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:
There were not 6 scientists – only Prause contacted MDPI.
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)
I posted that the paper involved 7 US Navy doctors. The Navy had no problems with my comments.
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.
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.
In a sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court, Gary Wilson stated that Prause (1) used a false identity (Janey Wilson) to defame and harass Wilson, his publisher, and The Reward Foundation, (2) lied in emails, on Wikipedia, and in public comments when stating that Gary Wilson received financial compensation from The Reward Foundation
Prause’s lies and harassment has finally caught up with her.
As thoroughly explained in the previous section Gary Wilson donates the proceeds of his book to The Reward Foundation. Wilson accepts no money, and has never received a dime for any of his efforts. YBOP accepts no ads and Wilson has accepted no fees for speaking. As documented in these sections, Prause has constructed a libelous fairy tale that Wilson is being paid by the same charity he donates his book proceeds to:
In fact, this is not true. The above two sections are addressed in Gary Wilson’s sworn affidavit, which is part of the Dr. Hilton’s defamation lawsuit filed against Dr. Prause.
In a sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court, Gary Wilson stated (under penalty of perjury) that (1) Nicole Prause used a false identity (Janey Wilson) to defame and harass Wilson, his publisher, and The Reward Foundation, (2) that Prause lied in emails, on Wikipedia and in public comments when stating that Gary Wilson received financial compensation from The Reward Foundation.
Prause lies about Gary Wilson in emails to MDPI, David Ley, Neuro Skeptic, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch, and COPE (May, 2018)
In the May, 2018 email exchanges with MDPI & COPE, Prause 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, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch has taken the bait without adequate investigation.
In her defamatory articles, tweets, and Quora posts Prause has knowingly and falsely stated that I (Gary Wilson) claimed to be “professor in biology” “doctor” or a “neuroscientist.” I was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and taught human anatomy, physiology & pathology at other venues. Although careless journalists and websites have assigned me 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) I have always stated that I taught anatomy & physiology. I have never said I had a PhD or was a professor. Prause told the same lie to the email recipients:
PRAUSE EMAIL #1 (5-1-2018)
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Nicole Prause >
Additionally, Mr. Wilson is now using this publication to claim to be a doctor online to unsuspecting patients (attached).
Below is the screenshot Prause uses to “prove” that I have misrepresented my credentials (again, this Gary Wilson page no longer exists). Note: Until Prause produced her “proof,” I had never seen this site and had never communicated with its hosts, never uploaded the page in question and never removed it. Thus I certainly never provided a bio, or claims of “professorship.”
I taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. I 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. I do not seek speaking engagements and have never accepted fees for speaking. Moreover, YBOP accepts no ads, and the proceeds from my book go to a registered charity.
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. Again, I’ve never uploaded anything to the site, and I have no idea who uploaded this page (or ordered it removed).
The above screen-shot was part of a larger article by Prause where she falsely claimed that I was fired from Southern Oregon University: March, 2018 – Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired. In her article, which was posted on a pornography-related site and Quora, Prause published redacted versions of my Southern Oregon University employment records, falsely stating I was fired and had never before taught at SOU. As with her claims surrounding The Reward Foundation, Prause lied about the true content of what’s in the redacted documents. By the way, David Ley also tweeted the Prause article several times, saying I was fired from SOU (screenshots on the page).
In an email to MDPI, COPE, Ley, Neuroskeptic, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch and others Prause falsely claimed that I had received money from The Reward Foundation.
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
Prause has not checked her facts, and she is mistaken. I have never received any money from The Reward Foundation. I forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation, who debunked Prause’s claims: See Above For Documentation.
——————
PRAUSE EMAIL #3 (5-22-2018)
In many of her emails to MDPI (and others), Prause mentioned her “77 criticisms” and falsely claimed that they had not been addressed. This was just the latest:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Nicole Prause>
I provided a 77 point critique prior to publication that was, true to the predatory journal lists MDPI appeared on, was ignored.
This means Prause was one of two reviewers of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine submission – and thus “Janey Wilson.” As explained, 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.
The exploits of “Janey Wilson” (Prause)
See copies of actual emails below this summary.
Shortly after my book was published in 2015, Prause wrote to my publisher for information, using an alias (“Janey Wilson”). Presuming “Janey” was legitimate, Dan Hind of Commonwealth Publishing advised her that my share of book proceeds went to The Reward Foundation, a registered Scottish charity.
“Janey Wilson” immediately informed the charity that Wilson was “falsely holding himself out publicly as being affiliated with The Reward Foundation,” and saying she had proof. The only way she could have “proof” of this not-yet-public affiliation was if she had seen the academic paper I had co-authored. It’s a violation of publication ethics rules to disclose or misuse information learned through the review process.
“Janey’s” information failed to elicit the desired outrage from The Reward Foundation (as I was indeed affiliated with the Foundation, serving in an unremunerated position as “Honorary Science Officer”). Undaunted, “Janey” then reported The Reward Foundation to the Scottish Charity Regulator for imagined financial and other alleged misdeeds.
The charity was so new that no financial filings had been required yet, so it was not even legally possible for the Reward Foundation to have committed the financial reporting transgressions that “Janey” alleged.
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 (see below). The Edinburgh entity is called “The Melting Pot.” It’s an umbrella organization that hosts various small enterprises. “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 (below). 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 Prause 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):
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 Above For Documentation.
———-
A few of the other emails referred in the “Janey” story:
2015
[“Janey’s” exchange with my publisher]
From: Daniel Hind <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: Concern about for-profit posing as non-profit at Melting Pot
I was contacted by someone called Janey Wilson on Saturday. The full exchange between us is cut and pasted below. As you can see I told her that the author’s revenues are paid to the Reward Foundation.
I should have checked with you, I guess. I am sorry if I have created unnecessary complications for anyone.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dan Hind <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Wilson text To: Janey Wilson <[email protected]>
The Charity Commission is a register of charities in England and Wales. The Reward Foundation is registered in Scotland.
Here is its listing on the Scottish Charity Register –
This is the government registry, so I am not sure where else it could be. You might want to alert your author that they might be contributing to a scam. I cannot buy based on this, and I don’t think anyone else should either.
J
——-
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Dan Hind <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Ms Wilson,
The author’s income supports the Reward Foundation, a registered charity in the UK.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Janey Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I saw the proceeds from this book are all going to research. Which organization is benefiting? I would like to see if I can list it on my taxes as a deduction.
———
[“Janey’s” exchange with The Melting Pot]
On 25 March 2015 at 12:08 Mohammad Abushaaban <[email protected]> wrote:
Mary – hope you are keeping strong.
I’ve received this strangely out of the blue email from a Janey Wilson…
Do you know this person?
Give it a read and let me know your thoughts.
Thanks
Mo.
———- Forwarded message ———- From: Janey Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: 25 March 2015 at 04:09
Subject: Concern about for-profit posing as non-profit at Melting Pot
To: [email protected]
Dear Mohammad Abushaaban,
I write out of concern for The Reward Foundation housed at The Melting Pot, which is posing as a non-profit. In 2012, Mary Sharpe was responsible for selecting TEDX speakers in Glasgow. She made the extremely odd decision to have a massage therapist with no neuroscience background, Gary Wilson, rave about the neuroscience of “porn addiction”. The talk was so poor it is currently under investigation for its pseudoscience by TEDX. Now, Mr. Wilson appears to be paying Mary Sharpe for this opportunity.
Specifically, he is selling a book and all the proceeds of the book are said to be going to The Reward Foundation for “research”:
www.therewardfoundation.org
Yet, Mary Sharpe is not a researcher, has no neuroscience background, and the charity lists no way for any real scientist to apply for these funds. The money appears to be going directly in to her pocket, likely in exchange for her earlier TEDX favor. The charity further has chosen not to openly provide links to their financials.
I have filed this complaint with the Scottish Charity Register as well. I suggest you consider investigating how else Ms. Sharpe might be using pseudo-science to fleece concerned individuals. That hardly seems in line with any of the aspirational goals listed on the Melting Pot website.
From: Janey Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: 22 April 2015 at 17:21
Subject: Re: Concern about for-profit posing as non-profit at Melting Pot
To: Mohammad Abushaaban <[email protected]>
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 (http://www.rewardfoundation.org/who-we-are.html), this represents a rather worse transgression. He claims to “donate” the proceeds of his book to research, which is now going to a charity that has no research plans and of which he is a part. Mary Sharpe may not even be aware he is making these claims, I am not sure, but he has now made them publicly.
——–
As explained above, an earlier and substantially different version of the paper I co-authored with 7 US Navy doctors, Park, et al., was first submitted in March, 2015 to the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine as part of its “Addiction” issue. This paper was the only place my affiliation with the Reward Foundation could be found at the time of “Janey’s” exchanges, as it was nowhere public. So “Janey” had to have seen the paper sent to YJBM for review.
——-
2016
Prause contacting my publisher, Dan Hind, eventually outing herself as “Janey Wilson”
Sent: 03 November 2016 21:27 To: Dan Hind; [email protected] Cc: Dr. Franck Vazquez | CEO | MDPI; Iratxe Puebla; [email protected]; Martyn Rittman; Dr. Shu-Kun Lin; Jim Pfaus Subject: Re: Book financial beneficiary
Mr. Hind,
We already have a previous email from you verifying that Gary Wilson has sent all the proceeds of his book to the organization he actually is employed by, The Reward Foundation. You may choose not to verify this information for the Committee on Publication Ethics, but the previous email can be supplied to them as well.
Your author failed to disclose his financial conflict of interest in numerous publications now to profit himself while claiming to “donate” the proceeds to the public (and to you). This already is public knowledge that you either can be on record to help expose or profiteer, as you please.
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.
March, 2015 an earlier version of Park et al. was submitted to the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 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.
Between March 21st and April 22nd of 2015, “Janey Wilson” sent several emails to Dan Hind of Commonwealth Publishing, Mohammad Abushaaban of The Melting Pot Edinburgh (which houses The Reward Foundation), and the Scottish Charity Regulator. All contain unsupported claims of wrongdoing. It seemed likely from the content and distinctive style that “Janey” was actually Nicole Prause – which was later confirmed.
The YJBM was informed of the harassing behavior (engaged in by one of their two reviewers posing at “Janey Wilson”). When it was suggested that Dr. Prause might be behind these bizarre emails and the paper’s initial rejection, 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 the YJBM’s “Addiction” issue.
An updated version of the paper was then submitted to the journal Behavioral Sciences. Four individuals reviewed the paper with 3 accepting and Prause (as we later discovered) rejecting it with her list of “77 problems”.
Many of her 77 so-called problems were carelessly copied and pasted from Prause’s review of the YJBM submission, as 25 of them had nothing to do with the Behavioral Sciences paper.
Few of the 77 problems could be considered legitimate. The authors provided MDPI with a point by point response to each so-called problem.
Park et al. was revised and re-reviewed by two more reviewers.
As soon as Park et al., 2016 was published, Prause began her campaign to have the paper retracted, sending countless of messages to MDPI, COPE, the Navy, the doctors’ medical boards, and my publisher (and possibly PubMed, the FTC and who knows where else).
MDPI offered Prause the opportunity to publish a formal comment on Park et al, in Behavioral Sciences. Prause declined. If the paper were truly inadequate, it would be a simple matter to discredit it with a formal comment.
In late 2016, Prause outed herself as “Janey Wilson” when she demanded (repeatedly and unsuccessfully) that my publisher confirm my connection with the Scottish charity called The Reward Foundation to Prause in writing. Copying both MDPI (the ultimate publisher of the paper mentioned above) and a publication ethics organization, Prause told Commonwealth’s Dan Hind that he had already written her to this effect. Yet he had only corresponded about the connection with “Janey.”
While vicious in her attacks, and often lying about me and the paper’s content, Prause ultimately came up with only 2 issues that COPE would consider (1) Gary Wilson’s unremunerated position with The Reward Foundation, (2) Consents by the three individuals featured in the case studies.
Although I very much sympathize with COPE, and can easily envision the battering their Committee must have endured, in my view, neither is valid reason for retraction or even for a correction (although such superficial corrections are no big deal), as
My unremunerated connection with The Reward Foundation was plainly not a conflict of interest and my affiliation had already been revealed in the original paper, and
The Navy followed its guidelines for consent (which actually don’t require any written consents for case studies with fewer than 4 patients). Even so, in an abundance of physician-ly caution, full written prior consent was obtained for two individuals. For the third, not enough details to require consent were deemed given in the paper. A US Navy investigation confirmed that the doctors complied with all the IRB’s rules.
Even if some might disagree with me, it is evident that neither of these points involves “fraud” or misconduct, as Prause continues to insist.
What’s going on here?
For years both Prause and Ley have teamed up to defame, harass and cyber-stalk individuals and organizations that have warned of porn’s harms or published research reporting porn’s harms. Recently, Prause and Ley escalated their unethical and often illegal activities in support of a porn industry agenda. For example, 0n January 29, 2019, Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. In April 2019, a group headed by Prause and Ley engaged in unlawful trademark infringement of YourBrainOnPorn.com by creating “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com.
In July of 2019, David Ley and two of the better known RealYBOP “experts” (Justin Lehmiller and Chris Donaghue) began openly collaborating with the porn industry. All 3 are on the advisory board of the fledgling Sexual Health Alliance (SHA). In a blatant financial conflict of interest, David Ley and the SHA are being compensated by porn industry giant xHamster to promote its websites (i.e. StripChat) and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths!
More on Nicole Prause
In 2013 former UCLA researcher Nicole Prause began openly harassing, libeling and cyberstalking Gary Wilson. (Prause has not been employed by an academic institution since January, 2015.) Within a short time she also began targeting others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, a former UCLA colleague, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, NoFap.com, RebootNation, YourBrainRebalanced, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity.
While spending her waking hours harassing others, Prause cleverly cultivated – with zero verifiable evidence – a myth that she was “the victim” of most anyone who dared to disagree with her irresponsible assertions surrounding porn’s effects or the current state of porn research. To counter the ongoing harassment and false claims, YBOP was compelled to document some of Prause’s activities. Consider the following pages. (Additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to divulge – as Prause’s victims fear further retribution.)
In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).
Prause began to put her name to falsehoods, openly cyber-harassing multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere. Since Prause’s primary target was Gary Wilson (hundreds of social media comments along with behind the scenes email campaigns), it became necessary to monitor and document Prause’s tweets and posts. This was done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal actions.
It soon became apparent that Prause’s tweets and comments were rarely about sex research, neuroscience, or any other subject related to her claimed expertise. In fact, the vast majority of Prause’s posts could be divided into two overlapping categories:
Indirect support of the porn industry: Defamatory & ad hominem comments targeting individuals and organizations that she labeled as “anti-porn activists” (often claiming to be a victim of these individuals and organizations). Documented here: page 1, page 2.
countless misrepresentations of the state of pornography research and attacks on porn studies or porn researchers.
The following pages contain a sampling of tweets and comments related to #2 – her vigorous support of the porn industry and its chosen positions. YBOP is of the view that Prause’s unilateral aggression has escalated to such frequent and reckless defamation (falsely accusing her many victims of “physically stalking her,” “misogyny,” “encouraging others to rape her,” and “being neo-Nazis”), that we are compelled to examine her possible motives. This material is divided into 4 main sections:
Please note: There is unequivocal evidence that the porn industry funded the sexology profession for decades. Sexology’s agenda still appears to serve the porn industry. Thus, the evidence on this page should be viewed in a larger context. See Hugh Hefner, the International Academy of Sex Research, and Its Founding President to understand how porn-industry friendly sexologists influenced the Kinsey Institute. Prause is a Kinsey grad.
More on David Ley
David Ley’s financial conflicts of interest (COI) seem evident.
The fledgling Sexual health Alliance (SHA) advisory board includes David Ley and two other RealYourBrainOnPorn.com “experts” (Justin Lehmiller & Chris Donahue). RealYBOP is a group of openly pro-porn, self-proclaimed “experts” headed by Nicole Prause. This is also the group currently engaged in illegal trademark infringement and squatting directed toward the legitimate YBOP. Put simply, those trying to silence YBOP are also being paid by the porn industry to promote its/their businesses, and assure users that porn and cam sites cause no problems (note: Nicole Prause has close, public ties to the porn industry as documented on this page).
In this article, Ley dismisses his compensated promotion of the porn industry:
Granted, sexual health professionals partnering directly with commercial porn platforms face some potential downsides, particularly for those who’d like to present themselves as completely unbiased. “I fully anticipate [anti-porn advocates] to all scream, ‘Oh, look, see, David Ley is working for porn,’” says Ley, whose name is routinely mentioned with disdain in anti-masturbation communities like NoFap.
But even if his work with Stripchat will undoubtedly provide fodder to anyone eager to write him off as biased or in the pocket of the porn lobby, for Ley, that tradeoff is worth it. “If we want to help [anxious porn consumers], we have to go to them,” he says. “And this is how we do that.”
David J. Ley, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and AASECT-certified supervisor of sex therapy, based in Albuquerque, NM. He has provided expert witness and forensic testimony in a number of cases around the United States. Dr. Ley is regarded as an expert in debunking claims of sexual addiction, and has been certified as an expert witness on this topic. He has testified in state and federal courts.
Contact him to obtain his fee schedule and arrange an appointment to discuss your interest.
COI #3: Ley makes money selling two books that deny sex and porn addiction (“The Myth of Sex Addiction,” 2012 and “Ethical Porn for Dicks,” 2016). Pornhub (which is owned by porn giant MindGeek) is one of the five back-cover endorsements listed for Ley’s 2016 book about porn:
COI #4: Finally, David Ley makes money via CEU seminars, where he promotes the addiction-deniers’ ideology set forth in his two books (which recklessly(?) ignores dozens of studies and the significance of the new Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis in the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual). Ley is compensated for his many talks featuring his biased views of porn. In this 2019 presentation Ley appears to support and promote adolescent porn use: Developing Positive Sexuality and Responsible Pornography Use in Adolescents.
In August 2017, Behavioral Sciences published the article [1], which includes a case study of three individuals in the US Navy. The paper underwent our usual editorial process, including peer review, and was accepted for publication. Since then, we have received a number of complaints from a single individual claiming that the paper is seriously flawed and calling for withdrawal of the article. In this comment we wish to reiterate that the correct procedures were followed in the handling of the manuscript and to publicly counter some of the claims. The Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) considered some of these issues and we are grateful for their advice and cooperation. We also wish to thank the authors for their cooperation.
One serious claim leveled against the paper was that the required consent was not sought from the three individuals featured in the case studies presented. According to the instructions for authors posted on the Behavioral Sciences website, informed consent should be obtained for case studies where there is any risk that individuals could be identified. When asked to confirm this point, the authors verified that consent had been obtained for two individuals and that for the third not enough details were shared in the paper to require consent. The editorial office has seen redacted copies of the consent form used and is satisfied with the authors’ explanation.
Another issue was that the academic editor of the article was not aware that he was making a final decision to accept article [1] for publication. Behavioral Sciences uses a standard template to invite editors to make the final decision to accept manuscripts, which was also done in this case. Since the complaint, the original academic editor has informed us that he was not aware that this was his role for the paper. We re-evaluated the peer review process with the (now former) Editor-in-Chief John Coverdale and made the decision that the manuscript should not be removed for this reason. In the published Correction [2], the academic editor information has been amended.
Numerous claims about conflicts of interest of the authors were made in relation to [1]. Only one non-financial conflict of interest was found to be substantiated and the paper has been updated [2].
Consequently, MDPI has updated its instructions for authors to provide more clarity about informed consent issues and to better guide authors in this area. Our requirements and policies have not changed and we continue to follow the guidelines provided by COPE.
We believe that the dispute surrounding this paper arose from a difference of opinion in terms of the treatment of individuals using high levels of pornography, and was not motivated by genuine concerns about the editorial work around the paper [3]. Our view is that the correct way to deal with such a dispute is by presenting arguments and counter-arguments in a peer-reviewed, scientific context where all conflicts of interest from both parties are properly disclosed. Personal criticism does not have a place in this context and attempts to shut down those with opposing views by removing their work from the literature is not the correct approach. We know that the majority of authors and readers approach research in a constructive and engaged way and we wish to advocate this approach for the benefit of the research community as a whole.
References
[1] Park, B.Y.; Wilson, G.; Berger, J.; Christman, M.; Reina, B.; Bishop, F.; Klam, W.P.; Doan, A.P. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports. Sci.2016, 6, 17.
[2] Park, B.Y. et al.; Correction: Park, B.Y., et al. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports Sci. 2016, 6, 17. Behav. Sci.2018, 8, 55.
What’s not clear in this article is that my (Wilson’s) affiliation with The Reward Foundation was disclosed from the start (see the original PubMed version, published in August, 2016 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/). The correction was published for my protection, in an attempt to stop Dr. Prause from continuing to claim that I was being paid by The Reward Foundation as a lobbyist, or just being “paid off.” (She has publicly advanced several baseless theories about my imagined corruption.) In the journal’s correction, only the title of my book (“Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction”) and a clear indication of my unremunerated role at The Reward Foundation were added. Again, this was to prevent further assertions of any possible financial conflict of interest. Corrected version: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/8/6/55/htm
Put simply, the correction was meant to protect me from Prause and her littany of falsehoods surrounding this paper.
Not long after Park et al., 2016 was published Prause went on the warpath against MDPI, Behavioral Sciences, and the authors of Park et al., employing multiple avenues of overt and covert attack (documented on this extensive page – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted ). One avenue of attack was to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page using multiple aliases (sockpuppets), which violates Wikipedia rules. To date we have identified at least 30 likely Prause sockpuppets.
Let’s begin with Wikipedia user NeuroSex, who had a least 8 other aliases – all of which were banned as Wikipedia sockpuppets of NeuroSex. Neurosex, her sockpuppets, and other Prause sockpuppets have edited Wikipedia, inserting false information about Gary Wilson, Park et al. and MDPI.
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:
Gary Wilson comment: NeuroSex linked to a redacted document, claiming that Gary Wilson was paid 9,000 pounds by Scottish charity The Reward Foundation. Two days earlier 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 Wilson. Prause has not checked her facts, and she is mistaken (again). Wilson has never received any money from The Reward Foundation. Prause has repeated this same lie elsewhere.
Three sockpuppets of NeuroSex who edited the MDPI Wikpedia page (links show list of edits for each sockpuppet):
Wikipedia is an important source of community-based knowledge and MDPI supports the endeavor to openly disseminate knowledge, which closely matches the goals of MDPI. Unfortunately, some editors of the Wikipedia page about MDPI lack objectivity. This leaves the article heavily biased and uninformative about the majority of MDPI’s activities. Any potential improvements added to the page are quickly removed. We have made a number of attempts to discuss with Wikipedia editors to improve the quality of the article, but without success. Thus, for the time being, we do not recommend Wikipedia as a reliable source of information about MDPI.
Almost three quarters of the Wikipedia article covers controversial topics, mentioning 4 out of over 200,000 published papers, one instance where 10 editorial board members resigned (in 2018 we had over 43,000 Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors), and inclusion on Jeffrey Beall’s list, known as a source biased against open access and from which MDPI was removed (see our response here). While we do not object to these topics being mentioned, the way in which they are presented is misleading.
Responses to some of the topics covered can be found at:
Comment on Park, B., et al. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports Behav. Sci. 2016, 6, 17: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1616.
A large parent company posting two official statements related to the unethical behavior by a rogue PhD may be without precedent.
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. User friendly versions of this overlong page:
Since this page was first created Prause has targeted others, including researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, colleagues from her short stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. These incidents are in the “OTHERS” sections. Several additional incidents have occurred that we are not at liberty to divulge – as Prause’s victims fear further retribution. 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. All the evidence she provides is self-generated: a single info-graphic, a few emails from her to others describing harassment, and five spurious cease and desist letters containing false allegations. You will also see evidence of a number of formal complaints Prause has filed with various regulatory agencies – which have been summarily dismissed or investigated and dismissed. She seems to file these bogus complaints so she can then go on to claim her targets are all “under investigation.” See: PDF Documenting Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process.
Update (January, 2020): Alex Rhodes filed an amended complaint against Prause which also names the RealYBOP twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) as engaging in defamation. RealYBOP’s lies, harassment, defamation, and cyberstalking have caught up with it. The @BrainOnPorn twitter is now named in two defamation lawsuits.
Update (August, 2020): Serial defamer & harasser Nicole Pause loses lawsuits to Gary Wilson; court rulings expose Prause the perpetrator, not the victim. In August of 2020 court rulings fully exposed Nicole Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim. In March of 2020, Prause sought a groundless temporary restraining order (TRO) against me using fabricated “evidence” and her usual lies (falsely accusing me of stalking). In Prause’s request for the restraining order she perjured herself, saying I posted her address on YBOP and Twitter (perjury is nothing new with Prause). I filed an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Prause for misusing the legal system (TRO) to silence and harass me. On August 6, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that Prause’s attempt to obtain a restraining order against me constituted a frivolous and illegal “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (commonly called a “SLAPP suit”). Prause lied throughout her fraudulent TRO, providing zero verifiable evidence to support her outlandish claims that I stalked or harassed her. In essence, the Court found that Prause abused the restraining order process to bully me into silence and undercut his rights to free speech. By law, the SLAPP ruling obligates Prause to pay my attorney fees.
Update (January, 2021): Prause filed a second frivolous legal proceeding against me in December, 2020 for alleged defamation. At a hearing on January 22, 2021 an Oregon court ruled in my favor and charged Prause with costs and an additional penalty. This failed effort was one of a dozen lawsuits Prause publicly threatened and/or filed in the previous months. After years of malicious reporting, she has escalated to threats of actual lawsuits to try to silence those who reveal her close ties to the porn industry and her malicious conduct, or who have made sworn statements in the 3 defamation suits currently active against her.
Overview: Prause’s fabrications of victim-hood exposed as groundless: she is the perpetrator, not the victim. (created in 2019)
Since many of the Prause and Ley assertions revolve around their mythology of being victimized by “anti-porn activists,” I debunk their fabrications in this very first section (and supply additional evidence under each specific claim):
1) Gary Wilson “physically stalked” Prause in Los Angeles.
Reality: I haven’t been in Los Angeles in years. Prause provides no documentation for this claim, which she initiated in April, 2013 (see below), and began publicizing in July, 2013 (a few days after I critiqued her EEG study). The only police report made public by Prause (April, 2018) says nothing about me stalking her; it didn’t report any crime. Instead, Prause me reported to the LAPD for attending a German conference, which Prause falsely claimed she wanted to attend (screenshot). It’s true that I traveled to Germany and attended the 2018 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions, which ran from April 23-25 (note that Prause filed her police report on April 25th), and features experts on behavioral addictions from all over the world. The untrue part is Prause’s claim that she ever had any intention of attending the ICBA conference in Germany. Prause has never attended or been invited to present at an ICBA conference. Prause doesn’t believe in behavioral addictions. Throughout her entire career, Prause has waged a war against the concept of behavioral addiction, especially sex and porn addiction. Prause thus filed a false police report.
Important to note that her false accusations of stalking began almost as soon as our paths crossed. In fact, she accused my wife and myself of stalking in an April, 2013 email exchange that occurred a few weeks after I published a response to David Ley’s Psychology Today blog post where Prause and he targeted my website: “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” Ley’s blog was about Nicole Prause’s unpublished, yet to be peer-reviewed EEG study (this was the first I had heard of Prause).
Prause initiated her only contact with me in 2 emails and a comment under my Psychology Today response. Simultaneously, she contacted Psychology Today editors, who forwarded her second email. The following 2 emails are from the end of our brief exchange (screenshots of Prause & Wilson’s entire email exchange):
As you can see, Prause is accusing us of stalking her, although all I did was respond to two emails she sent my way. This is where Prause’s fabricated “stalking” claims began.
Question: Did I drive 800 miles to Los Angeles on the same day I published my detailed critique to hover around UCLA, or did Prause initiate a fabricated campaign of being stalked on the day after my critique? Let’s go to trial and expose the truth.
2) Dr. Prause requires “armed guards at talks” because Gary Wilson has threatened to attend
3) Dr. Prause has filed numerous “police & FBI reports” on Gary Wilson
Reality: Starting in July, 2013 (a few days after I published a careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study), various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever my name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and “Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site,” and “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.”
By 2016, as Prause was no longer employed by UCLA or any other institution that could rein in her cyber-harassment, she finally began to identify Gary Wilson as the “person” she had reported to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police. I haven’t been to LA in years. It’s almost 2020, and no law enforcement agency has ever contacted me. (Any harasser can file a fake police report, or misuse the courts)
I presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a “Gary Wilson,” nor any report filed by a “Nicole Prause.” I created this section to report my findings: Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson.
As chronicled above, I discovered in March of 2019 that Prause had finally filed a fraudulent police report on April 25, 2018. Note that I did not learn of this empty police report from the police. I learned of it a year later, when student journalists (and misinformed Prause devotees) publicly reproduced it online in a university newspaper. It has since been removed by University of Wisconsin authorities.
Prause’s LAPD report was categorized as “cyberstalking”, not physical stalking (I’ve done neither). She didn’t (dare) report any actual crime. Instead, Prause had reported me to the LAPD for:
attending a German conference, which Prause falsely claimed she wanted to attend (but didn’t dare because she claimed to be frightened of me). Important to note that Prause could not have known that I was planning to attend (and she filed her police report the day after the conference was over).
If I have been physically stalking her, why doesn’t any police report describe me as doing so? It’s simple: Prause is afraid of being arrested for knowingly filing a police report falsely accusing me of an actual crime.
In 2019, Diana Davison became the first journalist to do an investigation into Prause’s claims of victim-hood. During their week of communications Prause was unable to provide any evidence other than Prause’s silly LAPD of me attending a German conference Prause lied about wanting to attend. Davison’s expose’ is here: The Post Millennial expose’ on Nicole Prause. Diana Davison also produced this 6-minute video about Prause’s fake victim-hood and the defamation lawsuits filed against Prause.
Reality: No such order exists. Prause is trying to trick the public into believing that a court has formally sanctioned me, i.e., that she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t. But that doesn’t stop her from publicly and falsely accusing me and other victims of her malice of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest I and others are acting illegally. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations are calculated to bully and intimidate the victims of her online cyber-harassment into fear and silence. Two defamation suits have been filed against her. Enough said.
I have only responded to a handful of Prause’s defamatory online attacks, ignoring countless “contacts” from her. For example, in a single 24-hr period Prause posted 10 Quora comments about me – which resulted in her permanent suspension. In another example Prause (using RealYBOP Twitter) posted over 120 tweets about me in a 4-day period (PDF of tweets). A few examples of Prause initiating harassment and defamation followed by claiming victim-hood and ending with claims about her fictitious “no-contact orders”:
5) Gary Wilson has employed misogynistic language to denigrate Dr. Prause
Reality: Absolutely false. Prause and Ley provide only a solitary non-example. I accidentally typed “Miss” Prause in a reply to Dr. Prause asking about the size of my penis. That’s the extent of her evidence of my supposed misogyny. Not kidding.
Link to my full answer. Portion of my comment where I used “Miss” Prause:
Prause is certainly being sexist when she demands details about the size of my penis. Nevertheless, she has transformed my inadvertently typing “Miss” in my reply to her questions about my manhood into part of her never ending baseless campaign to paint me and others as misogynists. In this section are just a few examples of how Prause has weaponized her bizarre interest in my penis size and my response.
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 the following 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.
It accuses me, my wife, Don Hilton MD, and nofap founder Alexander Rhodes of misogyny with utterly unconvincing “evidence.” Any suggestion that I (or my wife), Hilton, or Rhodes are motivated by misogyny is fabricated, as our 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.
Put simply, anyone who exposes Prause’s falsehoods or misrepresentations of the research is automatically labeled “a misogynist,” in hopes that gullible people might believe her defamatory statements. She does this to shut down actual debate on Twitter and other social media platforms, to prevent her falsehoods from being exposed.
It’s ironic that her info-graphic contains four instances of misogyny taken from anonymous YouTube comments under her TEDx talk. In 2013, TED closed comments under Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk in response to Nicole Prause’s many hateful and defamatory comments (see this section).
I look forward to the two defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes) going to a jury trial, and to being on the stand to present evidence. I especially look forward to Prause and Ley being forced to provide actual evidence or documentation, rather than the few pieces self-generated bogus “evidence”. I look forward to their cross examination and the two harassers being exposed as the perpetrators, not the victims.
March & April 2013: The beginning of Nicole Prause’s libel, threats and harassment (after she & David Ley target Wilson in a Psychology Today blog post)
First 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. No such order exists. Prause is trying to trick the public into believing that a court has formally sanctioned me, i.e., that she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t. But that doesn’t stop her from publicly and falsely accusing me and other victims of her malice of “violating no contact orders” and of “harassment.” The clear, and clearly false, implication of her statements is to suggest I and others are acting illegally. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations are calculated to bully and intimidate the victims of her online cyber-harassment into fear and silence. Two defamation suits have been filed against her. Enough said.
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).
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?”
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:
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.
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:
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.
Wilson asked for a copy of the study (Prause refused to supply it).
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?
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.]
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):
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.
Note: The above email exchange has been touted by Prause as as “a no-contact order”. It’s not. Prause continues to harass Wilson on social media and behind the scenes, while simultaneously claiming that Wilson has been barred from responding to her lies. While Prause ends many of her targeted social media attacks by asserting a “no-contact request”, there is no such thing. A “no-contact request” is as legally binding as requesting someone “stop and smell the roses”. Prause is trying to trick the public (her twitter followers) into believing she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t. Its just a tweet. A garbage pile of fabricated fake victim-hood by the actual perpetrator, 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 eight peer-reviewed papers: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013
All the peer-reviewed 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 are very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that 1) Wilson had never taught anatomy, physiology, pathology 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, 4) Wilson is an unemployed massage therapist, 5) Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman, 6) Wilson has been reported to LAPD, UCLAPD and the FBI. These same false assertions are made by no other Wilson critic and continue to this day in tweets and comments by Prause and by her many sockpuppets.
The above claims are ludicrous, but the lies about stolen “pictures on a porn site“, “a police report has been filed“, “stalking a poor woman/scientist” and “unemployed massage therapist” incriminate Prause as the cyberstalker posting the 2013 comments and the dozens of fake usernames with hundreds of comments over the next 5 years. (Note – 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):
From a second YouTube channel for Wilson’s radio show:
Another example:
Another example:
Another example:
Another example:
Another example:
Another example:
Another example:
Another example:
More by Nikky:
More. “RunningBiker” comments (Prause is a runner, who also rides a motorcycle):
A 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.” One in the same person.
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):
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 over 6 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. In 2018, she added the tall-tale that Wilson was twice reported to the FBI. What’s next, the CIA, ICE, Homeland Security… maybe a mall cop? (Addendum: Gary Wilson filed a freedom of information request with the FBI and the FBI confirmed that Prause was lying: no report has ever been filed on Wilson. See – November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims)
Evidence directly connecting Prause to these many groundless comments about “stolen pictures” and “a police report.”
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.
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.
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).
Most of these comments claimed that Wilson “stole” and placed Prause’s picture on a pornographic website.
Prause never contacted Wilson about the picture.
Prause filed a DMCA take down of her picture, which forced the company hosting YBOP to remove the picture without first contacting Gary Wilson.
Similar groundless comments continue to be posted to this day by Prause sockpuppets and by Prause on her twitter and Facebook accounts. The comments are often identical to the July, 2013 “anonymous” comments (many more examples below and on page 2). PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame
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:
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.
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-color-conclusions-about-sex-addiction
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.
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 (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).
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:
UPDATE: In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).
Prause began to put her name to falsehoods, openly cyber-harassing multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere. Since Prause’s primary target was Gary Wilson (hundreds of social media comments along with behind the scenes email campaigns), it became necessary to monitor and document Prause’s tweets and posts. This was done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal actions.
It soon became apparent that Prause’s tweets and comments were rarely about sex research, neuroscience, or any other subject related to her claimed expertise. In fact, the vast majority of Prause’s posts could be divided into two overlapping categories:
Defamatory & ad hominem comments targeting individuals and organizations that she labeled as “anti-porn activists” (often claiming to be a victim of these individuals and organizations).
Support of the porn industry:
direct support of the FSC (Free Speech Coalition), AVN (Adult Video Network), porn producers, performers, and their agendas
countless misrepresentations of the state of pornography research and attacks on porn studies or porn researchers
This page contains a sampling of tweets and comments related to #2 – her vigorous support of the porn industry and its chosen positions. After years of sitting on the evidence, YBOP is of the view that Prause’s unilateral aggression has escalated to such frequent and reckless defamation (falsely accusing her many victims of “physically stalking her,” “misogyny,” “encouraging others to rape her,” and “being neo-nazis”), that we are compelled to examine her possible motives. The page is divided into 4 main sections:
December, 2013: Prause’s initial tweet is about Wilson & the CBC: “RealScience” posts same false claims on same day on multiple websites
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” or “RealScientist” posted several similar, equally misleading comments on sites that mentioned Gary Wilson.(PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). Who else but Prause could be responsible for these posts, which entirely misrepresent the exchange with the CBC and its response to Wilson? A few examples, where Prause lies not only about the CBC, but also my credentials, my education, and the courses I have taught:
Prause posting on porn-recovery forum YourBrainRebalanced (YBR), using a name other than “RealScience”(Prause often posts on YBR, harassing men in recovery and defaming Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem and former UCLA colleague Rory Reid)
————————–
Tweeting about CBC (using her new twitter account) in 2016 falsely claiming that Wilson threatened the CBC.
——————————
In the next section Prause (“RealScience”) posts her CBC drivel on porn recovery forum YourBrainRebalanced, and asks Gary Wilson about the size of his penis. Prause transforms Wilson’s reply to her penis question (where he accidentally typed “Miss” Prause) into a campaign defaming Wilson and his wife as misogynists. Not kidding.
Here’s an enlarged version of the image she included in the above tweet. Link to Wilson’s full answer. It is Prause who is being sexist as Prause asks Gary Wilson about the size of his penis:
Nevertheless, Prause has transformed Wilson’s inadvertently typing “Miss” in his reply to her questions about his manhood into her never ending campaign to paint Wilson, and others as misogynists. Below are just a few examples of how Prause has weaponized her bizarre interest in Gary Wilson’s penis and his response.
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 the following 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.
It accuses Wilson, Marnia Robinson, Don Hilton MD, and nofap founder Alexander Rhodes of misogyny. Any suggestion that Wilson (or his wife), Hilton, 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.
Put simply, anyone who exposes Prause falsehoods or misrepresentations of the research is a misogynist. She does this to shut down actual debate on twitter and other social media platforms, to prevent her falsehoods from being exposed. It has worked, so she continues the defamation.
It’s ironic that her infographic contains four instances of misogyny taken from anonymous YouTube comments under her TEDx talk. In 2013, TED closed comments under Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk in response to Nicole Prause’s many hateful and defamatory comments (see this section). Prause used the following two YouTube usernames to post her comments:
The following tweets are examples of Prause obsessively playing the misogyny card and tweeting her “everyone is a misogynist infographic”. Note: Prause has never provided a single verifiable example of her being a victim of personal attacks or misogyny (certainly not by the person’s she names). It’s all propaganda. Unfortunately many believe her falsehoods.
Prause looks for any opportunity to tweet her infographic:
————–
————–
——————
—————
She has never provided a single documented incident of anything arising from FTND. on the other hand Prause has engaged in about 100 separate instances of defamation and harassment targeting FTND. See these sections for a whole lot more:
Claims that “sexist stalker Gary Wilson” threatened her, but has never provided a singe example.
Prause falsely claims that there are “hundreds of studies” contradicting harms of porn – but can only cite the same 5 cherry-picked, outlier studies described here.
How did Taylor Kohut manage to achieve his anomalous results? His study framed egalitarianism as: (1) Support for abortion, (2) Feminist identification, (3) Women holding positions of power, (4) Belief that family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job., and oddly enough (5) Holding more negative attitudes toward the traditional family. Secular populations, which tend to be more liberal, have far higher rates of porn use than religious populations. By choosing these criteria and ignoring endless other variables, lead author Taylor Kohut knew he would end up with porn users scoring higher on his study’s carefully chosen criteria of what constitutes “egalitarianism.” Then he chose a title that spun it all.
The goal of this review was to synthesize empirical investigations testing effects of media sexualization. The focus was on research published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals between 1995 and 2015. A total of 109 publications that contained 135 studies were reviewed. The findings provided consistent evidence that both laboratory exposure and regular, everyday exposure to this content are directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, experimental exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality, and humanity.
—————–
Calls PornHelp.org a harasser for publishing a blog post:
The goal of this review was to synthesize empirical investigations testing effects of media sexualization. The focus was on research published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals between 1995 and 2015. A total of 109 publications that contained 135 studies were reviewed. The findings provided consistent evidence that both laboratory exposure and regular, everyday exposure to this content are directly associated with a range of consequences, including higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, greater support of sexist beliefs and of adversarial sexual beliefs, and greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women. Moreover, experimental exposure to this content leads both women and men to have a diminished view of women’s competence, morality, and humanity.
She then implies that Wilson has threatened to kill her.
Absolutely nuts. Again, if she had an actual example, she would provide it. If it were true she would have reported Wilson to the police. But the LAPD and FBI said she never has:
Again, dirty deeds by “activists”. But the deeds are never named and she never provides evidence for a single deed:
—————–
Spreading her myths
——————-
Prause ally spreads her lie that she had a restraining order on Gary Wilson. This nonsense is covered in many sections of this page.
——————-
The preceding tweets represents the tip of the Prause iceberg of her faux victim-hood.
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, “txfba”, “touif” and “TrickyPaladin” posted approximately 100 comments on YourBrainRebalanced.com. (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). What’s left of their comments is in this thread, 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 8 peer-reviewed papers: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013)
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.
A few additional Prause aliases used on YourBrainRebalanced.com (others were quickly deleted by the moderators).
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). While the usernames and comments are often deleted by the sock puppet, a few examples with content remain (all were created for only Prause-like comments, then immediately abandoned):
Examples of Prause sockpuppets on Quora, where Gary Wilson occasionally answered questions about porn addiction. The sockpuppets only commented under Wilson’s answers. Quora requires members to use their actual names. Mods ban trolls who use fake names (as they did with Prause’s fake names):
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):
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.
Prause employs her alias account RealYBOP to tell stories, suggesting porn addiction therapist should be reported. We have Prause tweeting with Prause (RealYBOP)
————————–
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.”
Others – December, 2014: Prause employs an alias to attack and defame UCLA colleague Rory Reid PhD (on a porn-recovery forum). Concurrently, UCLA decides not to renew Prause’s 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 late 2012. 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 now defunct “SPAN Lab.” But in 2014 everything changed: she began attacking her former colleague Reid.
On December 5th, 2014 a new member of the porn recovery site YourBrainRebalanced (TellTheTruth) posted 4 comments attacking Rory Reid urging readers to report Reid to California authorities. A screenshot of the comment of this Prause alias:
As documented in the above sections, Prause made a habit of commenting on YBR using various aliases. Moreover, Prause regularly use aliases with 2-4 capitalized words as usernames.
In her first comment TellTheTruth posted 2 links. One link went to a PDF on Scribd with supposed evidence supporting TellTheTruth’s claims and a link to the California.gov website search for psychology license.
Two more comments by TellTheTruth:
——
Below are a few screenshots of the PDF that TellTheTruth placed on Scribd:
Note the same “2013 copyright State of California” description of Prause’s current screenshot and TellTheTruth’s 2-year old screenshot.
Key takeaway: The TellTheTruth comments and PDF from December, 2014 incriminate Nicole Prause as cyberstalking Rory Reid at about the same time that UCLA chose not renew Prause’s contract. Merely a coincidence? Or was Prause retaliating against Reid when UCLA did not renew her contract? Or did they not renew her contract due to her unprofessional behavior?
While Prause claims that she was compelled to leave a dream job at UCLA to pursue “groundbreaking research,” certain facts cannot be denied: Prause harassed and defamed UCLA colleague Rory Reid. UCLA did not renew her contract. Rory Reid remains a researcher at UCLA.
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.
“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.
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. (screenshots of our entire email exchange)
In the chapter Prause also stated:
“Noticeably absent from these attacks are published critiques from any scientist.”
Contrary to Prause’s claim 18 peer-reviewed critiques of her studies have been published:
“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 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):
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.
Prause and Ley go to twitter to cyber-stalk & harass therapists and IITAP (most of the therapists they wrongfully target were gay!). A few examples:
——————
Has nothing to do with IITAP:
—————-
Prause hears things…..
—————-
Article has nothing to with IITAP:
—————-
The next 3 tweets have since been deleted by Prause. In fact, scroll Prause’s entire twitter thread and you will find no CSAT named as a reparative therapist.
—–
——
——-
David Ley continues his defamation of CSAT’s (2019)
Prause and Ley exposed as sick cyberstalkers.
April, 2019 – Playing the victim, while providing zero evidence for claim that there are “therapists directly supporting people sending her death threats”.
Others – March, 2015 (ongoing): Prause and her sock puppets (including “PornHelps“) go after Gabe Deem (numerous additional instances of defamation)
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 March of 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:
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.
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:
We have yet another Prause sock puppet (AskingForProof) posting this:
Another Prause sockpuppet with her usual 3 capitalized words, harassing Gabe Deem on reddit/pornfree (https://www.reddit.com/user/TruthWithOut) – with the exact same calims of Gabe faking his porn-induced ED. Prause starts with this post, and is followed by almost 20 comments:
Thing is, Gabe makes no money off his porn-recovery forum and had never taken any money for speaking fees. Prause/TruthWithOut just keep ranting:
Just for fun, yet another r/pornfree thread started by another Prause sock puppet: DontDoDallas – https://www.reddit.com/user/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’.
———————–
UPDATES: Using her @BrainOnPorn account, Prause continues to defame and harass Gabe (even though Gabe blocked her). A few exmaples:
As mentioned numerous, because porn-induced sexual problems are the biggest threat to the porn industry agenda, RealYBOP (created April, 2019) is obsessed with debunking porn-induced ED. In this tweet RealYBOP insinuates that Gabe deem and Alex Rhodes are lying about PIED (and are doing so for profit):
RealYBOP claims are untrue and disgusting.
———————–
September 30, 2019 tweet about Alex Rhodes. In it RealYBOP falsely sates that NoFap tried to silence the actual science, but they lost (linking to the WIPO decision in favor of RealYBOP)
In this tweet, RealYBOP said Gabe Deem “Tried to have our website taken down bc he cannot answer science”:
RealYBOP continues, defaming Deem, and stating that he tried to silence scientists (linking to WIPO decision).
RealYBOP falsely states that Deem was involved in a lawsuit. That is defamation per se.
———————-
The next day, RealYBOP trolls Gabe (whom she has blocked):
More of the same, falsely claiming Gabe was involved in the Burgess legal action – it was not a lawsuit.
————————–
More trolling by the blocked RealYBOP account
———————-
RealYBOP and sidekick NerdyKinkyCommie, troll Gabe Deem (note that Gabe had blocked both, but that doesn’t stop cyberstalkers):
First, the links posted by trolls Nerdy and James F. were given to them by RealYBOP/Prause.
Second, Nerdy’s screenshot has been tweeted dozens of times by Prause & RealYBOP. It had nothing to do anything in thread, but it matters not, because RealYBOP/Prause are obsessed with MDPI (parent company of the journal Behavioral Sciences). Behavioral Sciences published Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports(Park et al., 2016). Nerdy is lying about MDPI’s rating. Here are examples of Prause (as Sciencearousal) inserting the above clerical error by the Norwegian Register, who accidentally downgraded MDPI’s rating from the normal “1” to a “0”. The downgraded rating had long been resolved on the MDPI Wikipedia page. Prause knows the zero rating was a clerical error, yet she and RealYBOP tweet that MDPI was downgraded and that MDPI is a predatory journal (both are false and both are in Sciencearousal’s/Prause Wikipedia edit).
Third, the 5-year video has nothing to do with China, or internet addiction boot camps. It was about porn.
——————————-
More trolling Gabe (who RealYBOP has blocked):
Nope what?
RealYBOP trolling Gabe Deem, again:
Reality: Gabe was accurate for a drawing. The other 2 comments are red herrings. However, RealYBOP’s comments are irrelevant. Instead, this twitter account claims represent 20 experts, yet its trolling accounts it has blocked, with inane, spurious tweets. How embarrassing. How mentally deranged.
———————–
In a disgusting tweet, RealYBOP calls Gabe Deem a white supremacist (RealYBOP regularly defames and harasses individuals and organizations who say porn use might cause problems).
So liking a tweet of someone you don’t know makes you a white supremacist? All this does is expose RealYBOP as a cyberstalker.
——————————-
RealYBOP trolls Gabe Deem again: She lies about the research an attacks him personally.
RE: Cameron Staley’s TEDx Talk. He was a grad student of Prause when he gathered data for Steele et al. 2013. Just a few his falsehoods in his TEDx talk where he cited zero studies to support his propaganda:
Staley says his “mentor was a renowned sex researcher!” What? No one had heard of Prause before Steele et al. was published in July of 2013 (Prause misrepresented its findings).
Staley lies about about the actual results of Steele et al, 2013. He states that “the subjects brains didn’t look like brains of addicts” – but he never tells us how their brains differed from addicts (because they did not). 8 peer-reviewed papers disagree with Staley, and point out that the subjects brains looked exactly like an addict- Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013 (greater cue reactivity correlated with less desire for sex with a partner). Note: Steele et al., did NOT have a control group!
Bottom line according to Staley – believe porn use is just fine and you will be just fine using porn. Unsupported propaganda refuted by hundreds of studies.
————————–
Even though RealYBOP has blocked Gabe Deem she still cyberstalks him:
Disgusting how a “Psychologist” is allowed to say that a young man faked erectile dysfunction (RealYBOP is a liar – Gabe makes no money off of this).
——————————-
On January 30, 2020 – Gabe Deem posted the following tweet with snippets from urologist Tarek Pacha’s Porn-Induced ED presention givenat the American Urologialc Association Conference, May 6-10, 2016 (Part 1,Part 2,Part 3, Part 4)
i wake up every morning baffled this isn’t being talked about more.
Here we have a urologist, Dr. Tarek Pacha, presenting at the American Urological Association on the rise in porn-induced sexual dysfunction in young, otherwise healthy men. pic.twitter.com/lk9ymqoFgj
Right after @gabedeem tweeted Dr. Tarek Pacha’s presentation on PIED, RealYBOP twitter (thought to be run by Prause) defamed Dr. Pacha by falsely stating he is NOT a urologist and that he is somehow profiting through suggesting guys quit porn. Reality:
Pacha received only free meals and some lodging from medical companies in an amount far below the average for physicians. More to the point, medical companies would prefer Pacha refrain from telling guys that to achieve sexual health all they have to do is quit porn. Can’t sell any medical devices that way!
RealYBOP begins by posting 4 malicious and defamtory tweets:
No RealYBOP, your “critique” is defamatory, as you falsely stated that Tarek Pacha is not a urologist. You also falsely claim a conflict of interest when there was none: no medical supply company is buying Pacha lunch to encourage him to tell young men to eliminate porn to cure their ED
———————-
February, 2020 – Even though Gabe Deem has blocked RealYBOP, she trolls and defames Gabe. RealYBOP also lies about current state of research.
Immediately after Prause’s Twitter account was suspended, this defamatory post appeared on reddit/pornfree, disparaging and defaming Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem, the author of the above paper (Todd Love), and others. Three newly created usernames commented most (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame):
Two usernames were later deleted, but EvidenceForYou remained. Several comments leave no doubt its Nicole Prause – 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: https://www.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 Prause. Yet 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 @NicolePrause 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:
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”
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 71 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 460 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 the “pornhelps” comments and Prause’s tweet appeared at the same time. Do the following pornhelps comments sound like porn industry shill or a researcher:
———————
——————
——————
It’s clear that Prause as herself, and as pornhelps, 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 (8 peer-reviewed papers 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).
Update – Prause confirms what we already knew – that she is pornhelps. @pornhelps later states “I have 15 years studying as neuroscientist”:
Prause, a Kinsey grad, calls herself a neuroscientist, and appears to have started college about 15 years before this tweet. More on @pornhelps here. (Update – @pornhelps later deleted its twitter account and website when it became apparent to others that Prause often tweeted with this account, commented as pornhelps, and helped with the website)
Others – July, 2016: Prause & David Ley attack NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes.
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.
July 2016 wasn’t the first time Prause defamed and harassed Alex Rhodes. On May 30, 2016 Prause went so far as to falsely accuse an anonymous quora account of being Alexander Rhodes and thus holding a “trademark”. The Quora account was not Rhodes. Here she posts 3 bizarre comments:
Over the next few months Prause takes every opportunity to belittle and attack Alexander, NoFap.com, and men recovering from porn addiction:
———–
———–
Prause and Ley referring to the TIME article, thus Gabe Deem and Alex Rhodes
———–
——————-
In this out of the blue 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 (because she has nothing). As always, she end with “do not contact me” – then later falsely states that she has a “no-contact order”, even though there is no such thing.
Others – July, 2016: Prause & her alias “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)
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.
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 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).
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.
No one responds to feed the troll. More examples of Prause’s acknowledged twitter account continuing to attack TIME and Belinda:
——
—-
Update (April, 2019): Prause and David Ley attack & libel Luscombe (and Wilson)
On April 1, 2019, both Gary Wilson and Belinda Luscombe weighed in on a long twitter thread discussing validity of the General Social Survey (which claimed that only 45% of men, aged 18-29, had viewed an X-rated movie in the last year). Within a few minutes Prause joined the tread to attack and libel Luscombe and Wilson (long-time Prause ally David Ley also libeled Wilson). In her first of 8 tweets, Prause repeats the same lies documented on this page. She also calls Belinda a fake journalist, engaging fraud.
Since Prause has blocked Belinda, Ley jumps in to “paraphrase” (but omits Prause’s attacks on Belinda). Belinda responds:
David Ley joins in with 2 of his own lies: That Wilson was a TA (teacher assistant) and he was fired.
Truth doesn’t stop Ley or Prause from continuing their Twitter libel-fest, attacking Belinda Luscombe and Wilson.
All provable libel:
Wilson did not drop out of college.
Wilson did not default on his student loans.
Wilson was not a TA. He was ‘Adjunct Faculty.’ (How could Wilson be a TA if he was not attending SOU as a student?)
On December 15, 2019 the most comprehensive, research-based article yet on porn’s effects was published by Pascal Gobry: A Science-Based Case for Ending the Porn Epidemic. RealYBOP and Nicole Prause responded with 90 rambling tweets consisting of personal attacks, ad hominem, false accusations – yet nothing specific about the article. Belinda Luscombe can relate:
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:
“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.
“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.”
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. (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).
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. Links to the Rory Reid related documents Prause uploaded to her AmazonAWS site:
“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. Twenty 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. (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). 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 that UCLA chose not renew her contract! Coincidence?
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/NoLicenseInCalifornia.png (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/BevHillsClinicalPractice_ClaimsLCSW.png
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 said: 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 said: 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. Eight peer-reviewed papers have since supported Wilson’s assertion: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013. 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:
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 said: 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.
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 said: 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 13,000 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 13,000 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 published very long critiques of 8 Prause papers. YBOP contains at least 18 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 (see update).
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.
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? (Update: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause)
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.
In 2019, leading sexology journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published a rare open-access piece about sexual harassment in the field of sexology, acknowledging Kinsey’s misdeeds:
Some of Kinsey’s biographies also included accounts of sexual behavior occurring between members of the research team (and their spouses) and highlight how some may have at times felt maneuvered into such sexual behaviors (Gathorne-Hardy, 1998; Jones, 1997). We feel that the Kinsey team’s inclusion of reports about infant and child genital response provided by one or more adults is especially egregious and concerning, for its time and ours. (emphasis supplied)
YBOP comments: 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). Eight peer-reviewed papers expose the truth: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013
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 where she claimed that Dr. Hilton “screamed that she experimented on children”:
If Hilton screamed at Prause, why are Prause & Hilton pictured having a friendly discussion after the talk Prause attended?
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:
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.
As always, Prause lied in the above comment. The journal in question is not predatory – and it’s the same journal that published her own 2013 EEG study – Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology:
June 1, 2019: Ley disparages Don Hilton. Ley links to an unprofessional and scientifically inacurate article by Daniel Burgess, a close ally of Prause and Ley:
Burgess has also defamed and harassed Gary Wilson on social media – regurgitating Prause’s usual set of lies. Burgess was kicked off the “Marriage and Family Therapists” Facebook group for defaming Wilson in this thread – also see the 15 replies to Burgess by Staci Sprout and Forest Benedict.By the way, the Burgess commentary on a few out-of-context excerpts from a 2010 Hilton book for the lay public is laughable. For example, Burgess attacks Hilton for saying there are two major sources of dopamine in the brain: one that is affected by Parkinson’s disease; the other is primarily affected by addiction. Revealing his ignorance, Burgess says Hilton is mistaken!
——————
June 3, 2019: Prause’s alter ego and very active pro-porn twitter account, RealYBOP joins Ley in a weak attempt at disparaging Hilton. RealYBOP tweets 3 screenshots from a 2011 reply to a February 2011, Hilton & Watts paper: Pornography addiction: A neuroscience perspective.
Commentary on the above:
First, Rory Reid’s snarky commentary and the Hilton & Watts reply to Reid are on this same page.
Second, Rory Reid was Nicole Prause’s (RealYBOP) roommate in LA, and played a role in her being hired by UCLA.
November 14, 2019: On the same day, Prause alias @BrainOnPorn tweets about Hilton’s appearance on a CBS show about pornography:
——————-
November 19, 2019: RealYBOP disparages Don Hilton, MD. (He was the so-called “religious physician” in the CBS segment about porn, but he sticks to the science and never makes religiosity part of his public talks. Only his critics do.)
December 31, 2019: Cyberstalking Gabe Deem (who has blocked RealYBOP) on New Years Eve, RealYBOP tweets defamation and PDF’s of her defamatory motion to dismiss:
December 31, 2019: RealYBOP trolls under Gary Wilson (even though I blocked her and she blocked me), tweeting about Hilton & Watts, 2011 – again, and completely out of context:
December 31, 2019: In a truly bizarre event, @BrainOnPorn twitter (apparently managed Prause) changed its home page to superimpose Rory Reid’s unpersuasive commentary on Hilton & Watts, 2011:
All the above expose Prause as a relentless harasser/cyberstalker
2020 – Using her RealYBOP twitter account she attcks a metaphor by sex addiction therapist Paula Hall. Just more cybertsalking.
Ley and RealYBOP again:
—————————-
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 harassment 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:
@YourBrainOnPorn@JamesTherapy 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:
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.
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 <[email protected]> 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 example 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.
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 6 years 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:
to intimidate Wilson so that he might remove his critiques of Prause’s studies,
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),
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 WU campus patrolman Tim Dennis 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 110 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. Update: Gary Wilson includes these incidents in an affidavit filed in the Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause: Exhibit #11: Gary Wilson affidavit (123 pages)
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 unsupported assertions. 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
Prause addressed Linda Hatch 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 posted 4 of the cease & desist letters 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.
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.
Ongoing – Prause creates inane “infographics” to disparage & defame numerous individuals and organzations
Prause created two “infographics” in 2016, naming Gary Wilson and YBOP, which she has tweeted dozens of times and posted on Quora and other outlets. The first infographic, kept at the ready on Prause’s Amazon website, is named “Sexism In Neuroscience”. It defames Gary Wilson, Don Hilton, Alex Rhodes and Marnia Robinson by calling all misogynists (It could alos be interperted as calling Don Hilton a child molestor). As already chronicled in an earlier section, above, Prause’s only “proof” is Gary Wilson inadvertently typing “Miss” in his reply to her questions about the size of Wilson’s penis! Prause’s interest in Wilson’s genitals and her creating and several examples of her posting the inane “sexism” infographic are all documented here: December 2013: Prause posts on YourBrainRebalanced & asks Gary Wilson about the size of his penis (kicking off Prause’s campaign of calling Wilson, and many others, misogynists).
The second Prause infographic purports to be a primer on “how to evaluate sex films” (Prause euphemism for pornography). A closer look reveals that Prause is guilty of breaking most of her rules for evaluating sources of information. At the bottom of the infographic she lists 15 websites she wants the reader to believe are sources of “bad information” (sites run by the many individuals and organizations she regularly defames or harasses, as documented on these pages). She also lists two “good” websites and one “good” article. The bottom of Prause’s inane infographic:
Her two “good” websites are AASECT and Justin Lehmillers blog. AASECT is a organization for sex therapists and cites no research on the AASECT website. Justin Lehmiller, a regular paid contributor to Playboy Magazine, and a close ally of Nicole Prause, having featured her in at least ten of his blog posts.
The third “website” is a short article from early 2014 in a magazine, quoting Prause. The article cites only one neurological paper: Prause’s 2013 EEG study, Steele et al., 2013. Prause claimed that she had debunked porn addiction because her porn using subjects’ (1) “brains did not respond like other addicts,” and (2) they really just had “high desire.” Both claims are without support. Neither is reported in Steele et al., 2013. Truth? Eight peer-reviewed analyses of Steele et al. 2013 describe how the Steele et al. findings lend support to the porn addiction model. The 2014 article omitted 43 neuroscience-based studies on porn users and sex addicts (all support the addiction model).
Here we provide examples of Prause posting her”sex films” infographic. She did so multiple times on Quora (before she was permanently banned for harassing Gary Wilson). For example:
As Prause and her twitter alias RealYBOP often do, both troll threads to post their propaganda (this time Matt Fradd):
——————
In this tweet Prause can’t control her fabricated hyperbole:
Reality: not a single “science group” has ever attempted to debunk www.yourbrainonporn.com. Notice how Prause never provides a single example of so-called “debunking” of YBOP.
——————-
Evan Elliot calls out Prause for bullying and her inability to address substance
Her defamatory tweet linked to grad student Kris Taylor’s dissertation on 15 comments from reddit/nofap: I want that power back: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum (2018). That’s right, a PhD analyzing 15 reddit comments! Taylor is decidedly pro-porn and anti-Nofap. He has a history of blatantly misrepresenting studies and the state of the research, as chronicled in the YBOP critique: Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017). Under a David Ley hit-piece on porn recovery forums, Prause and “bart” debate the merits of Taylor’s sociological gibberish masquerading as “deep thought.” Bart exposes Prause as misrepresenting Taylor’s paper.
—————–
Trolling other’s twitter accounts:
——————
Never provides concrete examples of “twisting our science”…. never:
Others – October, 2016: Prause states falsely that SASH and IITAP “board 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 35 studies linking porn use to sexual problems or lower arousal. 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.”
Update (2019):News reports paint Jim Pfaus as having spent years engaging in inappropriate sexual behaviors with young female students. Excerpts:
The sources paint a picture of a professor they believe repeatedly crossed appropriate boundaries with his students.
a group of graduate students approached several of Concordia’s psychology professors who were in charge of the department’s management. They filed a written complaint about Pfaus’s alleged sexual relationships with undergraduate students in classes he taught.
Pfaus was placed on administrative leave, then mysteriously departed the university. The irony of Pfaus lecturing licensed therspists on sexuality.
On to Nikky. 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.
A few examples Prause harassing SASH on twitter:
Her silly little inforgraphic, which includes the entirety of her evidence:
Working as one, Prause tweets a David Ley blog post libeling IITAP. The blog post was removed by Psychology Today:
———————
Tags IITAP in a article that has nothing to with sex or porn addiction. Typical mischaracterization, combined with cyber-stalking:
——————-
Prause creates a logo to harass IITAP members on twitter: “I FAP (masturbation) before IITAP”
———————
No Fraud, but Prause did file a spurious claim (as Prause so often does) with a journal, claiming the data wasn’t quite right. The Journal and publisher were forced to look into Prause assertions – and found nothing to her claims. No one ever does. Anyhow, Prause’s twitter falsehoods related to this manufactured incident:
David Ley joins in with his blog post that was removed from Psychology Today:
——————
More harassment over a 2 year old critique of Prause & Pfaus, 2015:
Another:
Prause & Pfaus 2015? It wasn’t a study on men with ED. It 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. It’s disturbing that this paper by Nicole Prause and Jim Pfaus passed peer-review as the data in their paper did not match the data in the underlying four studies on which the paper claimed to be based. The discrepancies are not minor gaps, but gaping holes that cannot be plugged. In addition, the paper made several claims that were false or not supported by their data. Prause & Pfaus 2015 as these 2 critiques expose, it cannot support a single claim it made, including Prause’s claim that they measured sexual response:
Prause post a screenshot of a Stefanie Carnes comment on on the Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder section (CSBD) of the ICD-11 (you can’t read the comments unless you create a username)
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 4 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 posted more comments than everyone else combined. (Her attempt failed, as “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.” is now in the ICD-11)
Who’s the cyber-stalker when Prause tweets over 1oo times about IITAP or Carnes, while IITAP & Carnes never tweet about Prause?
Updates – Three sex addiction therapists (IITAP members), and a professor who has co-authored papers with IITAP members, filed affidavits in Don Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause:
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:
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? Insight in these 2 links:
Others – November, 2016: Prause falsely claims to have sent cease & desist letters to the 4 panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast (Don Hilton, Stefanie Carnes, Alexandra Katehakis, Jackie Pack)
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:
She had sent Cease & Desist letters to members of the panel
Two of the panelists are currently under APA investigation
Prause’s comment:
We contacted the panelists, and it was confirmed that:
No panelist has received a cease and desist letter from Dr. Prause, and
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?
Nicole Prause as “PornHelps” (on Twitter, website, comment sections). Accounts deleted once Prause was outed as “PornHelps”
Nicole Prause created a username called “PornHelps”, which had its own twitter account (@pornhelps) and a website promoting the porn industry and cherry-picked studies reporting the “positive” effects of porn. Prause’s “PornHelps” chronically badgered the same people and organizations that Prause often attacked. In fact, Prause would team up with her alias PornHelps to attack individuals on Twitter and elsewhere in tandem with her other identities. Some of the Prause/PornHelps coordinated attacks are documented in these Prause-page sections:
The @pornhelps twitter account and PornHelps website were suddenly deleted when it became apparent to that Prause was the individual behind both. While many of us being attacked knew “PornHelps” was really Nicole Prause, the following @pornhelps tweet left no doubt:
Prause, a Kinsey grad, calls herself a neuroscientist, and appears to have started college about 15 years earlier than the above 2016 tweet. In response to several ad hominem attacks by “PornHelps”, which perfectly mirrored many of Prause’s usual comments, “PornHelps” was confronted in the comments section of Psychology Today with this and other evidence: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/887468#comment-887468
Want more confirmation that PornHelps was really Prause? The following comments, tweets, and coincidences make it apparent.
———————————-
Here Prause and Russell J. Stambaugh simultaneously comment under an article about porn. Prause & Stambaugh are close allies and often comment together in pre-planned assaults in comment sections.
At the same time that Prause tweeted the above, “PornHelps” began posting in the comments section below the paper. A few of PornHelps’ comments below. How does PornHelps know so much about research methodology and statistics? (Prause’s PhD was in stats):
—
—
———————————
And here’s more confirmation that PornHelps is Prause. The PornHelps comments under an NPR interview of Prause are nearly identical to Prause’s usual spin about the claimed benefits of porn:
Now a taste of Prause (as PornHelps) attacking Wilson on various websites: promoting porn and misrepresenting the current state of the research. (Note: PornHelps was very busy attacking others on PT and other websites, and of course, via Twitter).
Pornhelps going after Wilson mirrors Prause’s language in many comments (“stalker,” “massage therapist,” “fake,” etc.)
Look familiar? Prause is the only commentor who calls Wilson a cyberstalker and a massage therapist (other than her sidekick David Ley):
The following are some of the over 20 comments under the Prause op-ed by PornHelps. Prause’s #2 obsession after Gary Wilson is FTND, which Prause has tweeted about over 100 times. The comments perfectly mirror Prause tweets misrepresenting the research and attacking FTND.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
PornHelps mentions the same Australian study that Prause tweets all the time:
—
—
—
—
—
Here PornHelps mirrors dozens of Prause tweets or comments – both naming the exact same findings from outlier studies.
—
———————————-
Another example of Prause/PornHelps attacking Wilson (while teaming up with David Ley). Many more examples can be found on this page.
Again, Prause deleted “PornHelps” twitter and website, but later resurrected the porn-industry shill account as RealYourBrainOnPorn
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:
Once again, Prause teams up with David Ley to defame Alexander Rhodes, Nofap (along with Gary Wilson’s website and RebootNation). Revealing her long-time obsession with over Rhodes, Prause tweets 4 screenshots from the last 3 years:
————————–
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?
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.
Below is a screenshot of Prause’s original answer posted in response to this Quora question (Prause has since deleted her answer). Prause’s suggestion to visit a prostitute is in the last paragraph:
While this is not defamation or 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. Prause perjured herself in court filings, falsely claiming she never posted the above answer.
Others – December, 2016: Prause reports Fight the New Drug (FTND) 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.”
Several more related tweets, containing factually incorrect & inflammatory drivel, which the state of Utah determined to be empty rhetoric:
Prause went so far as to produce short YouTube videos to harass FTND and researchers:
——————–
——————–
Prause escalates the rhetoric, accusing FTND of coercion and ultimately of pedophilia!
——————–
——————–
——————–
——————–
———————-
———————-
———————-
In the following tweets Prause inudates @delmonater with her unsupported propagand (which the state of Utah rightfully ignored)
———————-
Below is Prause’s ever-present info-graphic, calling everyone she harrases a misogynist, while providing zero evidence to support her falsehoods. 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 FTND, Don Hilton, Wilson, Gabe Deem or Alexander 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.
This next tweet contains Prause’s second “info-graphic” she regularly tweets. It lists FTND, SASH, IITAP, YBOP, NoFap.com, RebootNation, PornAddiction.com, and others as “fake news” websites” while listing only two websites as having accaurate information about pornography’s effects: 1) Justin Lemillers website (a paid writer for Playboy); 2) AASECT, which is not a sceintific organization (debunking of AASECT’s proclamation that porn/sex addiction doesn’t exist).
———————-
RealYBOP/Prause attacking FTND with Prause’s long since debunked 600-word op-ed:
Prause’s 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. Several experts in this field and I 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.
———————
The preceding tweets are but a small sample of Prause’s tweets and Facebook comments defaming and disparaging FTND. Prause’s claims she is victim, yet she is the perpetrator.
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.
provided one-on-one coaching and advice to those recovering from porn addiction and porn-induced ED
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 Addiction” Prause 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.
Two years later when Fred Toates points out David Ley’s hypocrisy and Ley loses it, calling Gary Wilson names and babbles about neurobabble:
David Ley lecturing Toates (or anyone else) on neuroscience or dopamine? Hilarious.
Ongoing: Prause uses social media to harass & defame publisher MDPI, researchers who publish in MDPI, and anyone citing Park et al., 2016
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.
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:
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.
Update: On June 13, Retraction Watch (RW) published an inaccurate and biased account of events surrounding Behavioral Sciences paper Park et al., 2016. Prause contacted RW personnel and fed them the particulars she wanted in print – and RW swallowed them whole and duly published them. My response appears underneath the Retraction Watch article. However, RW edited my comment substantially before it would post it. I supply various missing details in this section: “Who’s watching Retraction Watch?” – an update on events. Among other distortions, the RW piece omitted material details about Nicole Prause’s unsuccessful (and unseemly) 4-year campaign to have the paper retracted (documented in 8 sections on this page: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted). RetractionWatch refused to interview Gary Wilson, deliberately ignored dozens of saved emails proving Prause was lying, and carefully chose out-of-context excerpts from emails to paint a false picture of events. On to additional examples of Prause’s obsessive social media campaign attacking Park et al., 2016:
“Pornaddiction recovery” tweets two YBOP lists, which causes Prause to tweet a paper by Gary Wilson and Navy doctors. Prause falsely claims that she badgered COPE into suggesting a retraction. It’s all bullshit.
On February 16, 2019, a sexual medicine specialist presented a talk at the 21st Congress of the European Society for Sexual Medicine on the Internet’s impact on sexuality. A few slides describing porn-induced sexual problems, citing Park et al., 2016, were tweeted. The tweets caused Nicole Prause, David Ley, Joshua Grubbs and their allies to Twitter-rage on Park et al., 2016.
Update: Joshua Grubbs confirmed hsi extreme agenda-driven bias when they joined their allies Nicole Prause and David Ley in trying to silence YourBrainOnPorn.com. Grubbs, and other pro-porn “experts” at www.realyourbrainonporn.com are engaged in illegal trademark infringement and squatting.
On social media, Prause has stated that she got my talk cancelled because I presented “fake credentials.” For example, Prause’s tweet attacking the ESSM talk, and her claiming that Gary Wilson was uninvited because he “gave false credentials”:
More tweets attacking the 2019 ESSM talk and Park et al., 2016:
No, COPE did not suggest retraction, even though Prause harassed them for 3 straight years. As soon as COPE understood that all Navy consent rules had been complied with, all talk of retraction ended.
Another falsehood about “addiction being ruled out.” Diagnostic manuals such as the DSM and ICD do not use the word “addiction” to describe any addiction: they use “disorder.” In reality, the latest version of the World Health Organization’s medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing what is commonly referred to as ‘porn addiction’ or ‘sex addiction.’ It’s called “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” (CSBD).
Out of the blue, Prause tweets an attack on MDPI: The following downgraded rating by Norwegian Register was a clerical error, that was later corrected. See the explanation of the MDPI Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDPI#Reply_1-APR-2019
A link to the corrected version showing that MDPI was not downgraded in 2019 (it was clerical error that was eventually corrected). While the 2020 rating may also be an error, the Norwegian register does show “0’ – but it’s “not again”. Notice that Prause is attempting to fool the public by tweeting 2 screenshots of the ratings; one with only 2020, and a screenshot of the 2019 error that was later corrected. Prause’s screenshots:
First showing only 2020
Second showing the uncorrected error:
Prause is lying about MDPI’s 2019 rating (and later lies about 2020 ratings) as seen in a screenshot of the 2020 ratings:
It appears that the 2020 rating will be adjusted at the beginning of the year (it was).
In response, Prause trolls a 3-month old Frank Vasquez tweet:
Prause caught in another lie about the Norwegian ratings. The correct link to ratings page for each journal: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/VedtakNiva1. Search for MDPI and you will see that all its journals have a “1” rating, including Behavioral Sciences, where Park et al., 2016 was published.
——————
August, 2019: Prause and David Ley team up to lie about Park et al., 2016. The paper is posted in a thread were Ley misrepresents the state research, claiming porn addiction doesn’t exist. Immediately Ley responds with defamation – claiming the authors paid to have Park et al., 2016 published:
Prause and Ley comment under an August, 2016 Psychology Today blog post by Mark Castleman. Castleman’s post is laden with falsehoods about Park et al., 2016 and Grubbs and Gola, 2016. Castleman lies about yourbrainonporn.com, claiming we misrepresent studies or list junk studiesl Like every other nayasayer but he fails to provide a single example of misrepresention. He also lies in his intro about what YBOP said about porn-induced ED. Everything he claimed about Park et al. is a lie: the content, its claims, its focus, the cases studies, the citations, you name it. This should not be a surprise as Castleman’s published many articles in support of the porn industry (all biased and scientifically inaccurate). He is not a researcher or therapist, only a journalist with an agenda. Castleman’s articles also promoted realyourbrainonporn.com as the source of truth concerning porn’s effects. There is little doubt of Prause and Ley’s involvement in his current hit-piece.
First the comment by Ley:
A few comments on Ley’s lies and spin.
LEY – Published in a very poor journal under strange circumstances.
Behavioral Sciences is PubMed indexed, unlike the journals that have accepted Ley’s 2 opinion pieces (e.g. Porn Studies Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports).
LEY – None of the authors appear to have any training in sexual health, or sex therapy and several are apparently ophthalmologist?
Typical Ley. Among the eight authors were seven physicians with the following expertise: two urologists, a neuroscientist, and two psychiatrists, and a general medical physician.” One author, Dr. Klam, is Director of Mental Health at the Naval Medical Center – San Diego. As for the ophthalmologist, Dr. 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. In addition to the papers on internet pornography, Doan has authored multiple papers on behavioral addiction/pathologies relating to technologies, (he published peer-reviewed studies before he evengraduating from high school).
LEY – The described medical assessments and treatments in the Park article are very troubling. In the first case study, the authors describe that they informed the patient that “use of a sex toy had potentially desensitized his penile nerves,” an extraordinary and unsupported statement to publish, without a urological examination.
Ley thinks it was egregious for the doctors to suggest giving up the sex toy and porn (even though the sailor was severely distress about his toy/porn induced sexual problems). An excerpt from the case-report exposing Ley’s advice as malpractice:
A 20-year old active duty enlisted Caucasian serviceman presented with difficulties achieving orgasm during intercourse for the previous six months. It first happened while he was deployed overseas. He was masturbating for about an hour without an orgasm, and his penis went flaccid. His difficulties maintaining erection and achieving orgasm continued throughout his deployment. Since his return, he had not been able to ejaculate during intercourse with his fiancée. He could achieve an erection but could not orgasm, and after 10–15 min he would lose his erection, which was not the case prior to his having ED issues. This was causing problems in his relationship with his fiancée.
Patient endorsed masturbating frequently for “years”, and once or twice almost daily for the past couple of years. He endorsed viewing Internet pornography for stimulation. Since he gained access to high-speed Internet, he relied solely on Internet pornography. Initially, “soft porn”, where the content does not necessarily involve actual intercourse, “did the trick”. However, gradually he needed more graphic or fetish material to orgasm. He reported opening multiple videos simultaneously and watching the most stimulating parts. When preparing for deployment about a year ago, he was worried about being away from partnered sex. So, he purchased a sex toy, which he described as a “fake vagina”. This device was initially so stimulating that he reached orgasm within minutes.
Medically, he had no history of major illness, surgery, or mental health diagnoses. He was not taking any medications or supplements. He denied using tobacco products but drank a few drinks at parties once or twice a month. He had never blacked out from alcohol intoxication. He reported multiple sexual partners in the past, but since his engagement a year ago his fiancée had been his sole sexual partner. He denied a history of sexually transmitted diseases. On physical examination, his vital signs were all normal, and his genital exam was normal appearing without lesions or masses.
At the conclusion of the visit, it was explained to him that use of a sex toy had potentially desensitized his penile nerves and watching hardcore Internet pornography had altered his threshold for sexual stimulation. He was advised to stop using the toy and watching hardcore Internet pornography. He was referred to urology for further evaluation.
By the time he was seen by the urologist a few weeks later, he had cut down on Internet pornography use significantly, although he said he could not completely stop. He ceased using the toy. He was having orgasms again through intercourse with his fiancée, and their relationship had improved.
More evidence that Ley should handing out sexual advice.
A comment by a Prause alias (she dares not comment as herself as she is involved in 2 lawsuits as of August, 2016):
An idiotic comment as Park et al., 2016 was not a study, but a review. As exposed on the current page, Prause is lying about ethics problems and the case reports. But what do you expect from MDPI’s cyberstalker?
Another comment by a Prause alias:
As above, Park was a review, so it did not present experimental data. However, it contained massive data throughout and 200 references.
——————
January, 2017 (and earlier): Prause employs multiple sock puppets (including “NotGaryWilson“) to edit Wikipedia pages
· 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 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:
Prause, who has not been affiliated with any academic institution since early 2015, 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 (later deleted by Prause).
Another tweet calling both Gail Dines and Fight The New Drug (FTND) liars and “anti-LGBT” and “anti-woman”:
——————-
The @BrainOnPorn twitter is believed to be Prause. who uses it to disparage the same people Prause does, while promoting the porn industry’s agenda. Here, RealYBOP trolls an account that quotes Gail Dines (April 22, 2019).
————————
More trolling by porn-industry shill RealYBOP (May, 2019)
—————–
Out of nowhere, RealYBOP trolls Dines:
RealYBOP claims to have wrote the research, but Prause has never published a study on porn use and sexism.
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.
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.
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”
Others – January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaints against therapist Staci Sprout
Continuing her behind-the-scenes pattern of filing baseless, harassing complaints against anyone whose views Prause disagrees with, Prause filed two unfounded complaints 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 – despite a second complaint by Prause insisting she had whistleblower status.
————————————————————-
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. (Her attempt failed, and CSBD is now in the ICD-11 – see below.) In fact, Prause 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.
Prause’s second complaint to Washington
Unsatisfied with Washington’s dismissive response, and angry that her duplicity in filing a groundless complaint against Sprout was made public on this page, Prause filed a second complaint against Sprout. Prause falsely claimed she had “whistleblower status.” The State again disagreed, and Washington again released the related correspondence to Sprout:
————————————————————-
Update (5-14-18): Prause harasses and defames Staci Sprout on her Facebook page – falsely claiming Sprout was not licensed:
————–
Update (6-8-18): The “implementation version” of the ICD-11 (the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases – the world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual) is now out (as of June, 2018). 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.”
Prior to the release of the “implementation version, ” a beta draft of the ICD-11 was also put online, and made available for interested parties to comment on. (A simple sign-up is needed to view and participate.) Note: Prause has posted more comments in the beta-draft 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. In fact, as explained and documented above, Washington summarily dismissed both of Prause’s baseless complaints.
May, 2019: David Ley and RealYBOP (Prause alias account) misrepresenting Staci Sprout’s tweet. Sprout said nothing about “sex addiction”:
RealYBOP (Prause) tweets a link to an excerpt from Prause’s Geoffrey Reed email (on RealYBOP). Geoffrey Reed isn’t an official WHO spokesperson, and this was only a private email to Prause to get her off of his back. In truth only one official WHO spokesperson has commented on CSBD – Christian Lindmeier. If you have any doubts about the true nature of the Prause/RealYBOP campaign, carefully read this responsible article about compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD). It quotes official WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier. Lindmeier is one of only four officials WHO spokespersons listed on this page: Communications contacts in WHO headquarters – and the only WHO spokesperson to have formally commented about CSBD! The SELF article also interviewed Shane Kraus, who was at the center of the ICD-11’s Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) working group. Excerpt with Lindmeir quotes makes it clear that WHO did not reject “sex addiction”:
In regards to CSBD, the largest point of contention is whether or not the disorder should be categorized as an addiction. “There is ongoing scientific debate on whether or not the compulsive sexual behavior disorder constitutes the manifestation of a behavioral addiction,” WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier tells SELF. “WHO does not use the term sex addiction because we are not taking a position about whether it is physiologically an addiction or not.
Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder is characterized by a persistent pattern of failure to control intense repetitive sexual impulses or urges, resulting in repetitive sexual behaviour over an extended period (e.g., six months or more) that causes marked distress or impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
Although this category phenomenologically resembles substance dependence, it is included in the ICD‐11 impulse control disorders section in recognition of the lack of definitive information on whether the processes involved in the development and maintenance of the disorder are equivalent to those observed in substance use disorders and behavioural addictions.
The new WHO paper linked to by sprout (Geoffrey Reed is one of the authors) calls out Prause’s behavior on ICD-11 comment section: Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health (2019). WHO discusses public comments made on proposed ICD-11 mental disorders, incuding “compulsive sexual behavior disorder” where Nicole Prause posted more comments than everyone else combined (22), disparaging individuals and organizations, making false accusations and engaging in libel. Bold type describes Prause comments:
Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder received the highest number of submissions of all mental disorders (N=47), but often from the same individuals (N=14). The introduction of this diagnostic category has been passionately debated3 and comments on the ICD‐11 definition recapitulated ongoing polarization in the field. Submissions included antagonistic comments among commenters, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence (48%) or claims that certain organizations or people would profit from inclusion or exclusion in ICD‐11 (43%).
Click here if you want to read the public comments on the ICD-11 CSBD sections (including the hostile/defamatory/disparaging ones). You will need to sign up with a username to view comments.
Prause joins the defamation as herself (instead of RealYBOP):
Inaccuracies by Prause: 1) Everything Sprout tweeted was accurate, 2) WHO never communicated with Sprout (that’s a crazy claim).
RealYBOP (an alias account of Nicole Prause) disparages Staci Sprout.
In reality, hundreds of Twitter accounts made fun of Prause’s inane and factually incorrect tweet claiming that a study had busted “the myth that men watch more porn than women”. For example, in this thread RealYBOP several scientists make fun of RealYBOP (in reponse she argues that being drunk does not impair driving!):
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.
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., 2013, Steele 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
Gary Wilson’s cyberstalker, 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-dont-fall-22064/).
The site containing Prause’s libelous blog piece 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”.
Prause working with Mike South provides clear evidence of Prause’s porn-industry connections:
In her defamatory piece, Prause 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 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. 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. Thus he never provided a bio, or claims of “professorship” for it. 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.
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. 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 (YBOP About us page). Gary has never said he had a PhD or was a professor.
——————————————————————————————-
Below is the “un-redacted” copy of the document Prause posted on several websites. Prause claimed it meant that Gary was fired, when it actually meant “terminate paychecks” as Gary had to resign due to a medical emergency. The Prause version redacted the COMMENTS section, where SOU stated that Gary resigned due to a health crisis.
Incidentally, 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 (headed by Prause) lobbied long and hard to have placed on his very popular TEDx talk. Not only was there comprehensive empirical support for “The Great Porn Experiment” (2012), hundreds of additional studies have been published since 2012 that fully support Gary Wilson’s claims. These 2 pages provide slide by slide support for TGPE:
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 Gary, 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 has confirmed that Nicole Prause was the only one who sought his employment records. Email below:
Prause’s usual partner in targeted harassment, David Ley, also falsely stated that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon university:
Another libelous tweet by Ley, promoting the Mike South article (that was later deleted):
Not only is Tammy Johnson Ellis lying about Wilson being terminated she is also lying about “cherry-picking pieces of research”. In all the hundreds of defamatory posts and tweets Ley, Prause, Ellis, and their allies have never once provided an example of Wilson “cherry-picking” (see YBOP’s main research page for the current state of the research).
—————————-
Continuing into 2019: Prause continues to post defamatory tweets claiming that Wilson was “terminated” from SOU, or was a TA (teaching assistant) at Souther Oregon University. In addition, she continues to lie about Wilson misrepresenting his credentials.
April 1, 2019: Prause and David Ley once again lie about about Gary Wilson’s SOU employment.
Background: On March 31, 2016, the TIME cover story (“Porn and the Threat to Virility”), by Belinda Luscombe, featuring Gabe Deem, Nicole Prause, David Ley, Gary Wilson, 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. Once published Prause and her alias “PornHelps” viciously attacked and libeled its author Belinda Luscombe:
On April 1, 2019, both Gary Wilson and Belinda Luscombe weighed in on a long twitter thread discussing validity of the General Social Survey (which claimed that only 45% of men, aged 18-29, had viewed an X-rated movie in the last year). Within a few minutes Prause joined the tread to attack and libel Luscombe and Wilson (long-time Prause ally David Ley also libeled Wilson). In her first of 8 tweets, Prause repeats the same lies documented on this page. She also calls Belinda a fake journalist, engaging fraud.
Since Prause has blocked Belinda, Ley jumps in to “paraphrase” (but omits Prause’s attacks on Belinda). Belinda responds:
David Ley joins in with 2 of his own lies: That Wilson was a TA (teacher assistant) and he was fired.
Truth doesn’t stop Ley or Prause from continuing their Twitter libel-fest, attacking Belinda Luscombe and Wilson.
All provable libel:
Wilson did not drop out of college.
Wilson did not default on his student loans.
Wilson was not a TA. He was ‘Adjunct Faculty.’ (How could Wilson be a TA if he was not attending SOU as a student?)
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 lie-filled hit-piece, Prause posted redacted copies of Gary Wilson employment records and knowingly, falsely stated that Southern Oregon University had fired Wilson. On March 3rd & 4th Prause posted ten more demeaning and untruthful comments about Wilson and his work, all containing a link to her defamatory piece:
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:
Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Gary Wilson has misrepresented his credentials
In her defamatory articles, tweets, and Quora posts Prause has knowingly and falsely stated that I claimed to be “professor in biology” or a “neuroscientist”. I 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,” I had never seen this site and had never communicated with its hosts, never uploaded the page in question and never removed it. Thus I 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 7 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.
I 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.
Both Prause & David Ley continue to directly or indirectly claim that I have misrepresented my credentials. Of course, they never provide a single example, but truth is irrelevant to these two. Examples of their cyber harassment:
On social media, Prause has stated that she got my talk cancelled because I presented “fake credentials.” For example, Prause’s tweet attacking the ESSM talk, and her claiming that Gary Wilson was uninvited because he “gave false credentials”:
Continuing into 2019, Prause continues to post defamatory tweets claiming that I was “terminated” from SOU, or was a TA (teaching assistant) at Southern Oregon University. In addition, she continues to lie about me misrepresenting my credentials.
Names Gary Wilson as “The Cyberstalker” on Quora. Prause was ultimately banned from Quora for harassing me. The claims about me misrepresenting myself are lies and based on a web page that no longer exists, and was most likely created by Prause:
Employing a new tactic with a new Twitter account:
August, 2019: The RealYourBrainOnPorn Twitter account (apparently tied to the website currently in Daniel Burgess’s name) posted multiple defamatory tweets stating that I misrepresented my credentials. As with Prause, this Twitter account failed to link to any evidence produced by me (a dead-give away that they fabricated their claim). Instead, RealYBOP pulled a fast one: it posted a screenshot of YBOP Google search, which returned a few media articles copied and posted on YBOP mistakenly describing me as a “professor” (which I have never claimed to be).
A screenshot from the above tweet. Again, the article is reproduced on YBOP, but not authored by YBOP. It incorrectly refers to me as “adjunct professor” (rather than “adjunct faculty”):
RealYBOP used this kind of Google search to capture YBOP’s URL, to make it appear as if I were saying I was a professor. RealYBOP could capture the YBOP URL because a 100 or more articles mentioning Gary Wilson and YBOP are located on YBOP. Most of the YBOP articles are here: ‘Your Brain On Porn’ in the News. Using key words, a Google search returned the same item RealYBOP tweeted. (In fact, almost all the search returns were about Prause falsely claiming I faked my credentials.)
The excerpt where TIME incorrectly refers to me as a “professor”:
The young porn abstainers do have an unlikely guru: Gary Wilson, 59, a former part-time adjunct biologyprofessorat Southern Oregon University and various vocational schools and the author of Your Brain on Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction. His website, yourbrainonporn.com, or more commonly YBOP, is a clearinghouse for information that supports the link between heavy adolescent pornography use and sexual dysfunction. Many people find him through his 2012 TEDx talk, which has more than 6 million views.
The above, and a second article on YBOP (Will quitting porn improve your life?), are the only evidence RealYBOP and Prause provide that I claimed I was a former professor – even though it was a journalistic error, not mine at all. The journalists replaced “adjunct faculty” with “adjunct professor” (oh, the horror!):
That talk was followed by an independent TEDx Talk video last year by Gary Wilson, a past adjunct professor in anatomy at an Oregon university.
Both articles got it wrong. I have never once claimed to a professor or PhD. I taught anatomy and physiology for years, including a few A&P labs at Southern Oregon University. When asked about my time at SOU, I explicitly state I was categorized as “adjunct faculty,” not a professor. In 10 years of giving interviews, I have yet to see even a single article convey my statements entirely accurately in an interview. In reality, many articles are little more than cobbled together copy-and-pastes from other websites, which inevitably propagates errors as well as truth.
Since this minor “former part-time adjunct professor” blunder can be traced the 2016 TIME magazine cover story, let’s look at what I actually emailed to TIME editor Belinda Luscombe.
Where in the chain of communications “adjunct faculty” transformed into “adjunct professor” is anyone’s guess. But clearly it did not come from me.
As documented in other sections (1, 2), Prause and her alias account “PornHelps” had previously harassed and defamed Belinda Luscombe for daring to author the TIME cover story on porn-induced ED. In a 2019 Twitter thread Prause once again claims that I misrepresented my credentials to TIME. Since Prause has blocked Belinda, Ley jumps in to “paraphrase” (but omits Prause’s personal attacks on Belinda). Belinda responds:
TIME fact-checked with Southern Oregon University. Are they the ones who got it (slightly) wrong?
David Ley continues the convo inserting 2 of his own lies: (1) I was a TA (teacher assistant), and (2) I was fired. Belinda Luscombe sets him straight:
August/September, 2019: Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess? Nicole Prause?) obsessively tweeting that Gary Wilson misrepresented his credentials. RealYBOP even went after Belinda Luscomble – like Prause and her alias (PornHelps) often did:
November, 2019 – RealYBOP: Follower “Abby” inadvertently called me a neuroscientist (English is not Abby’s native language). Prause/RealYBOP immediately jumped on this to lie again:
Note that Prause/RealYBOP asserted that an expose’ will be published within months
I had enough of Prause/RealYBOP lies, and responded with several tweets (even RealYBOP has blocked me). For example, a few of my tweets:
RealYBOP went nuts, creating numerous bogus graphs “showing” that I was harassing their twitter. RealYBOP fails to mention that it has tweeted over 300 times at me, or about me, and is trying to steal my trademark. One of RealYBOP graphs falsely claims I have threatened to sue in 170 tweets posted over the last 12 months:
In reality, I have only threatened to sue in a solitary tweet (the tweet targeting RealYBOP’s initial defmatory tweet:
RealYBOP is a pathological liar and cyberstalker, who’s about to pulled into 3 Federal lawsuits.
March, April, October, 2018: Nicole Prause files bogus DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to hide her harassment and defamation (all were dismissed)
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-dont-fall-22064/).
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://www.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
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
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.
UPDATE: October, 2018 – Prause attempts a third DMCA takedown
On October 10th, 2018 an agent representing Nicole Prause filed a 3rd DMCA takedown request with my website host. The agent requested that several screenshots of Prause tweets be removed from this page. Below is Gary Wilson’s email to his web-host
The current complaint is by an agent for Nicole Prause and has been dealt with before. See this Linode ticket from 6 months ago: ————————————————–
Please re-visit that ticket. This is Dr. Prause’s third unfounded attempt to have evidence of her tweets removed from my website. After she wrote you the first time and failed to achieve her objective, she hired a company to make a request. Now, she has second company attempting a spurious DMCA takedown.
As explained in two previous Linode tickets, Nicole Prause has been harassing and defaming many people, including me, for the past 6 years. In response to Dr. Prause’s widespread harassment I have created the following page to catalog (and refute) her libelous statements and false assertions: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website
The current ticket submitted by Dr. Prause, or her agent, is once again claiming that screenshots of her defamatory tweets are covered by the DMCA. As stated 6 months ago, it is my understanding, based on legal advice, that tweets are not copyrightable; nor are images of them protected by the DMCA. Dr. Prause’s behavior and biases, as documented by her tweets, are essential reading for anyone attempting to understand the politics currently skewing the study and reporting of internet porn’s effects. Thus, without solid reason for their removal, they need to remain on YBOP.
Sincerely,
Gary Wilson
In the end Wilson’s website host closed this 3rd case, finding no merit in the agent’s DMCA take-down requests.
Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ~George Orwell
A true academic will be willing to engage in discussion without defaulting to ad hominem insults or ascribing negative intentions to the other side.~ Dr. Debra Soh
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.
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 response, before being blocked by Prause:
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.
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 300 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”):
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.
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.
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?
Note: In her concurrent emails to MDPI, Prause cc’d RetractionWatch, apparently to threaten MDPI with public retaliation. Another “NeuroSex” edit (lies) related to Gary Wilson and to Park et al., 2016:
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:
There were not 6 scientists – only Prause contacted MDPI.
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)
I posted that the paper involved 7 US Navy doctors. The Navy had no problems with my comments.
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.
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 ”[[Behavioral Sciences (journal)|Behavioral Sciences ]]” 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
Gary 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, 2018: Prause lies about Gary Wilson in emails to MDPI, David Ley, Neuro Skeptic, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch, and COPE
In the May, 2018 email exchanges with MDPI & COPE, Prause 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, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch has taken the bait without adequate investigation.
In her defamatory articles, tweets, and Quora posts Prause has knowingly and falsely stated that I (Gary Wilson) claimed to be “professor in biology” “doctor” or a “neuroscientist.” I was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and taught human anatomy, physiology & pathology at other venues. Although careless journalists and websites have assigned me 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) I have always stated that I taught anatomy & physiology. I have never said I had a PhD or was a professor. Prause told the same lie to the email recipients:
PRAUSE EMAIL #1 (5-1-2018)
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Nicole Prause >
Additionally, Mr. Wilson is now using this publication to claim to be a doctor online to unsuspecting patients (attached).
Below is the screenshot Prause uses to “prove” that I have misrepresented my credentials (again, this Gary Wilson page no longer exists). Note: Until Prause produced her “proof,” I had never seen this site and had never communicated with its hosts, never uploaded the page in question and never removed it. Thus I certainly never provided a bio, or claims of “professorship.”
I taught at Southern Oregon University on two occasions. I 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. I do not seek speaking engagements and have never accepted fees for speaking. Moreover, YBOP accepts no ads, and the proceeds from my book go to a registered charity.
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. Again, I’ve never uploaded anything to the site, and I have no idea who uploaded this page (or ordered it removed).
The above screen-shot was part of a larger article by Prause where she falsely claimed that I was fired from Southern Oregon University: March, 2018 – Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired. In her article, which was posted on a pornography-related site and Quora, Prause published redacted versions of my Southern Oregon University employment records, falsely stating I was fired and had never before taught at SOU. As with her claims surrounding The Reward Foundation, Prause lied about the true content of what’s in the redacted documents. By the way, David Ley also tweeted the Prause article several times, saying I was fired from SOU (screenshots on the page).
In an email to MDPI, COPE, Ley, Neuroskeptic, Adam Marcus of Retraction Watch and others Prause falsely claimed that I had received money from The Reward Foundation.
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
Prause is lying. I have never received any money from The Reward Foundation. I forwarded Prause’s claim to Darryl Mead, Chair of The Reward Foundation, who debunked Prause’s claims here. As thoroughly explained in that section Gary Wilson donates the proceeds of his book to The Reward Foundation. Wilson accepts no money, and has never received a dime for any of his efforts. YBOP accepts no ads and Wilson has accepted no fees for speaking.
Well, it’s 2019 and Prause is finally being for defamation. In a sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court, Gary Wilson stated (under penalty of perjury) that (1) Nicole Prause used a false identity (Janey Wilson) to defame and harass Wilson, his publisher, and The Reward Foundation, (2) that Prause lied in emails, on Wikipedia and in public comments when stating that Gary Wilson received financial compensation from The Reward Foundation.
In many of her emails to MDPI (and others), Prause mentioned her “77 criticisms” and falsely claimed that they had not been addressed. This was just the latest:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Nicole Prause>
I provided a 77 point critique prior to publication that was, true to the predatory journal lists MDPI appeared on, was ignored.
This means Prause was one of two reviewers of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine submission – and thus “Janey Wilson.” As explained, 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.
May, June 2018: In emails to Retraction Watch, in the ICD-11 comments section, and on Wikipedia, Prause and her sockpuppets falsely claim that Wilson received 9,000 pounds from The Reward Foundation
Starting in May, 2018 Prause added a new wrinkle to her claims, namely that, “The Reward Foundation (RF) paid Wilson 9,027 pounds.” This is completely false, even though there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Wilson being paid by anyone for anything. The crazy part is that Wilson donates the proceeds from his book to the RF. In other words, Prause is claiming that Wilson gives money to the RF so they can give it back to him at a later date. Why Wilson would choose to play trans-Atlantic ping pong with his money in this way, Prause has yet to explain. Bottom line: Prause is lying.
This all started with Prause’s email 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, wrongfully assumed (and publicized) that Wilson’s name was behind the redaction when it wasn’t!
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
Two days later, one of Prause’s seven wikipedia sockpuppets attempted the following edit on MDPI Wikipedia page, assigning Wilson a fabricated, defamatory reason for receiving the money (that he had never, in fact, received):
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 (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 (again). 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 is above:
From: Foundation Reward <[email protected]> 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.
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 for a fabricated purpose. She then publicized this falsehood to MDPI, COPE, RetractionWatch, and others, using the redacted document she submitted. Then sockpuppet NeuroSex attempted to post these lies to Wikipedia, which failed.
Update, 6-7-2018:
For no reason in particular, Prause posted a comment on the ICD-11 about Gary Wilson. [Would be readers must create a username to view comments.] In this comment Prause repeats the above lies:
Prause not only repeated her original lie, she added several more of her usual lies about Wilson (all debunked on this very page). Prause also says that she has filed a second complaint against Staci Sprout with Washington. This part is true, as second harassing complaint was filed against Sprout and immediately dismissed.
In the 6 years since Prause’s cyber-aliases started claiming that Wilson was reported to the police, Prause has failed to provide any documentation of her purported police reports. As for the LAPD & UCLAPD, both have said that Prause never filed anything with their departments. In October, 2018 Gary Wilson filed a freedom of information request with the FBI and the FBI confirmed that Prause was lying: no report has ever been filed on Wilson. See – November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims. Gary Wilson has been patiently waiting since July, 2013 (1) to discover what exactly he was reported for, (2) to be contacted by “the authorities.” Neither has occurred because Prause is lying.
Over the next few days Nicole Prause posted 3 more libelous comments on the ICD-11 attacking Gary Wilson and continuing to assert falsely that he is a paid employee of The Reward Foundation. Darryl Mead, the Chair of The Reward Foundation, eventually responded (see above).
Update:In a sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court, Gary Wilson stated (under penalty of perjury) that (1) Nicole Prause used a false identity (Janey Wilson) to defame and harass Wilson, his publisher, and The Reward Foundation, (2) that Prause lied in emails, on Wikipedia and in public comments when stating that Gary Wilson received financial compensation from The Reward Foundation.
Put simply, Nicole Prause is engaged in provable defamation (see you in the upcoming defamation lawsuits: 1, 2).
————————–
March 3, 2020: Cyberstalker RealYBOP has posted about 300 tweets about me. In this exmaple she lies about the Reward Foundation. Her defamatory tweet appears to be claiming that The Reward Foundation “paid” to have an article placed in The Sunday Times. That’s a lie. In reality, The Times paid TRF to write an article. TRF did not solicit The Times – The Times solicited TRF. I gues Nikky is mad because The Times isn’t interested in her opinions on porn.
In my 2 sworn affidavits filed in federal defamation suits I chronicle Prause libelous claims and ongoing cyberstalking of The Reward Foundation, my publisher, the Scottish Charity register, and MDPI:
Others – 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.
20:16, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+367) . . NoFap (→Reception: Added peer-reviewed study about the verified dangers of NoFap)
20:14, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-492) . . NoFap (→Reception: Removed a reference to an unpublished “study” only in a German newspaper and not published anywhere.)
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.)
Another Prause edit 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
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.
Longer periods of abstinence most likely cause less risk aversion (which is good). The second survey will provide the final proof.
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
Abstaining from pornography and masturbation increases the ability to delay rewards
Participating in a period of abstinence renders people more willing to take risks
Abstinence renders people more altruistic
Abstinence renders people more extroverted, more conscientious, and less neurotic
Unfortunately, Prause’s deletion of the Sproten study has not yet been reversed, and the Kris Taylor paper remains. More evidence that Wikipedia editors game the system, and sockpuppets rule.
Others – 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:
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.”
02:16, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-172) . . Sexual addiction (→Controversy: info-graphic 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
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.”
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)
03:11, 24 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+106) . . Pornography addiction (→Symptoms and diagnosis: ASAM is a fringe group that also advocates “tanning” addiction. Requires recognition that, just below, no other org shares ASAM view)
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.
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)
Update: On September 3rd yet another Prause sockpuppet edited the Sexual Addiction Wikipedia page – User Contributions: HighFlyer1976. The only edit by the sockpuppet:
Calling it “fake news” HighFlyer1976 deleted an edit that sated that the ICD-11 had overtaken the ICD-10. Prause often mimics Donald Trump’s behavior and verbiage.
———-
Update: On November 26th yet another Prause sockpuppet edited the Sexual Addiction Wikipedia page – User Contributions: TestAccount2018abc. The only 2 edits by the sockpuppet:
In addition, TestAccount2018abc posts on the Sexual Addiction Talk Page, once again raging againts the new ICD-11 diagnosis of “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder”. The Prause sockpuppet argues with regular editor Tgeorgescu (who is actually quite anti porn and sex addiction – but not extreme enough for Nikky): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexual_addiction
Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018
Information about the ICD-11 draft was added, but did not include that (1) The ICD cannot be accepted as a diagnosis anywhere yet, and the earliest in the USA is 2022 and (2) the World Health Organization specifically stated that they did not find evidence that sex was addictive. Given that this article is “sex addiction”, that must be included for this to be accurate, otherwise it is misleading to people who do not know the differences between a compulsion and an addiction (there are many). “But the UN health body stops short of lumping the condition together with addictive behaviours like substance abuse or gambling, insisting more research is needed before describing the disorder as an addiction.” Dr. Geoffrey Reed, WHO [1]TestAccount2018abc (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Sexual addiction is an umbrella concept, which people use in different meanings. The point you’re making is explained under Sexual addiction#ICD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Addiction is not an “umbrella” concept. The article quote shows the head of the World Health Organization disagreeing with you too. Here neuroscientists describe the differences neurologically (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.13297) and here by symptom (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-017-0991-8). You are an anti-sex activist who should not be editing this page, there is literally no science supporting your claim. Addiction and compulsivity are different models, and sex addiction appears nowhere in the ICD-11 intentionally, by WHO’s own statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestAccount2018abc(talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)</small
Cool down buddy, I’m not an anti-sex activist, through my edits I have decidedly opposed sexual pseudoscience, but I am also prepared to give the other side the benefit of the doubt when the matters aren’t settled yet. You have read too few of what I wrote inside Wikipedia and you’re jumping to conclusions. If that’s the way to treat your allies I wonder how you treat your enemies. So, yeah, I know that compulsion is different from addiction. However, this article is not only about sexual addiction, but about a lot of stuff. Instead of having ten different articles with roughly the same content, we have one article which covers them all. This is not hard to get from reading it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This impression was based on a review of your bio, which has extensive commentary about your biblical beliefs, not your scientific background in this area. So the critique of the article and the likely source of the bias seems fair. The article already states in one place exactly what I suggest, your addition reverts back to mischaracterize again. I did not request a separate entry at any time, only that this entry be scientifically accurate. With your last addition, it is no longer scientifically accurate by my, or the World Health Organization’s, estimation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.90.6 (talk)17:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
First, Wikipedia does not require editors to be experts/scientists, that’s a thing for Citizendium. Wikipedia requires editors to WP:CITEWP:SOURCES, that’s all: you have sources, you have everything, don’t have sources, don’t have anything. Second, editing Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise. If I were the only one to write this article, I would write it differently, but since everybody can edit, I have to make allowance for their doubt. Third, the matter of sexual addiction vs. CSBD is not settled yet: ICD is not a diagnosis manual, it is a manual of codes, so that a French MD understands the diagnosis of a Mexican MD. There has been a discussion about adding TCM codes to ICD, but in fact WHO does not say that a specific code is a thing, so if TCM would be included in the ICD it would not mean that TCM got scientifically validated. Fourth, I have quoted a source (Ley), which says that ICD does not include sexual addiction, and I tried to briefly explain his point. Perhaps you might try to suggest a different wording, I’m all ears. Fifth, don’t cast aspersions based on insufficient data. More precisely, you did not bother to read my opinions, e.g. that in respect to mental health insurance money, DSM is king, not ICD, and since addictions got purged out of DSM there is unlikely to be a diagnosis of porn addiction (or sex addiction, for that matter). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Notice: in the above exchange a second Prause sockpuppet enters into the fray – “Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.90.6“. With so many puppets she can’t keep track of which sockpuppet is editing Wikipedia!
May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses Fight The New Drug (FTND) of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice.
This screenhot of a rant by non-academic Prause 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 and peer-reviewed research. (Addendum: Gary Wilson filed a freedom of information request with the FBI and the FBI confirmed that Prause was lying: no report has ever been filed on Wilson. See – November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims)
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:
It provides no examples of misrepresentation by “Fight The New Drug”, or anyone else.
None of the claims are supported by citations.
The 8 neuroscientists cited zero neuroscience-based studies.
Some who signed the Op-Ed have histories of fervently attacking the concept of porn and sex addiction (thus demonstrating stark bias).
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:
44 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) providing strong support for the addiction model.
Realizing she’s been exposed, Prause searches SB’s twitter feed for anything she can use, settling for this bizarre personal attack. YBOP has been waiting over 3 years for Prause to name a single study that FTND or Gary Wilson has misrepresented. Still waiting.
The Demise of Guys?: Philip Zimbardo: Excellent TED talk on (as the title says) the “demise” of young men. Zimbardo speaks of excessive Internet use (porn and video games) as “arousal addiction.”
Publisher of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer, calls out an article about Zimbardo’s famous “Stanford Prison experiment” as a fraud. Prause trolls him, lying about Zimbardo “misrepresenting the science”:
Note – Prause has never provided a single example of Zimbardo misrepresenting science or research. She can’t, because he hasn’t. In fact, the concerns Zimbardo raised about the ill effects of problematic internet porn use and excessive internet gaming have both since been codified as disorders in the upcoming ICD-11, which is the diagnostic manual of the World Health Organization.
Unlike Prause, Zimbardo backed up his claims with citations. What’s missing from all the above tweets? A single example of a Zimbardo misrepresentation. Nada.
As chronicled here and elsewhere Dr. Prause has a long history of misrepresenting her own and others’ research. In addition, she chronically mischaracterizes the current state of porn research, while repeatedly tweeting a few cherry-picked (and often flawed) outlier studies. If you want to judge for yourself, this page contains links to hundreds of studies and several reviews of the literature: current state of the research on Internet porn addiction and porn’s effects.
—————————
September, 2019: RealYBOP twitter (run by Prause & Daniel Burgess), pins the following tweet to its profile:
October, 2019: David Ley and Prause/Daniel Burgess (RealYBOP twitter) are at it again. RealYBOP disparages Phil Zimbardo, yet again. As porn industry shills Ley, Prause & RealYBOP often disparage Zimbardo because he has exposed porn’s negative effects on young people.
Non-academics Ley & Prause are also jealous of Zimbardo’s fame, success and influence.
July 6, 2018: “Someone” reports Gary Wilson to the Oregon Psychology Board, which dismisses the complaint as unfounded
This malicious reporting effort appears to be part of a larger, concerning pattern of filing baseless regulatory complaints about actual therapists, as documented elsewhere on this page. Fortunately regulators are not easily taken in by such spiteful tactics.
October, 2018: Ley & Prause devise an article purporting to connect Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes, Gabe Deem to white supremacists/fascists (Prause attacks & libels Alexander Rhodes & Nofap in the comments section).
The term “fascist” when misused as it is here, is “hate speech.” The post implies that all of the people named in it are both “fascists” and anti-masturbation. While this may constitute clever public relations spin in light of the immediately preceding reprehensible attack on a temple in Pittsburgh, it is shocking that Ley apparently used the tragedy to promote his well known pro-porn agenda by attempting to tie “fascism” and “anti-masturbation” to a range of people who have addressed the risks of overuse of internet pornography and related concerns. Ley’s proposed associations bear no relation to the facts. For example, Wilson is the author of a book entitled Your Brain On Porn, and the host of this website with the same name. The focus of both is on the risks of internet porn overuse, not on masturbation. A few excerpts from Ley’s article targeting Gary Wilson (yourbrainonporn.com) and Gabe Deem (RebootNation):
Another excerpt where Ley tries to connect Gary Wilson to David Duke (so sickening):
Ironically, Ley has, when it suited him, claimed masturbation, not internet pornography, is the true cause of young men’s rising problems with sexual performance and sexual attraction to real partners. Thus, it is especially disingenuous for him to now claim that those who oppose his views are “anti-masturbation.” See this piece about the absurdity of the sexology claim that the cause of rising sexual dysfunctions in millennials is masturbation. See Sexologists Deny PIED by Claiming Masturbation Is the Problem.
Let’s start with Prause’s admission that she helped David Ley with his defamatory blog post.
The pattern for Psychology Today blog posts co-created by Prause & Ley is for Ley to open the comments section (which he often doesn’t) and for Prause (and her aliases) to police the comments, which usually entails Prause attacking detractors and mischaracterizing the state of the research.
We have reproduced Prause’s comments below. Where appropriate we included the comments of her targets. As you can see, Prause employs her usual mix of personal attacks, falsehoods, faux victim-hood and misrepresentations of studies:
Submitted by PornHelp Team on October 28, 2018 – 12:43pm
This is disgraceful. Of all of the weekends to publish a conspiracy theory equating wanting to quit porn to fascism and Antisemitism, this isn’t the one (really, there’s never a good time for this kind of half-baked nonsense, but especially not now).
Let’s be clear. People seek help with out-of-control porn use for lots and lots of different reasons. Many have no religious motivation at all, but rather look for help because of tangible impacts porn use is having on their lives. For others, religious belief (including, for some, the teachings of Judaism, fwiw) does play a role.
Implying porn skepticism amounts to a Nazi plot is not only morally abhorrent, it’s also demonstrably false. Dr. Ley should know better than to make such irresponsible claims.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 28, 2018 – 3:29pm
His timing is perfect. Hate speech results in hateful acts. NoFap has been promoting hate speech for years, including against specific women. There are scientific papers published about the misogyny in NoFap groups. Incel’s have murdered. I fully expect one of these murders will someday be from these anti-masturbation anti-porn groups. HLey is calling attention to their hate speech while they still have time to try to correct. It is past time to stop promoting hate speech on your platforms…or this is what one of your followers will do next. Stop promoting fascism, misogyny, and antisemitism.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 1:59pm
There is a peer-reviewed article on some of the misogyny in the NoFap community. Search: “‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum”
This means it was reviewed by independent scientists confidentially. There is nothing wrong with choosing for yourself not to masturbate, but they spread intentionally fake news and are a for-profit. For example, I study the effects of porn on the brain and have some of the largest samples in this area in high-impact journals. If they mention my research at all, it’s usually stating we found the opposite of what we actually found. These are not trustworthy sources and are promoting discrimination against protected groups.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 28, 2018 – 5:34pm
Geoffrey Goodman is the provider kicked off a listserv for his misogynist comments. Specifically, “Let’s discuss the merits and flaws of the actual research, rather than hide behind Prause’s apron strings.” As far as I know, he still has the title IX complaint with his university.
The “actual research” is quite clear. You and NoFap are openly misogynist and promoting hate speech. Birds of a feather.
Also, it’s cute that you thought EEG was “old” technology and fMRI was “better”. Please, do get to know an actual neuroscientist before spouting fake information.
Note: A communication revealed that Dr. Goodman was not kicked off the AASECT listserv and Prause’s spurious complaint – as usual – was ignored.
all nofap is trying to do is provide a support group for people who have the same goal- not masturbating. I can see why you might think there is discrimination against women there, as the population is predominantly men, but there are places for women to accomplish exactly the same things. when women post in nofap some people see it as a trigger. I personally don’t but from my perspective theres a big difference between unjustified discrimination and keeping order. You can’t make everyone happy 100% of the time.
Note the following back and forth between Prause and bart revolves around grad student Kris Taylor’s dissertation on 15 comments from reddit/nofap: I want that power back: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum (2018). That’s right, a PhD analyzing 15 reddit comments! Taylor is decidedly pro-porn and anti-Nofap. He has a history of blatantly misrepresenting studies and the state of the research, as chronicled in the YBOP critique: Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017). As bart points out, Taylor carefully selected 15 out-of-context comments from among millions of reddit/nofap comments in order to support his preordained agenda. Interspersed among the 15 reddit comments we find Taylor’s sociological gibberish masquerading as “deep thought.” This are the type of biased, lightweight reflections that sexology journals love to publish.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 2:05pm
“‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum”
This was a systematic review of the content in those forums. I believe Ley’s point is not to say everyone must masturbate at some regular schedule. If you choose not to masturbate, just don’t promote for-profit groups that support misogyny and advertise Proud Boys and other antisemitic groups. As far as I am aware, the only celebrity fan of YourBrainOnPorn is David Duke, which he described as preventing race mixing.
There are many ways to reach your goals that don’t line the pockets of hate groups.
of anything. Dr. Prause must be referring to the agenda-driven paper by a grad student who chose a few random quotes from Reddit/nofap to push a false narrative (‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum)
The opinion paper was qualitative, not quantitative – and everything excerpted was at the discretion of the grad student (Kris Taylor) – who has a history of pro-porn advocacy
Reddit/nofap has 370,000 members and millions upon millions of comments since its inception 8 years ago. It’s reddit for god sake. You can peruse a single post from reddit and find a thousand divergent and sometimes crazy comments. It’s reddit!!!.
Taylor excerpted 15 comments, writing a skewed narrative to match his predetermined wants. That’s right, 14 comments. That’s not a “study”. A 9th grader could hang out for 30 minutes on reddit (any sub-reddit), grab a few comments and write it up – and it would be comparable. What a joke.
Try citing a quantitative study by someone with PhD.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 4:47pm
The fake-name account appears to want some of the quotes from the systematic-review paper posted. These will make very clear that extensive content on the NoFap website is misogynist. If you visit this website, you will be supporting and furthering misogyny, above and beyond the antisemitism evidenced from Dr. Ley’s original piece.
“… what in the world is masculine about jerking off to porn in front of a screen? If you got caught you would feel rightfully ashamed. There’s nothing shameful about fucking a hot young girl, you feel like the king of the jungle afterwards that’s what we are meant to do! Fuck girls. Not jerk off like lonely losers to pixels on a screen. He makes some good points in the book, doesn’t mean I became a feminist and grew a vagina after reading it. If anything it made me want to fap less and fuck more. Is that not
masculine for you?”
“You think it’s a coincidence homeless guys don’t get laid? We’re animals… it’s natural to be attracted to what’s best for you and the species.”
“Rarely has it ever been that women chase the man.
That makes no sense. If you are truly masculine, then YOU go after the woman.”
“Think about what feminine means to you. Are you doing those things? Are you seeking approval, laughing nervously, and being indecisive? You shouldn’t be… And by the way, you can laugh, but laugh only if you want to. Laughing because you are nervous is feminine. Let the girls do that around you. Think about what masculine means to you. Are you doing those things? You should be. Are you decisive? Do you know what you stand for? Do you know what you want, and can you find a way to get it? These are the traits you need to be cultivating… Pay deep attention to your internal monologue. Don’t do or say things to people unless you want to… Don’t use 7 words when 4 will do. Speak in a deep, controlled voice.”
“The thing about power, at least in the modern world we live in today, is that a man simply has to respect himself and not heel to being a beta (bitch) to be considered masculine”
They provide many more exact misogynist quotes like this. What an awful group to support.
of a grad student who says porn never causes any problems. Qualitative clap-trap from an non-PhD. Let me grab a few comments out millions, and write a bunch of filler…..
I’ll go to reddit now and grab a few comments:
Delayed ejaculation: GONE! Thank you nofap! ‘
And from there things got even better. ALL and I literally mean ALL my social anxiety went away. On the second week I had cute girls talking to me everyday and I have even started “dating” (we had sex) this girl who was literally the girl of my dreams in high school (still is tbh). I even remember her saying to me “Wow you’re really good at making eye contact” and I received that same complement from others girls too.
I realized how bad I used to be when talking to people and its crazy to look back on. When I go to parties I am able to talk and hold conversations with anyone and it the best thing ever.
I totally agree with the benefits!
Used to have to think of porn in order to orgasm with wife. I have had regular sex through all my marriage (6 years now), but have always found that unless the sex is especially good I had to think of P in order to O in my wife, and found that about 5% of the time that I couldn’t finish at all. Now though I don’t think about this at all, just enjoy the time with her. It’s almost like starting over and learning sex again, it can be such a different with a clear mind not clouded by P.
26days = some of best sex ever!
Well I’ve gone 26 days now after going just a week at a time for ages, I’ve had some amazing sex with my gf of 8 months, not amazing in a porn style way, but very loving very emotional and feeling great. We’d sex 4 times this week, 2 of them were amazing, 2 were more the normal just felt good. It seemed to come out of nowhere the amazing sex. But really it was the lack of porn I’m sure. I wondered did I just think it was very different and gf didn’t, but nope, gf that it was very different and amazing too, which makes it all the better. So keep up the kicking porn in the nuts folks!
I’d always heard about surveys where they’d say that men who don’t watch porn are “more satisfied” with their sex lives. I never really knew what that was, or I thought I was “satisfied” enough. But now, on this streak, I’ve seen the difference. It’s like night and day! It’s better in sooo many ways. More satisfying, it’s a better experience physically, mentally it’s better as well. Can’t even explain. Sex is soooo much better without porn
A little bit different from Kris Taylor’s carefully chosen 15 out of over 10 million. And Taylor didn’t go to the nofap.com forum – which has millions more.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 29, 2018 – 5:24pm
Scientist every time
There’s was a peer-reviewed article. You probably wrote all of those yourself. I just discovered that the NoFap company account actually was being run by Alexander Rhodes himself, in violation of his no-contact request. So your actual founder is stalking women online in violation of no-contact orders.
You provide no evidence that their review was not balanced. As your cannot pass peer-review, I think it’s clear where the problem is.
You don’t even know what a review entails, do you? Again, it was 15 carefully selected comments out of tens of millions comments published on reddit/nofap since its inception 8 years ago.
How about detailing for us what a “review” of Reddit comments would entail. How would it be structured? Tell us about the methodology of a “review” of millions of comments over an 8 year period on a platform that allows everyone on the internet to post and say whatever they please.
From the paper itself we can see that it wasn’t a review at all:
Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole, but to present how some users express a particular investment in masculinity and its constitution (Edley, 2001; Edley and Wetherell, 1997). That is, as opposed to an analysis in which users’ posts are understood as oblique references to masculinity (through their talk about video games, pornography, exercise and diet, etc.), our study presents the ways in which users actively constitute masculine positions. Our search term ‘masculinity’ rendered numerous pages of ‘original posts’ which pertained specifically to defining masculinity.
So grad student Taylor selected 15 comments from a search for “masculinity” to support his predetermined goal, while ignoring %99.9999999999999 of all other comments. Is that what you call a “review”?
Taylor then interjected mind-numbing commentary on each of the carefully selected comments. For example, this load of gibberish about comment #11:
In the original post (Extract 11) the concept of a man that is both ‘who you are’ and ‘who you strive to be’ is introduced with an appeal to ‘embrace your masculinity’, again in the manner of a motivational call to arms to rally a general NoFap audience. However, the text indicates that it has been necessary for the author to hide aspects of his masculinity in the past to ‘not offend’. This disclosure positions certain expressions of masculinity as naturally offensive, or masculinity as a construct that has been vilified and judged to be problematic in its ‘natural’ form.
And this is what you, Dr. Prause, cite as a “review” of the entirety of reddit/nofap? LOL.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 30, 2018 – 10:38pm
They reported their systematic approach, a point you proved yourself by posting their method. You disclose nothing, were subject to no standards, made no attempt to observe in any systematic way…that is the difference between peer-review.
So yes, get it published or stick to your blogs, but there’s a reason you’ll never be able to publish your ramblings: They are poorly reasoned. I suspect this is because you have a conflict of interest. NoFap is a for-profit site; they make money by scaring people into having a problem they don’t actually have.
There was no “systematic approach” and it wasn’t a review. The paper wasn’t even a random sample of reddit/nofap posts. For the 4th time, grad student Taylor carefully selected excerpts from 15 out of context reddit comments (out of tens of millions) to match the narrative he already decided upon- and probably already transcribed (Taylor didn’t even provide full comments!).
As expected, you failed to respond to my very simple request to detail for us what a “review” of Reddit comments would entail. How would it be structured? Tell us about the methodology of a “review” of millions of comments over an 8 year period on a platform that allows everyone on the internet to post and say whatever they please.
It’s clear from your many comments here that you are obsessed with nofap (which is pretty strange). Waving around a grad student’s qualitative paper with 15 carefully selected, out-of-context excerpts from comments, while falsely asserting that it was “systematic review” of reddit/nofap comments is bad look. LOL
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 30, 2018 – 11:47pm
There actually is no such thing as just a “review”, there are many different types. Each have different criteria. This review fulfilled the requirements for what they were required to meet criteria for publication.
Yours has not. Hurling personal insults at a woman with a doctorate appears consistent with the NoFap community.
Get your ideas through peer-review, or you have nothing to contribute at this point.
Playing the victim, when you are the one attacking members of nofap in every comment, is also a very bad look.
How do you know that I am not a women or transgender?
How do you know that I do not have a doctorate?
You assumptions offend me, as do your personal attacks, your put-downs, and your inability to stay on subject: the Kris Taylor 15-comment opinion piece, that didn’t review anything.
Disappointing. I excepted more civility and better presentation of empirical evidence.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 31, 2018 – 12:22am
They passed a scientific bar in peer-review at a reputable journal. You can try to pass that bar. As-is, anecdotes likely written by you are not good counter-points to a peer-reviewed paper.
I am not coming here to be called names. Women can be misogynist the same as anyone else, unfortunately. I expect nothing less from a group with a documented history of misogyny. The comments from their paper are all still present on the website, so it seems NoFap is happy to support the misogyny, even when it’s been identified by independent third parties with no conflict of interest.
You continue to falsely state that Kris Taylor’s paper (an opinion piece by a grad student) was a review. It was not a review of the literature. It did not review the peer-reviewed literature related to anything, including anything to do with porn use.
You continue to falsely claim that the 15 comments were was magically representative of tens of millions of comments posted on reddit/nofap over the last 8 years. The paper clearly states that the 15 bits from carefully selected comments were not representative of reddit/nofap. From the paper:
“Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole”
I suggest reading a study before making claims about that study.
You continue to falsely claim that nofap has a “documented history of misogyny”. Not so. There is no “documented” history of anything related to reddit/nofap. To begin to document any pattern of attitudes or beliefs a quantitative, systematic assessment of comments by members of nofap would need to be done. It hasn’s been done. The Taylor paper did not do this as it was not quantitative and was not representative…. it wasn’t anything but 15 carefully selected comments to further the authors predetermined agenda
In addition, Kris Taylor failed to confirm if any of the comments were by members of npfap. Anyone can comment on reddit/nofap. Without confirmation of membership, your assertion, based on only 15 comments, is without support. No documentation exists for misogyny or anything else, and that includes Taylor’s paper.
Below are some of the 15 excerpts from Kris Taylor’s paper that Dr. Prause says documents the misogyny of all of reddit/nofap’s 370,000 members. Judge for yourself if these comments are misogyny at its very worse:
—-
No Fap is not only about overcoming our addiction over porn and masturbation, it is also about reconnecting with our inner masculinity. So lets come out of our fantasies and begin to connect with real women. Lets love them and have meaningful sex with them
—-
Real women, real life, real respect.
—–
My no Fap journey began when i couldn’t stay erect for a real life woman! That was 44 long hard days ago. Today i had sex for the first time.
—–
I hate how it makes me feel like a creep. I hate how it makes me feel like I am unworthy of love. I hate how it makes me feel weak when I finish. I hate how it makes me feel deprived of my core masculinity. I hate how it keeps me in my head, afraid of the challenges of the real world. I hate everything about porn, other than the fact that it seems pleasurable in the moment. So I will be finding my pleasure in real things from now on, because fuck porn and how it makes me feel.
—–
Good on you man. Remember this feeling, let it drive you and keep away from porn. There’s so many great real things to find pleasure in. The pleasure of connecting with people, the pleasure of exercise, the pleasure of reading, the pleasure of finding a girl you really like without seeing her as a sex object or worrying about sexual problems. All the best in your journey!
——
But I am beginning to realize I am only hurting myself by not constantly striving to be masculine and increase my masculine nature. It will affect some people, but it’s who I am at the core. So embrace your masculinity. For you and your (potential) lover.
—–
Think about what masculine means to you. Are you doing those things? You should be. Are you decisive? Do you know what you stand for? Do you know what you want, and can you find a way to get it? These are the traits you need to be cultivating. . . Pay deep attention to your internal monologue.
—-
Being a man means you are passionate, creative, you focus on solution and fixing. Don’t allow toxic shame to talk away that pride. Learn to self-affirm.
—-
You don’t have to be Heisman winner or national wrestler or something, just respect yourself and your own opinions
—–
As you should know, most fapstronauts partake for several different reasons. My reason for being a fapstronaut is to increase my masculinity, become stronger as a man, and learn who i really am.
—–
What in the world is masculine about jerking off to porn in front of a screen?
—-
That’s it folks. The above is the entirety of Dr. Prause’s empirical evidence that nofap is a “documented” to be a stronghold of misogyny. A handful of non-representative, out-of-context comments found through a search for the term “masculinity”, selected without any discernible criteria, by a grad student with an agenda. A handful of comments, posted on the 5th largest website in the US, by a few guys, who may or may not be nofap members – out of tens of millions possible comments. So devastatingly convincing.
Submitted by Nicole Prause on October 31, 2018 – 10:51am
As the misogynist, misrepresentations of this anonymous troll make clear, this is why I get rape threats and am stalked by NoFap followers.
I do not owe anyone an education on published science they refuse to publish themselves, so would encourage you to stop threatening female scientists online.
Wow. When confronted with study excerpts that refute your claims about the study you devolve into character assassination, name calling, ad hominem and playing the victim (even though you are no victim in this thread).
It has been very enlightening to observe your tactics and internet demeanor.
As Bart and others saw, Prause always engages in personal attacks and outlandish assertions, while simultaneously misrepresenting studies and fabricating tales of her own victimization.
Bart learned, as everyone eventually does, that if you engage Prause in a substantive debate she very quickly resorts to name calling, unsupported accusations, and misrepresentation of the research. Once again we see a licensed psychologist co-authoring an article and trolling the comments section to smear individuals who are trying to quit porn.
Ley’s Psychology Today blog post targeted Alexander Rhodes and Gary Wilson, both of whom are atheists and politically liberal. As is often the case, Ley’s claims are the exact opposite of reality. That’s how propagandists roll.
Others –October, 2018: Prause follows-up the “fascist” article by attacking & libeling Alexander Rhodes and Nofap.com on Twitter
Its important to keep in mind that Nofap isn’t an organization, or movement, or anything other than the practice of abstaining from porn and masturbation for a period of time. While the Nofap subreddit was started in 2011, the “NoFap” concept can be traced back the “No Fap Ironman Competition” (October 20th, 2006 on the North American Subaru Owners Club Forums). Nofap months, and abstaining-from-porn contests subsequently occurred on many internet forum, long before reddit/nofap was born (see a collection of such forums on this page). Even an 8-week militarily boot camp could be considered “nofap.” To claim that nofappers are X or Y is like claiming that all Dallas Cowboy fans are X or Y. Any attempt to label those who abstain from porn or masturbation as a unified group is pure agenda-driven propaganda. Which leads us to the Ley & Prause “nofappers are fascist” blog post.
While policing comments under her and Ley’s Psychology Today blog post, Prause simultaneously went on a Twitter tirade attacking and defaming Nofap, Alexander Rhodes, and Gary Wilson. A reminder: Prause and Ley have a long, documented history of harassing and libeling Alexander Rhodes and Nofap (The current examples are just the tip of the Prause/Ley iceberg.):
Prause’s Twitter storm started with baiting NoFap by misrepresenting tweets from over 3 years ago. (Note how Prause has collected tweets, comments, random posts, for years from various accounts and from porn recovery forums which she has trolled with dozens of fake accounts.)
Prause follows up her targeted harassment and falsehoods with more tweets.
Tweet #2 – About a biased paper by a anti-nofap.com, pro-porn grad student, Kris Taylor (described above)
As described, Kris Taylor carefully selected 15 comments (out of millions available) to advance his predetermined agenda-driven narrative.
In Tweet #3 Prause provides a screenshot of an account that is not associated with NoFap. An account that NoFap lawyers had already served with a cease and desist letter for using their name and for cyberstalking:
The official Nofap account responding to Prause’s harassment and defamation with this tweet:
Caught in blatant misrepresentation, Prause goes on the attack, suggesting that Nofap should police the entire internet for her benefit. Nofap replies with undeserved calmness:
With no provocation, Prause injects Gary Wilson into her Twitter tirade – saying that Wilson has physically stalked her and had been reported to the LAPD and UCLA. All of these familiar lies are covered in several other places on the Prause page. Here, Prause provides a screenshot of a 2016 Alexander Rhodes tweet defending Wilson from Prause’s lies. The entire incident, with screenshots, is documented in this section: Others – October, 2016: Prause commits perjury attempting to silence Nofap’s Alexander Rhodes.
Prause is steeped in the ways of propaganda: When someone calls you out on your lies and harassment (as Rhodes did), Prause turns it into her faux-victimization. Nofap responds and links to this page chronicling her behaviors.
Their Twitter conversation about Gary Wilson continues in this section:
——————————
Prause continues her tirade by posting screenshots from the right-wing site “Gab.” The Gab nutcases have no association with Nofap, yet Prause claims they are Nofap members (as if Nofap issues membership cards):
Nofap calmly responds to Prause as if she were a sincere individual with a legitimate concern. Yet imagine all the time Prause spent scouring internet forums and Twitter for any random comment she could misuse and misrepresent. Impressive.
David Ley, Prause’s companion in cyber-harassment, feels compelled to join in the attack, with his usual unsupported claims about the mighty and powerful “sex addiction industry” (no mention of the actual industry here – the truly mighty and powerful porn industry and the FSC):
Note: The mass shooting of Jews occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the home of NoFap.com founder, Alexander Rhodes.
Prause continues, promoting Kris Taylor’s PhD pathetic dissertation and saying that if her assertions weren’t true NoFap would sue her (knowing very well that a lawsuit might cost a few hundred thousand dollars, drag on for years – and that Nofap.com could not afford such an endeavor. Few could).
Nofap.com also responds to Prause’s assertions related to Kris Taylor’s paper containing 15 carefully selected out-of context comments from reddit/nofap (not NoFap.com):
Prause blatantly lies about Kris Taylor’s 15-comment hit piece, claiming it was a “representative sample” of the millions of reddit/nofap comments posted over the last 8 years:
No Dr. Prause, it wasn’t a “representative sample” – as Taylor clearly stated in his paper:
“Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole“
Claims about police reports are lies (see below). Claims about Antisemitism, sexism and other discrimination” are equally without support – Prause never links to examples of such posts on NoFap.com. Note: Nofap.com is not the same as reddit/nofap. Reddit is truly the Wild West where anyone on the internet can post anything. Prause well knows this as she has created at least 20 fake usernames to post on reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap. A few sections documenting Prause many aliases she has used:
As always, Prause accuses anyone who engages with her falsehoods and misrepresentations of being a misogynist. The attacker playing the victim. Propaganda in its purest form.
After 8 edits, Prause created another fake account – Suuperon – to delete a study showing the benefits of abstaining from porn, while adding more context to her other sock-puppets edits:
All the above Wikipedia edits mirror everything Prause said on twitter and in the comments section under the Prause/Ley Psychology Today article. The cybertsalker caught in the act….. again.
Tweet #1 – Prause scours NoFap.com to produce a random comment by an excessively polite Middle Eastern man referring to Gary Wilson as “professor.” In Prause’s bizzaro world, this comment constitutes “proof positive” that Gary Wilson claimed to be a professor! For more on Prause’s ongoing, evidence-free campaign, see Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials.
———
1) It’s been over 5 years and Wilson has never been contacted by any police department or agency (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. In early 2018, Prause added the tall-tale that Wilson was twice reported to the FBI. Wilson has never been contacted by the FBI. What’s next, the CIA, ICE, Homeland Security… maybe a mall cop?
No, LAPD records are not public. That is why Prause did not link to her “police report.” No, Wilson has never stalked Nicole Prause and hasn’t been in LA for years. No, there was no LAPD police report – as confirmed by a call with a kind-hearted policewoman at the LAPD.
UPDATES – law enforcement agencies expose Prause as a pathological liar:
If Prause keeps up her defamation and harassment of Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes and others, her name may soon appear 35,00 times on YBOP, as almost all instances are found on the pages chronicling her obsessive, unrelenting cyber-harassment:
All joking aside, Prause didn’t search Gary Wilson’s website, YourBrainOnPorn.com. She performed a purposely incorrect Google search for “prause site: yourbrainonporn.com” (leaving a space after the colon). Leaving the space tells Google to search the entire internet, not just YBOP! Her incorrect search did return 35,000 items, but the vast majority are not YBOP.
The proper syntax for such a Google search is to not have a space between “site:” and a URL, so “site:yourbrainonporn.com” is fine, but “site: yourbrainonporn.com” would search across the internet for either yourbrainonporn.com or the keyboard before it. On October 28, 2018 (the time of the above tweet) the proper results for “Prause” on yourbrainonporn.com is 565 mentions:
Frankly 565 seems too low for “Prause” on YBOP. Why does YourBrainOnPorn.com contain so many instances of “Prause”? First, the pages chronicling Prause’s behaviors alone contain hundreds of instances of “Prause.” Second, YBOP contains over 13,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. 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 31,000 pages. Perhaps thanks to her costly public relations firm, 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 that functions as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects.
Not only do Prause’s studies appear on YBOP, so do hundreds of other studies, many of which cite “Prause” in their reference sections. YBOP also has published very long critiques of six Prause papers. YBOP also hosts at least 18 peer-reviewed critiques of Prause’s studies. Further, YBOP contains at least a dozen lay critiques of Prause’s work. YBOP also hosts 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. To be sure, YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.
As for the 82,000 instances of “Prause” on my website (www.yourbrainonporn.com), this is absolutely false. As explained above, Prause cleverly employed the improper syntax to achieve 82,000. The proper syntax for such a Google search is to not have a space between “site:” and a URL, so “site:www.yourbrainonporn.com” is fine, but “site: wwwyourbrainonporn.com” would search across the internet for either wwwyourbrainonporn.com or the or Prause or both. Put simply, a proper search for my website – prause site:www.yourbrainonporn.com – returns only 871 instances. Most instances of “Prause” are on found the above pages documenting Dr. Prause’s defamation and harassment.
As for the other claims, Dr. Prause never reported me to the FBI, LAPD or UCLAPD, as documented in these 2 sections. She is lying and has been for years:
UPDATE 2: Trolling the twitter thread of anti-sex trafficking, radical feminist Laila Mickelwait, Prause repeats the same old lies in her two tweets (FBI reports, name on YBOP 82,000 times, stalking, sexual harassment, etc.).
Below: actual returns (2-25-19) using the proper syntax for a Google search for instances of “prause” on yourbrainonporn.com. Notice that the top returned pages are documenting Prause’s harassment or critiquing her peer-reviewed papers. The rise in instances of “Prause” is caused by YBOP adding more examples of her harassment and defamation to the Prause pages, and the creation of a page that exposes her close relationship with the pornography industry (Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?).
Both David Ley and Prause falsely claim that the person tweeting a few studies is a fake account account by Gary Wilson. It’s not.
Everything Ley and Prause said in the above tweets are lies.
Prause contiunes her rampage with this tweet about the TEDx talk:
We know that Prause harassed TED for 5 straight years… until their very biased “science curator” gave in (the curator only has a bachelor’s degree in writing, not science) and placed a bogus note on the talk. In reality everything in the TEDX talk is fully supported, with hundreds of additional studies supporting its assertion having been published since the talk was given (March, 2012). See these 2 extensive pages:
More of the same (March 29, 2019). First, Pause trolls a thread to support the porn industry agenda by misrepresenting the research, falsely stating the WE found that more porn use, in a few selected countries, was related to fewer reported rapes:
UPDATE (December, 2019): Adding Google Translate to YBOP multplies search returns by a factor of 100! (Prause commits perjury)
In court filings for Don Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against her, Prause commited numerous instances of perjury. One such instance was her falsely stating that her name appered 103,000 times on YBOP
As explained above, Prause did not search my website, YourBrainOnPorn.com. Instead, she performed a purposely incorrect Google search for “prause site: yourbrainonporn.com” (leaving a space after the colon). Leaving the space tells Google to search the entire internet, not just YBOP! Prause’s search trick does return about 29,000 items (not 103,000), but the vast majority are not on YBOP:
The proper syntax for such a Google search is to omit the space between “site:” and a URL Thus, “site:yourbrainonporn.com” works fine, but “site: yourbrainonporn.com” searches across the internet for either yourbrainonporn.com or “Prause”.
In December, 2019, the proper result for Prause and yourbrainonporn.com was 8,300 Google returns. However, the vast majority of these 8,300 google returns were duplicates of YBOP pages, because YBOP is translated by G-Translate into multiple other languages (and so each mention of Prause’s name is counted multiple times leading to vastly exaggerated numbers).
Let me explain: Because Google translates each YBOP page into 100 languages, a solitary mention on a single YBOP page can lead to a Google search returning 100 pages! In other words, you might need to divide Prause’s number by 100. For example, by the 10th page of a proper Google search for Prause on YBOP, 8 out of the 10 returns are duplicate pages in a foreign language:
In October, 2018,before YBOP was redesigned to employ Google Translate,the true result for “Prause” on yourbrainonporn.com was 565 mentions:
As explained above, 565 seemed low for “Prause” in October of 2018, as I was forced to create several pages to document and counter Prause’s relentless defamation and harassment of me and many others (which rapidly grew as Prause’s intensified and expanded:
Imporantt to note that mentions of “Prause” have increased significantly since October 2018, as Prause’s defamation and cyberstalking have risen exponentially. For example, on January 29, 2019, Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. In April 2019, Prause created a trademark infringing website “RealYourBrainOnPorn,” and a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn), a YouTube channel, and a Facebook page, all employing the words “Your Brain On Porn.” Prause also created a reddit account (user/sciencearousal) to spam porn recovery forums reddit/pornfree and reddit/NoFap with promotional drivel, claiming porn use is harmless, and disparaging YourBrainOnPorn.com and myself. Put simply, Prause has used her new alias (“RealYourBrainOnPorn”) to wage a full scale war on all her victims. As a result, I was forced to create these new YBOP pages:
Within a few months of creating RealYBOP, two defamation lawsuits were filed against Prause. The related documents for both defamation lawsuits (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes), were placed on YBOP, resulting is these pages:
While I get tired of documenting Prause’s activity, I know that YBOP is the one site willing to document Prause’s unbelievable behaviors. I have done this for the protection of her many victims, as a resource for the public to know the truth, and as a source of evidence for potential lawsuits (there are currently 3 lawsuits involving Prause). An ugly job, but unfortunately necessary.
Ongoing – David Ley & Nicole Prause’s ongoing attempts to smear YBOP/Gary Wilson & Nofap/Alexander Rhodes by claiming links with neo-Nazi sympathizers
The answer to “who knew?” is “Prause & Ley” because they were the only ones cultivating a fictitious “connection” between porn recovery forums and fascists. Starting in 2016 defamers Ley and Prause hatched this previously non-existent association. Apart from Prause & Ley’s Twitter pages no connection existed between Nazi sympathizers and Wilson or Rhodes. Ley & Prause initiated their fraudulent campaign with this tweet:
Scouring the internet for anything Ley can use to smear Wilson, he pounced upon an obscure (and disgusting) David Duke blog post containing a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Wilson’s TEDx talk has some 11 million views, so thousands of folks of all stripes have linked to (and recommended) Wilson’s talk, “The Great Porn Experiment.”
How does this implicate Gary Wilson as a “white supremacist?” It doesn’t, of course. This ridiculous assertion is like suggesting all dog lovers are Nazi’s because Hitler loved his dogs. It’s the equivalent of claiming that the producers of “The Matrix” are neo-Nazis because David Duke liked their movie. Pure BS. (Reminder: one of Ley & Prause’s closest allies (therapist Joe Kort) linked to and recommended Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Consider his words:
Does recommending “The Great Porn Experiment” make Joe Kort a neo-Nazi? It must, according the Ley/Prause doctrine of: if you like X, and a Nazi likes X, you are a Nazi.
Here’s Prause attempting to connect “racist pseudo-science” with anyone who says porn might be a problem, including Pamela Anderson (Prause later deleted her tweet):
In a disgusting tweet she later deleted, Prause tried to make a connection between the tragedies in Charlottesville and Gary Wilson:
The sickening Prause and Ley propaganda machine kept rolling with this David Ley tweet tagging an unrelated NYTimes article about neo-Nazi’s:
With no factual evidence, psychologist Ley tries yet again to connect far-left liberal/atheist Gary Wilson and far-right, former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke.
What Ley doesn’t know is that Wilson grew up in a black neighborhood and he has African-American relatives. Ley is without scruples.
————————–
Not to be outdone, Prause scours the net for anything she can mischaracterize and implies a non-existent connection between “anti-porn activism” and neo-Nazis.
In this next tweet, Ley takes the laughable stance that there’s no racism in porn, but says those who claim porn is addictive are racist, misogynist and anti-Semites. It’s part of the ongoing strategy to paint anyone who disagrees with them as racist and misogynistic perpetrators – and themselves and the porn industry as the victims:
As these pages reveal, it’s Dr. Prause who regularly attacks those “who claim porn is addictive” (Prause has zero evidence of anyone named on these pages having engaged in misogyny). For much more on this ongoing smear campaign by Prause and David Ley see these sections:
Prause & Ley search twitter for anything they can use to claim that anyone who quits using porn is a misogynist/fascist. Here Ley retweets Prause, and adds his spin:
This person, who is not affiliated with nofap or any other organization, appears to be reporting Instagram users for violating rules related to pornographic content. This appears to have drawn the attention of porn stars and Prause was notified. Whatever the case, Prause and Ley are working hard to keep their fabricated meme going.
Others –October, 2018: Prause tweets that she has reported “serial misogynist harasser” Alexander Rhodes to the FBI
As is clearly evident from the above sections, and several other sections on the 2 Prause pages, the only serial harasser here is Nicole Prause. There are no misogynists among the many Prause targets listed on these pages. While Prause regularly accuses her victims of being misogynists, she never provides a single example of such behavior.
The following day, Prause tweets that she reported Alexander Rhodes to the FBI because he is serial misogynist who “violated” a clear no-contact request:
On the same day (in response to one bart’s comments) Prause posts this in the comment section under her and Ley’s “fascist” Psychology Today blog post:
While Prause ends many of her targeted social media attacks by asserting a “no-contact request”, there is no such thing. A “no-contact request” is as legally binding as requesting someone “stop and smell the roses”.
Prause is trying to trick the public (her twitter followers) into believing she has obtained a restraining order or an injunction. She hasn’t. Its just a tweet. But that doesn’t stop her from publicly and falsely accusing her victims 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. Her aggressive tactics and knowingly false accusations are calculated to bully and intimidate the victims of her online cyber-harassment into silence.
A few examples of Prause initiating harassment and defamation followed by claiming victim-hood and ending with so-called “no-contact orders”:
Update: Both Gary Wilson and Alexander Rhodes filed FOIA requests with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report. She had not. See the following two sections:
Others – October, 2018: Prause claims that Fight The New Drug told its “followers” that Dr. Prause should be raped (section contains numerous additional defamatory & disparaging tweets by cyberstalker Prause)
Just when you think Prause’s assertions can’t get any more outlandish and defamatory she hits a new low. In the following two tweets Prause spreads the lie that Fight The New Drug (FTND) has told its followers that Prause should be raped. As is always the case, Prause provides zero evidence for this libelous and absurd assertion.
If there’s one thing we know about Prause, it’s that if she had so much as a single smidgen of innuendo she would post it as “evidence.” She doesn’t, and so this is a bare-faced, hateful lie. But it continues Prause’s obsessive pattern of spreading vicious falsehoods about FTND. Other such attacks are described in these sections:
Below is a small sampling of Prause’s many tweets defaming and disparaging FTND (Prause has since deleted almost all earlier tweets targeting FTND and others). Keep in mind that FTND never mentions Nicole Prause or engages with her hate speech on its social media platforms.
Afraid not. Prause is referring to her critique of Fight the New Drug’s previous op-ed, that she persuaded 7 of her PhD buddies to sign off on it. The 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. 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). Unlike the “neuroscientists of the Op-Ed,” the response cited several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature. Nevertheless Prause obsessively touts her 600 word, citation free opinion piece as on par with Darwin’s The Origin of Species.
———————
———————
We musn’t forget openly sexist and anti-science……..
————————
Prause can’t even get the number right – it was 8 PhD’s – but not all were neuroscientists, and none of them had ever published a study involving verified “pornography addicts.”
———————
————————
What?
———————-
Prause claims there’s article behind her quote, but it never materializes.
—————————-
Pure BS – nothing article remotely related to claim (no wonder only one person retweeted it)
—————————
Gibberish, and playing a victim with her info-graphic….while being the perpetrator
————————-
Ley joins Prause, as he often does:
——————–
Prause attacks Matt Fradd and FTND. Fradd is honored and takes her to school:
————————–
More false allegation, yet never any evidence:
————————
Prause tweeting her porn producer friends about her op-ed:
————————-
Again, Prause tweeting as if there was an article covering this – but there wasn’t:
Prause is citing her own flawed study, Prause et al., 2015, which debunked nothing. The results: Compared to controls “individuals experiencing problems regulating their porn viewing” had lower brain responses to one-second exposure to photos of vanilla porn. The lead author claims these results “debunk porn addiction.” What legitimate scientist would claim that their lone anomalous study has debunked a well established field of study? In reality, the findings of Prause et al. 2015 align perfectly with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn. Lower EEG readings mean that subjects are paying less attention to the pictures. Put simply, frequent porn users were desensitized to static images of vanilla porn. They were bored (habituated or desensitized). See this extensive YBOP critique. Nine peer-reviewed papers agree that this study actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users (consistent with addiction): Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015
Prause continues her tweets tagging and attacking FTND:
The above tweet has nothing do with what FTND has actually said (Prause never links to any examples), but it takes us back to Prause’s unsupported claims surrounding her 2013 EEG study (Steele et al., 2013): 1) Prause claimed that her subject’s brains did look like cocaine addicts, even though they were never compared to cocaine addicts; 2) Prause misrepresented her findings to the media, claiming her subject’s brains didn’t look like addicts, when they looked exactly like addicts. Eight peer-reviewed papers explain the truth: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013 Also see this extensive YBOP critique for all the details.
The bits about “cocaine” that expose Prause attacking (in 2018) the very behavior Prause-2013 engaged in, while simultaneously misrepresenting her findings:
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. This assertion is nowhere to be found in the actual paper. It’s only found in Prause’s PR interviews. In Prause’s study 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? I think it could be due to her preconceptions–what she expected to find.”
A month later John A. Johnson PhD published a Psychology Today blog post about Prause’s EEG study and what he perceived as biases on both sides of the issue. Nicole Prause (as anonymous) commented underneath his post taking Johnson to task for linking to this YBOP critique. Johnson replied with the following comment for which Prause had no response:
If the point of the study was to show that “all people” (not just alleged sex addicts) show a spike in P300 amplitude when viewing sexual images, you are correct–I do not get the point, because the study employed only alleged sex addicts. If the study *had* employed a non-addict comparison group and found that they also showed the P300 spike, then the researchers would have had a case for their claim that the brains of so-called sex addicts react that same as non-addicts, so maybe there is no difference between alleged addicts and non-addicts. Instead, the study showed that the self-described addicts showed the P300 spike in response to their self-described addictive “substance” (sexual images), just like cocaine addicts show a P300 spike when presented with cocaine, alcoholics show a P300 spike when presented with alcohol, etc.
—————-
Prause adds to the above tweet, with more false statements (as always, Prause links to no examples of misrepresentations – because there are none):
Prause’s falsehoods concerning FTND are exposed in her Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed attacking FTND. 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 support for our views in the form of several hundred studies and multiple reviews of the literature.
Follows up with free t-shirts to the other twitter trolls:
—————
A few examples of David Ley cyber-stalking FTND
Ley going out of his way to troll FTND:
————–
Over the years we have seen FTND state that it has received no funding from the Mormon Church. Not surprising, Politico provided no documentation for this assertion (not even a link to another hit piece). Was it simply fabricated, or fed to Politico?
————–
Notice how Ley can give no examples.
————–
Again, never an example of “pseudoscience”. Ley has never once excerpted an example from the FTND website.
Through FOI requests, Prause obtained Senator Weiler’s emails. She has excerpted one email, mischaracterized what it said and has tweeted it multiple times. Once again in 2019:
Email said that they should focus on protecting children, and not tell adults what they can or cannot do. Who would disagree with that?
RealYBOP (Prause aliases) cites an article by the Adult Video News (AVN) to disparage FTND. Sounds like someone is back tracking as no amount of editing could put words in the former porn star’s mouth (and he hasn’t asked FTND to take down the interview). Interview: Most Successful Male Porn Star Of All Time Speaks Out On Porn
While Prause and RealYBOP have posted countless times that FTND misrepresents studies, they never link to an example of misrepresentation. Never.
——————–
A RealYBOP (Prause) tweet that is unrelated to Fight The New Drug, cites Prause’s debunked op-ed disparaging FTND:
RealYBOP going to bat for the porn industry, while simultaneously attacking Fight The New Drug:
Data? RealYBOP failed to cite a single study. Here are six studies confirming mental and physical health problems of female performers.
——————–
November, 2019: RealYBOP randomly disparaging Fight The New Drug:
Tweet #1: The panelists for the Mormon Matters podcast lied about most everything.
Tweet #2: Several experts in this field and I 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.
—————————-
RealYBOP randomly disparaging Fight The New Drug:
Tweet #1: The panelists lied about most everything.
Tweet #2: Several experts in this field and I 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.
———————
December, 2019: RealYBOP uses 4 tweets to misrepresent a FTND article about a study:
The third opportunity for prevention identified by the young people related to the trouble they had managing pornography. Out of the 14 young people, 12 talked about being exposed to pornography and three talked about how pornography was one of the factors that triggered their harmful sexual behavior. They implied the likelihood of their harmful sexual behavior occurring could have been reduced if pornography had not been present.
The study’s authors:
“We can’t, on the one hand, say we don’t want to talk with young children about sexuality, while on the other hand do nothing about the multi-billion-dollar pornography industry and the telecommunications industry that is enabling access,” McKibbin added.
“It may be that government needs to intervene at this point. Pornography can’t be seen as the sole responsibility of parents or schools because it has gone way beyond that. We probably need to engage directly with the pornography industry and the telecommunications industry,” she said.
———————-
Cyberstalker and porn industry shill RealYBOP tweets in FTND thread under a porn star (RealYBOP has blocked FTND, but still trolls their threads). The tweet has nothing to do with FTND or its tweet. Instead, RealYBOP is once again defaming NoFap (NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes has filed a defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause – who is thought to be RealYBOP)
———————
RealYBOP uses 4 tweets to misrepresent a FTND article about a study:
The third opportunity for prevention identified by the young people related to the trouble they had managing pornography. Out of the 14 young people, 12 talked about being exposed to pornography and three talked about how pornography was one of the factors that triggered their harmful sexual behavior. They implied the likelihood of their harmful sexual behavior occurring could have been reduced if pornography had not been present.
The study’s authors:
“We can’t, on the one hand, say we don’t want to talk with young children about sexuality, while on the other hand do nothing about the multi-billion-dollar pornography industry and the telecommunications industry that is enabling access,” McKibbin added.
“It may be that government needs to intervene at this point. Pornography can’t be seen as the sole responsibility of parents or schools because it has gone way beyond that. We probably need to engage directly with the pornography industry and the telecommunications industry,” she said.
———————-
Porn industry shill RealYBOP/Prause tweeting propaganda by porn industry representative XBIZ while attacking FTND:
Original news segment: https://wset.com/news/local/pornography-the-new-gateway-drug
RealYBOP Cyberstalking FTND with her usual falsehoods and unsupported claims. First, RealYBOP has no idea who FTND “works with”. Second, strengthening pathways is called sensitization (cue-reactivity & cravings). Sensitization alters numerous synapses connecting various aspects of the reward system, which results in increased “wanting” or craving while liking or pleasure diminishes. As of 2020 there 24 neuroscience-based studies reporting sensitization or cue-reactivity in porn users/sex addicts: 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
There are more tweets, but this will suffice to expose Prause as an obsessive cyberstalker.
Ongoing – Prause falsely states that FTND said her research was funded by the porn industry (attempting to divert attention from her own documented porn-industry associations)
Several 2018 tweets attacking FTND contain the same text and two screenshots: 1) an excerpt from a Politico article asserting that FTND was “seeded with millions of dollars from the Mormon Church”; 2) an excerpt from an email that may or may not have been sent by FTND:
Again, the same tweet (November, 2018):
Over the years we have seen FTND state that it has received no funding from the Mormon Church. Not surprising, Politico provided no documentation for this assertion (not even a link to another hit piece). Was it simply fabricated, or fed to Politico?
Apart from offering no support for her Mormon-funding assertion, Prause’s screenshots of the purported email are a bit curious. Instead of providing a screenshot of an entire email, Prause provides a screenshot of a letterhead, and a second screenshot of an out-of-context paragraph.
The letterhead:
The out-of-context paragraph, which did not, in fact, claim that Prause’s research was funded by the porn industry:
Instead of saying Prause’s research was funded by the porn industry, the email wondered if Prause had been “influenced by someone within the porn industry.” Mind you, this email is dated April, 2016, before Nicole Prause exponentially increased her harassment and libel (as documented on these pages).
While there’s no evidence of any of Prause’s victims stating that Prause receives funding from the porn industry, anyone might be forgiven for wondering if she is indeed influenced by the porn industry. The Prause pages on this website are just the tip of a very large Prause Iceberg. She has posted thousands of times, attacking everyone and anyone who suggests porn might cause problems. (Prause recently purged her twitter account of 3,000 or more incriminating tweets.) She has defended the industry at every turn, much as a paid industry thought-leader could be expected to do.
“The XRCO Awards are given by the American X-Rated Critics Organization annually to people working in adult entertainment and it is the only adult industry awards show reserved exclusively for industry members.[1]“
In addition, the FSC (which has spent millions on lawsuits that benefit the porn industry) offered Prause assistance with respect to her so-called “bullies.”
\
The real bully was Prause, who had her Twitter account permanently banned for harassment and cyber-stalking. Instead of revealing the facts, Prause fabricated a tall-tale that John Adler MD (Stanford) somehow got her kicked off Twitter. Adler had nothing to with this. Lies upon lies.
In October, 2015 Prause emailed the FSC to accept their “help” with her imaginary bullies. Prause then promptly begins to discuss with another industry account why condoms in porn are a bad idea (the porn industry’s position):
Prause then offers help to the FSC (is this the beginnings of a mutually beneficial relationship?):
Since then, Prause has publicly assisted the FSC multiple times, including for example, supporting the FSC’s campaign against California’s ill-fated Proposition 60 (calling for condom use in porn):
——————-
Here she retweets FSC propaganda. (Note: dozens of Prause’s incriminating pro-FSC tweets have since been deleted.):
—————-
Smearing the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, while taking the side of porn industry reps:
FYI – During the initial broadcast of NBC’s Tomorrow Coast-to-Coast with Tom Snyder, Marigold said he would consider performing a sex scene with his own daughter. When asked if he would allow his daughter to enter the porn business, Margold replied, “Not until she’s eighteen. And then I might even work with her myself.”
Prause retweets XBIZm celebrating the demise of The Pink Cross Foundation (hated by the porn industry)
——————–
Once again, Prause enters threads of porn performers to bolster their arguments:
——————
Prause provides advice to a porn performer:
—————-
Prause tweet attacking studies reporting greater trauma in porn performers:
—————-
Once again retweeting the FSC, and lending her spin to the mix. As usual, any science Prause disputes is disreputable, while her own heavily criticized research is indisputable, even when it opposes the preponderance of expert evidence:
Prause re-tweeting AVN, who was complaining about Dallas rejecting their convention:
——————-
Prause posing with two well known porn stars:
—————
In this tweet, Prause attacks a grad student who is trying to gather data about porn performers:
Prause reported him to his university.
———————-
Yet another tweet in which Prause promotes AVN’s position on Prop 60:
——————
Retweeting AVN news:
—————
Prause describing her experiences “at AVN”:
——————
Prause describing her time spent with another pornography legend:
——————-
Again, citing a single outlier study, with a very small sample, to support the porn industry’s contention that performers are doing fine:
——————–
Retweeting porn industry propaganda, telling the world that there is no sexism in the porn industry:
Prause contends that porn-recovery sites are sexist – as is everyone who disagrees with her or anyone who critiques her studies or assertions.
—————————-
Prause tagged by PornHub. Very buddy-buddy convo:
—————–
More direct support for porn industry views:
——————
Why would a supposedly impartial researcher be tweeting about a porn performer union?
——————-
Again interacting with performers, as if she has inside connections:
——————–
Major porn producer calling Prause “our superheroine,” which Prause acknowledges:
—————
Retweets XBIZ propaganda, attacks AIDS Healthcare Foundation: https://twitter.com/AIDSHealthcare
In support of the porn industry, Prause retweets porn-producer propaganda. Prause attacks AIDS Healthcare Foundation:
—————-
Convo with porn performer/producer claiming that “anti-porn” is misogynist, yet porn performers are not:
—————
Promoting AVN/porn show:
—————–
Tagging FSC, retweeting porn industry propaganda:
—————–
Tagging FSC while attacking a UCLA medical doctor who supported the use of condoms for porn performers:
Here she answers again as if she is an expert on the porn industry. Prause’s propaganda is that porn industry is poor, and that many “harassers” say her research is funded by the porn industry:
Prause has never provided any documentation of anyone saying she is funded by the porn industry. The claim that her science has not been challenged is laughable as there are 12 peer-reviewed critiques of her flawed studies and her unsupported claims about them:Questionable & Misleading Studies.
—————–
Add to the above examples hundreds of social media attacks and behind the scenes harassment of any researcher, person, or organization reporting less than stellar effects of porn use or performing in porn. Just a few examples of 2,000 or more similar tweets (most of which have since been deleted):
And on and on it goes with Nicole Prause and the porn industry. For many more exmaples of Prause’s intimate relationships with members of the porn industry and her support of porn industry agendas see – Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?.
Is it any surprise that FTND, or anyone else, might wonder if Prause, a former academic with a long history of harassing authors, researchers, therapists, reporters and others who dare to report evidence of harms from internet porn use, who lives in LA, who has obtained study subjects through the FSC, who hangs out with big names in the industry, who attends porn industry award ceremonies, and who has publicly been offered (and accepted) support by the FSC, might be influenced by the porn industry?
Again, no one has claimed Prause receives direct funding from the FSC. In fact, it seems most unlikely that the FSC would make any such arrangements directly, let alone make them public, even if they did exist. Nor has anyone stated that Prause is “in the porn industry” or “has, herself appeared in pornograpy“, as she falsely asserted in her bogus cease and desist letters, and in her response to Don Hilton, MD’s defamation lawsuit. See:
Beginning in July, 2013 (a few days after Wilson published his careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study) various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever Gary Wilson’s name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and that “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.”
Very shortly, Prause, as herself, began to claim that a “person” had been reported to the police for physically stalking her, threatening her lab, mapping a route to her lab (whatever that means), and other vague fabrications.
By 2016, as Prause was no longer employed by UCLA or any other institution that could rein in her cyber-harassment, she finally began to identify Gary Wilson as the “person” she had reported to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police.
The facts? It has been over 5 years since her harassment began, and Wilson has never been contacted by a police department. Wilson had always presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a Gary Wilson, nor any report filed by a Nicole Prause. Apparently Prause knows better than to waste authorities’ time with baseless complaints.
In 2018, Prause upped her game, claiming on social media (and probably in emails to journalists, conference organizers, and colleagues) that she had reported Wilson to the FBI for “physically stalking” her. This is absurd as Wilson hasn’t been in Los angles for years. Prause has even claimed that Wilson was seen outside her window.
In late October, 2018 Prause added yet another victim to her list of defamation targets. She claimed to have reported NoFap.com founder Alexander Rhodes to the FBI for calmly responding to her defamatory barrage of sickening tweets (see above).
In late October, Gary Wilson filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming him. She had not. Below you will find:
1) A copy of an FOIA request regarding Nicole R. Prause,
2) A letter from the FBI stating that no such report exists, and
3) Several screenshots documenting Prause falsely claiming to have reported Gary Wilson to the FBI.
Sadly, social media comments by Prause’s colleagues indicate that some actually believe she has been stalked and threatened. The facts are that she has been entirely dishonest, unprofessional and unethical in her relentless efforts to defame the blameless.
FOIA request regarding Nicole R. Prause (screenshot of email sent from FBI)
The “additional information” section asks if an FBI report has been filed on Gary Wilson (naming Prause). As you can see from the letter below, there is no FBI report.
————————————
Letter from FBI confirming that Prause never filed an FBI report on Gary Wilson:
———————————–
Prause has been lying for years about reporting Gary Wilson to the “police” or FBI – and she continues her lies to this day. Below is a sampling of Prause tweets and comments asserting that she reported Wilson to the FBI.
The following is taken from the comments section under ICD-11 new proposal for “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.” Prior to the release of the “implementation version, ” a beta draft of the ICD-11 was put online, and made available for interested parties to comment on. (A simple sign-up is needed to view and participate.) Note: Prause has posted more comments in the beta-draft comment section than everyone else combined. Several Prause comments mention Gary Wilson, even though he never posted a comment. In this comment Prause falsely states that anyone is welcome to review the FBI, UCLPD, and LAPD files on Gary Wilson.
Prause never provides a link to, or a screenshot of, her many “public police and FBI reports” because they do not exist.
———————————–
Again, Prause offers the world her non-existent police and FBI reports:
————————————
In a sad and disgusting ploy, Prause convinced a site devoted to battered women that she too was a victim, and had reported the man from Oregon (where Wilson lives) to the police and FBI. They featured Prause’s tale of victim-hood in an article about social media safety. Relevant excerpt:
While the article did not name Wilson, various tweets and Prause’s Amazon pages reveal that Prause is referring to Wilson.
Wilson: “Needless to say, I have never mapped out a route to her location, or even been in LA since I have known of her existence. Nor are there FBI or police reports naming me. All her claims are fiction except for the part about her name being on my website multiple times, which are primarily on the pages chronicling her defamation and harassment.”
Prause tweeting about her “frightening cyber-stalker”:
————————————
In her 25 tweet tirade against NoFap (chronicled in this section), Prause directs gratuitous insults toward Gary Wilson and the multiple police and FBI reports she supposedly filed (Wilson was never mentioned by Nofap.com):
Prause scoured NoFap.com to produce a random comment by an excessively polite Middle Eastern man who referred to Gary Wilson as “professor.” In Prause’s bizzaro world, this comment constitutes “proof positive” that Gary Wilson claimed to be a professor (Prause’s false claims debunked here: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials).
This is one of 20 comments about Gary Wilson (or Wilson’s wife) that Prause posted under a “Mormon Matters” podcast: 353–354: Championing the “Addiction” Paradigm with Regard to Pornography/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 and Gary Wilson.
All of the many comments under podcast: 353–354, including several libelous ones by Prause, have mysteriously disappeared.
Even after the above documentation from the FBI proving that Prause is lying about reporting either Gary Wilson or Alexander Rhodes to the FBI, Prause continues to spread her lies. On a Sunday she Trolls the twitter thread of anti-sex trafficking, radical feminist Laila Mickelwait, repeating the same old lies in her two tweets (FBI reports, name on YBOP 82,000 times, stalking, sexual harassment, etc.).
December, 2018: Gary Wilson files an FBI report on Nicole Prause
As documented on these two pages, Nicole Prause has been claiming since 2013 that she reported me to the LAPD. In the last few years Prause has tweeted dozens of times that she has also reported me (and others) to the FBI (for what, it was never clear). In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).
Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause began tweeting she had reported me to the FBI and LAPD. Just know that I have screenshots of about 500 Prause tweets defaming me. It is Prause who is the cyber-stalker. While I wouldn’t have put it past Prause to file false police and FBI reports, it wasn’t until 2016 that I contacted the LAPD. In a phone conversation I asked if a police report by a Nicole Prause, or on Gary Wilson, was in their database. None were. This is documented in this section: Ongoing – Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson
Note: while Prause claimed to have filed a police report all the way back in 2013, she provided you with an April, 2018 LAPD report. Put simply, Prause had been lying for 5 years. While the LAPD will not provide written documentation of police reports, the FBI will. In October, 2018 I filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming me. As expected the FOIA revealed that Prause has never filed a FBI report, even though she has tweeted this multiple times and posted this same claim on the FTND Facebook page (see this section May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice).
In talking to FBI agents on the phone I was encouraged to file an official FBI report on Nicole Prause. Which I did. Put simply, while Prause filed a silly police report (its not a crime to screenshot defamatory tweets), I was encouraged by an FBI agent to report Prause to both the FBI and the LAPD. My FBI report, which I have yet to place on the Prause pages, is below in a series of screenshots. The last screenshot is my signature confirming that I am aware that lying to the FBI is serious crime:
Ongoing – Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing a police report on Gary Wilson
As recounted in the preceding section, starting in July, 2013 (a few days after Wilson published his careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study) various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever Gary Wilson’s name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and “Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site”,a nd that “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.” Very shortly, Prause, as herself, began to claim that a “person” had been reported to the police for physically stalking her, threatening her lab, mapping a route to her lab (whatever that means), and other vague fabrications.
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?The facts? 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.
It has been over 5 years since Prause’s harassment began, and Wilson has never been contacted by a police department. Wilson had always presumed that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again.In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a Gary Wilson, nor any report filed by a Nicole Prause. Apparently Prause knows better than to waste authorities’ time with baseless complaints.
Below we provide a sampling of Prause and her many internet aliases posting that Gary Wilson had been reported to the police for “stalking”, “stealing photos” or over-all badness (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).
Prause also posted PDF’s – with all her lies – on document sites in late July, 2013.
—————————-
After 3 years of hiding behind fake usernames, and freed of any employer, Prause starts tweeting the same lies that as her many aliases – Gary Wilson’s been reported to the police, and has a no-contact order, etc:
No, Wilson did not contact Prause.
—————————-
—————————-
Tweeting her talk about her (non-existent) victim-hood:
——————————-
Tweeting her colleagues that she has been threatened, yet Prause never provides documentation.
Once again, using any opportunity to claim victimhood:
——————————–
Prause’s presentations at major conferences include her false tales of being stalked and needing to file police reports:
———————————
Another talk, at her alma mater (Kinsey Institute) detailing fabricated attacks and nonexistent misogyny:
——————————–
After her UCLA contract was “not renewed” (early 2015), Prause escalated into naming Wilson as “the stalker” she had reported to police.
Let’s start the “info-graphic” that Prause has tweeted about 40 times in the last two years. Link to Prause’s amazon page – https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/SexismInNeuroscience.jpg
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, Don Hilton, or Marnia Robinson 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.
NOTE:
1) Not a single Prause claim is supported by documentation. The only bits of evidence she provides are her spurious cease and desist letters with their false allegations.
2) Nearly every tweet below (and hundreds more of a similar nature) HAVE SINCE BEEN DELETED BY PRAUSE. If Prause were truly a victim of Wilson and others, why did she purge her twitter feed?
Here Prause accuses everyone of stalking:
—————————-
Names Wilson as “The Cyberstalker” on Quora. Prause was ultimately banned from Quora for harassing Wilson. The claims about Wilson misrepresenting himself are lies and based on a web page that no longer exists, and was most likely created by Prause:
Who’s doing the stalking when Wilson never tweets about Prause yet she has tweeted about Wilson over 500 times as herself, and commented about Wilson with over 100 internet aliases (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).
—————————-
More lies about police reports:
—————————-
Armed guards:
—————————-
Just like the earlier aliases, Prause claims stolen photos, stalking, and armed guards:
—————————-
The twitter convo is about Wilson:
—————————-
More lies about threats and non-existent police reports:
—————————-
Tagging researchers with her false tale of being ‘physically stalked”
As explained elsewhere most instances of “Prause” occur on the pages chronicling Prause’s harassment and libel.
—————————-
Prause is a regular commentator under Psychology Today blog posts. Sometimes she uses her name, often she does not. Either way, Prause cannot engage in substantive debate. She usually responds with personal attacks and unsupported claims of victim-hood.
A sampling of 20 comments about Gary Wilson (or Marnia Robinson) that Prause posted under a “Mormon Matters” podcast: 353–354: Championing the “Addiction” Paradigm with Regard to Pornography/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 and Gary Wilson.
Over and over Prause falsely claims that Wilson has a “no-contact order” (she doesn’t, and there is no such thing). Prause always asserts she has a imaginary no-contact order, or FBI report, or police report, because she cannot engage in actual debate.
Here lies about “police reports”, stalking, that Wilson said she papered in porn (LOL), etc:
—————————-
More of the same falsehoods, incuding stalking, no-contact orders, etc.
—————————-
Prause falsely claims that Gary Wilson is a stalker legally prohibited from commenting anywhere on the internet.
—————————-
Once again Prause points out that her name appears on YBOP over 2,000 times, failing to mention that most instances occur on the 5 pages chronicling Prause’s behaviors:
Others – November, 2018: Prause resumes her unprovoked, libelous attacks on NoFap.com & Alexander Rhodes
Nicole Prause’s obsessive cyber-harassment of Nofap.com and founder Alexander Rhodes (and men trying to quit porn) resumed even after her multiple unmerited attacks in October, 2018. Right after Thanksgiving Prause tweeted Huffpost journalist Andy Campbell with her usual concoction of falsehoods and guilt-by-association ad hominem fallacies:
As described above, Alexander Rhodes debunked Prause’s malicious attempts to assert guilt-by-association by citing Twitter users who do not represent Nofap.com and are not members of Nofap.com. (In fact, Nofap.com had sent the Twitter account cited by Prause (“NoFap ResistanceArmy”) a cease and desist letter.)
Once again we have the cyber-stalker and harasser playing the victim. Propaganda in its purest form.
Others – December, 2018: Prause joins Xhamster to smear NoFap & Alexander Rhodes; induces Fatherly.com to publish a hit-piece where Prause is the “expert”
Prause’s obsessive cyber-stalking and defamation of Alexander Rhodes and Nofap continue. Apparently, Prause’s expensive PR firm and query bombardment of media outlets resulted in yet another hit piece, published by Fatherly.com (written by Lauren Vinopal). The “journalist” did little more than copy and paste Prause’s Twitter threads, quoting her as the world’s expert on everything related to Nofap.com, reddit/nofap, and men trying to quit porn.
First, here’s the barrage of unprovoked tweets, which mirrors previous unsupported drivel in this same “quitting porn causes fascism” (huh?) press campaign. Prause’s first tweet is on the Xhamster thread smearing Nofap. Prause falsely states that Rhodes “worked with” VICE founder Gavin McGinnes:
On the other hand, Prause joined Xhamster’s thread with the above tweet. Does this mean she is “working with” a major porn site to attack a porn-recovery forum (again)? This occurred after Xhamster complained to the world that NoNut November was affecting its bottom line:
Here’s a second Prause tweet in the Xhamster thread, where she spreads more of her toxic misinformation and tells Xhamster to Direct Message her:
What is true? Nicole Prause appears to be “working with” Xhamster to spread falsehoods about Nofap, Alex Rhodes, and Gary Wilson. For much more on Prause’s very cozy relationship with the porn industry, see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?
On the same day Prause repeats her lies on a Sarah Manavis thread promoting the Manavis article attacking Nofap, supporting Xhamster, and parroting everything Prause has tweeted in the previous 3 weeks:
It’s highly suspicious that Sarah Manavis somehow knew about a random xHamster Twitter thread, that her hit piece closely mirrors Prause talking points, and that Manavis did not contact Alexander Rhodes for comment. Did Prause “work with” Sara Manavis behind the scenes?
A few days later Prause crows about the Fatherly.com piece she helped with:
“I think ‘No Nut November’ is largely anti-science,” psychophysiologist and neuroscientist Nicole Prause, told Fatherly. “The new designation, and it is hardly a tradition, appears supported most by the for-profit NoFap company, some religious organizations, and groups like Proud Boys. These are largely known for their very young male members and misogyny.”
More lies as NoFap.com had nothing to do with NoNutNovember, and claims that there’s a link between quitting porn and misogyny are the exact opposite of what the research shows and what men on the forums report.
The truth? The origins of NoNutNovember, and other “no fap” months, can be traced to a 2006 Subaru Imprezza thread. This was going on long before r/nofap was created on June 20th, 2011. Note that NoFap’s guidelines say porn is forbidden, but sex is just great. Not exactly a trend that XHamster, or its supporters, want to see. After all, it hurts their bottom line…by their own public admission.
Just for the fun of it, Prause adds another tweet (with the same lies) into the mix:
Gotta give it up to Prause. It appears that with the aid of her PR firm, and apparently Xhamster, her tireless work paid off. It all started with Ley’s (and her) inflammatory Psychology Today blog post… and eventually mushroomed into a propaganda meme that “the little ol’ porn industry is the victim of evil younguns who no longer watch porn.” Sadly, this fabricated meme has now been recklessly pumped up by irresponsible “journalists” who are able to disregard facts, common sense, and peer-reviewed studies.
April 25, 2019 – Ley retweets a Xhamster tweet of his fascist PT blog post:
Update: This section is now part of two defamation lawsuits:
Conflicts of interest (COI) are nothing new for David Ley. Lawyers pay him good money to “debunk” sex & porn addiction; he sells books “debunking” sex & porn addiction; he collects speaking fees for “debunking” sex & porn addiction. All this while harassing and defaming individuals and organizations who speak up about the possible negative effects of internet porn.
However, Ley officially has now crossed the line. In a blatant financial conflict of interest, David Ley is being compensated by porn industry giant xHamster to promote their websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths! Notice how Ley is going to tell xHamster customers what “medical studies truly say about porn, camming and sexuality”:
The fledgling Sexual health Alliance (SHA) advisory board includes David Ley and two other RealYourBrainOnPorn.com “experts” (Justin Lehmiller and Chris Donaghue). RealYBOP is a group of openly pro-porn, self-proclaimed “experts” headed by Nicole Prause. This group is currently engaged in illegal trademark infringement and squatting directed toward the legitimate YBOP. Put simply, those trying to silence YBOP are also being paid by the porn industry to promote its/their businesses, and assure users that porn and cam sites cause no problems. (Note: Nicole Prause has close, public ties to the porn industry as documented on this page.)
In this article, Ley dismisses his compensated promotion of the porn industry:
Granted, sexual health professionals partnering directly with commercial porn platforms face some potential downsides, particularly for those who’d like to present themselves as completely unbiased. “I fully anticipate [anti-porn advocates] to all scream, ‘Oh, look, see, David Ley is working for porn,’” says Ley, whose name is routinely mentioned with disdain in anti-masturbation communities like NoFap.
But even if his work with Stripchat will undoubtedly provide fodder to anyone eager to write him off as biased or in the pocket of the porn lobby, for Ley, that tradeoff is worth it. “If we want to help [anxious porn consumers], we have to go to them,” he says. “And this is how we do that.”
David J. Ley, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and AASECT-certified supervisor of sex therapy, based in Albuquerque, NM. He has provided expert witness and forensic testimony in a number of cases around the United States. Dr. Ley is regarded as an expert in debunking claims of sexual addiction, and has been certified as an expert witness on this topic. He has testified in state and federal courts.
Contact him to obtain his fee schedule and arrange an appointment to discuss your interest.
Conflict of Interest #3: Ley makes money selling two books that deny sex and porn addiction (“The Myth of Sex Addiction,” 2012 and “Ethical Porn for Dicks,” 2016). Pornhub (which is owned by porn giant MindGeek) is one of the five back-cover endorsements listed for Ley’s 2016 book about porn:
Conflict of Interest #4: Finally, David Ley makes money via CEU seminars, where he promotes the addiction-deniers’ ideology set forth in his two books (which recklessly(?) ignore dozens of studies and the significance of the new Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis in the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual). Ley is compensated for his many talks featuring his biased views on porn use. In this 2019 presentation Ley appears to support and promote adolescent porn use: Developing Positive Sexuality and Responsible Pornography Use in Adolescents.
Others – December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes
As is clearly evident from the above sections, and several other sections on the 2 Prause pages, the only serial harasser here is Nicole Prause. There are no misogynists among the many Prause targets listed on these pages.
Backstory: Prause has a long history of claiming to have reported Gary Wilson to the LAPD, the UCLAPD, and the FBI, for “stalking” or “misogyny” or who knows what (as have Prause’s many sockpuppets). To convince the world that she filed police and FBI reports, Prause even offers “case numbers” to those who DM or email her. Here’s one of her many tweets claiming FBI reports:
While Prause is plainly capable of filing false police reports, the FBI, LAPD and UCLAPD have all confirmed that she hasn’t dared. She must realize that filing bogus reports could land her in a lot of trouble.
Back to Alexander Rhodes and Nofap. After her October 29 tweet claiming she had filed an FBI report, Prause escalated her harassment and defamation of Rhodes on Twitter and in the press. As seen below, she began by contacting a journalist and a popular porn site to let them know that Alexander Rhodes was (purportedly) under investigation by the FBI because of a report that she had submitted about him. Prause’s assorted tweets suggest the FBI report was for cyber-harassment or cyber-stalking or some other nonsense, after @NoFap refuted her lies about Rhodes being affiliated with an extremist group on Twitter. (He’s not.)
Prause tweets on a Sarah Manavis thread promoting the Manavis article attacking Nofap, supporting Xhamster, and parroting everything Prause had tweeted on the subject during the previous 3 weeks:
———————
On the same day, Prause tweeted in an XHamster thread, where she spread more of her toxic defamation and told XHamster to Direct Message her:
———————
Another Prause tweet on the XHamster thread smearing Nofap. Prause falsely states that Rhodes “worked with” VICE founder Gavin McGinnes.
Given the seriousness of Prause’s allegations against him, Alexander Rhodes submitted a Freedom of Information request to the FBI to inquire about possible reports about himself.He submitted the following request on November 27:
———————
And….. the verdict is in. Rhodes got word back from the FBI. Prause was lying about his FBI report, too.
———————
Prause has been lying for years about reporting Gary Wilson to “the police” and the FBI – and she continues her lies to this day, defaming yet another victim. As it did with Wilson, the FBI confirmed that Prause is lying about filing an FBI report on Alexander Rhodes (for defending himself against Prause’s obsessive, and suspiciously persistent, defamation).
It’s 2019 and Prause is back at it with false accusation of reparative therapy. As in all previous instances Prause falsely accuses a gay man of performing conversion therapy. In the following string of bizarre tweets, Prause suggests that gay therapist Daniel P Caldwell is a reparative therapist:
Even avid fan Tony D is a bit confused by Prause’s bizarre tweet. Prause replies:
A few days later Daniel Caldwell confronts Prause. She tweets he’s a fake account:
Coming out is a very personal process. I am experienced in helping individuals face their sexuality in a way that will respect their personal goals and beliefs and help them find a path that will make them the happiest and help them to find the healthiest way to do that.
How can Prause continue to hold a license while engaging in targeted defamation of fellow therapists?
Update: Prause & allies continue their libelous campaign
Two lies in one tweet: 1) No Nikky, treating porn addiction is not analogous to conversion therapy. 2) Wrong, The world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”
What’s fake is Prause alluding to seeing patients. Prause has stated multiple times that she sees no patients.
February, 2019: Confirmation that Prause lied to the organizers of the European Society for Sexual Medicine conference, causing the ESSM to cancel Gary Wilson’s keynote address
In the Fall of 2017, the Scientific Chairs of the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine, organized by the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) and the European Society for Sexual Medicine (ESSM), invited Gary Wilson to speak at their combined conference in Lisbon, Portugal. Unlike sexology conferences, the speakers and attendees at this one are primarily medically oriented urologists. The conference committee wanted Gary Wilson to present about porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. Wilson was, after all, the second author on the highly cited “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports” and had given a very popular TEDx talk, “The Great Porn Experiment”, which touched on porn-induced ED. A screenshot of the formal invitation:
The committee wanted Wilson to be a keynote speaker, and proposed a talk entitled “The Great Porn Experiment (Revisited).” It was ultimately decided that the talk would be entitled, “Porn-Induced Sexual Dysfunctions.” It would be modeled on Wilson’s July, 2017, Mexico City presentation to urologists.
In relation to Prause’s later online assertions it’s important to point out that Wilson reminded the organizing committee that he did not have a PhD or MD.The committee assured him this was not a problem, and insisted Wilson present. Here’s the email confirming this account:
As you read Prause comments below, note that she falsely claims in multiple tweets that Wilson gave “false credentials” to the ESSM committee. This is clearly not true.
Here’s a screenshot, taken from the 2018 ISSM/ESSM conference website, of Gary Wilson’s scheduled talk. This was placed on their conference website in late October, for everyone to see, including Nicole Prause.
On January 12th, 2018, Wilson’s talk was cancelled, without explanation. The ISSM reimbursed Wilson for travel expenses already incurred, which it certainly would not have done had actual fraud been involved.
Although an explanation would have been interesting, Wilson didn’t really need one. Prause’s 6 years of harassment and behind the scenes maneuvering left no doubt as to who was behind the cancellation. Not only Prause, but most likely with the help of her chum and co-author Jim Pfaus (ISSM member), a sexologist who appears to have been a long-time influence at the ISSM.
As Wilson engaged in no wrongdoing, Prause apparently fabricated some crazy lies to scare off the ISSM (in keeping with her pattern of behavior documented on this page). Conjecture about two of these below.
Twelve days later (January 24, 2018) Prause admits to David Ley that Gary Wilson was “removed for an actual good reason from a conference.” (She’s the only one who seems to “know” this.)
This is a double lie. He was not removed for “an actual good reason.” As an aside, Prause’s claim that Wilson posted on Quora more “than a hundred times in the last month” is also false. In his 4 years on Quora, Gary Wilson only posted 122 times:
Between the time that Wilson received the email from the ISSM committee (1-12-2018), and Prause’s Facebook comment above (1-24-18), Wilson posted exactly zero times on Quora. A screenshot of Gary Wilson’s timeline of Quora posts (available here):
A few months later a Prause tweet alludes to having Wilson removed (“no-platformed”) from the ISSM conference (for supposedly presenting fake credentials. More on that below).
On February 16, 2019, a sexual medicine specialist presented a talk at the 21st Congress of the European Society for Sexual Medicine on the Internet’s impact on sexuality. (This is the same conference to which Wilson was (un)invited a year earlier.) A few slides describing porn-induced sexual problems, citing Park et al., 2016, were tweeted. The tweets caused Nicole Prause, David Ley, Joshua Grubbs and their allies to initiate a Twitter-rage on Park et al., 2016.
Several of Prause’s tweets allude to a keynote address by Gary Wilson scheduled for the 2018 ESSM conference. Let’s start With Josh Grubbs and Prause teaming up to attacking Park et al., 2016. Once again Prause says that Wilson “gave false credentials” to the ESSM conference (accompanied by a picture of Gary Wilson):
Here, Prause specifically states that a talk was “removed for fraud” and the “speaker giving false credentials” (with a picture of Wilson):
——————–
On March 1, 2019, Prause tweets a double lie, clearly alluding to the ISSM. Not only did she lie about Wilson “giving fake credentials” to the ISSM, she says there was a second conference where “he already tried again”. No there wasn’t.
As we saw above, Wilson did not misrepresent his credentials. He communicated in writing with the ISSM that he is neither an MD or a PhD, and the ESSM/ISSM committee was completely fine with this.
So, what did Prause (and Pfaus) tell the committee? It’s likely that Prause fed the ISSM conference organizers her usual collection of falsehoods. For example, we suspect she pointed out that Wilson had been reported to the Oregon Board of Psychology (without cause) for “practicing psychology without a license.” We say this because, not long after the conference, Wilson received a letter from the Board exonerating him of doing so. (They were not permitted to reveal who had filed the malicious complaint.)
Around this time, Prause prepared a libelous blog piece, which she posted on an adult industry website. Prause’s “article” contained a redacted copy of Wilson’s employment records, which Prause falsely claimed were “proof” that Wilson had been fired from Southern Oregon University. Wilson had not been fired, as this page, with Wilson’s un-redacted employment records, and 2 letters from Southern Oregon University, make clear: Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired (March, 2018. But it is likely that Prause’s behind-the-scenes reporting of her interpretation of this evidence to the conference organizers would have added to their uneasiness about featuring Wilson as a speaker.
Dr. Prause also regularly claims to people, including perhaps the conference organizers, that Wilson holds himself out as a professor. This is also untrue. (See this link for details: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials.) She may also have told the organizers her oft-repeated lies that Wilson has a restraining order against him for her safety, and that he has have been reported to the FBI. There is no such “no contact” order, and Wilson has already made public a report from the FBI clearing him and confirming Prause as lying.
This conference incident was simply one of the more malicious such actions. More important, it has left key healthcare-givers and their patients ignorant of an apparent cause of sexual performance problems in young men. This serves the porn industry, the makers of sexual enhancement drugs (and their paid “thought leaders”), as well as serving the makers of penis implant devices and penile-revascularization surgery equipment.
March, 2018, Prause tweets a combination of her usual lies about “fake credentials” and sneaking into conferences, and her needing armed guards:
The lies:
1) Prause is lying about reporting Wilson to FBI. Prause also lied about reporting Alexander Rhodes:
(Wilson was eventually banned as several big names continued to make false reports about Wilson). For example, here’s two top Quora users saying their goal is to get Wilson banned:
In addition, the top Quora poster and moderator worked for 2 years to get Wilson banned – https://www.quora.com/profile/Franklin-Veaux (he made several false reports on Wilson, accumulating “evidence” for the ban, while he simultaneously broke Quora rules by chronically naming Wilson in his comments and defaming Wilson).
Others – February, 2019: Prause falsely accuses Exodus Cry of fraud. Asks twitter followers to report the non-profit to the Missouri attorney general (for spurious reasons). Appears to have edited the CEO’s Wikipedia page.
This appears to start with Prause trolling the Twitter thread of anti-sex trafficking, radical feminist Laila Mickelwait, who is associated with Exodus Cry. Prause attempts to persuade the Twitter-sphere that her new orgasmic-meditation study debunks anything and everything one might claim about porn’s negative effects:
The irony is that it appears Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. FSC-obtained subjects were allegedly used for a study she was hired to perform in order to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted, and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme (which is now being investigated by the FBI). Moreover, it’s likely that none of Prause’s subjects (all females) were actual porn addicts. In addition, self-reported strength of orgasm while being masturbated by a guy (that’s orgasmic meditation) tells us nothing about porn addiction.
The next day Prause attacks anti-sex trafficking non-profit Exodus Cry. Prause lies about the CEO’s salary calling it “six-figure,” when what she tweeted shows it’s really a five-figure salary. This glaring error from a person who claims to be an expert statistician.
Prause ask her followers “to contact the attorney general for fraud.” As always Prause never describes the so-called “fraud” perpetrated on the public. In fact, Prause has never provided one iota of documentation to support her chronic allegations of fraud by the many victims she harasses and defames. It is Prause who is engaging in fraud… as always.
Prause then asks her followers to file spurious complaints against Exodus Cry. Even providing a link for convenience.
The next day she tweets again. Funny how Prause supports the multi-billion dollar porn industry while attacking an anti-sex trafficking organization for paying their CEO a reasonable salary.
You have ask yourself why the majority of a researcher’s tweets consist of libelous attacks on those who suggest that porn may have negative effects. For much more documentation, see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?
On the same day (February 26, 2019) that Prause posted the tweet claiming “CEO Nolon takes *far* in excess of non-profit standards from the donations given” a new user individual edited Benjamin Nolot Wikipedia page to match Prause’s tweet. The edit:
How the edit appeared on the Wikipedia page
As you can see, this solitary edit in the only one by user 67.129.129.52 (probably a fake IP address)
Since Prause has a very long history of employing multiple sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia pages, it takes very little imagination to ascertain the identity of user 67.129.129.52. A few more sections featuring Prause’s Wikipedia sock-puppets:
Prause with more lies, accusing Laila of promoting stalking and sexual harrasment
Reality: I haven’t been in Los Angeles in years. Prause provides no documentation for this claim, which she began publicizing in July, 2013 (a few days after I critiqued her EEG study). Important to note that Prause initiated her “Gary Wilson is a stalker” campaign immediately after I published my critique of Steele et al., 2013, which exposed her as misrepresenting Steele’s actual findings. Prause created numerous aliases to defame me, including this YouTube channel, GaryWilson Stalker (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). A screenshot of my YouTube inbox from July 26, 2013 reveals Prause’s incessant cyberstalking:
Question: Did I drive 800 miles to Los Angeles on the same day I published my detailed critique to hover around UCLA, or did Prause initiate a fabricated campaign of being physically stalked on the day after my critique? Two defamation lawsuits have been filed against Prause for similar liee (Donald Hilton, MD & Nofap founder Alexander Rhodes). Let’s go to trial and expose the truth.
————————–
Others – Nicole Prause & David Ley go on a cyber-harrasment & defamation rampage in response to this article in The Guardian: Is porn making young men impotent?
Prause and Ley were upset because the Guardian Article accurately portrayed porn-induced ED. As explained on these pages, Prause & Ley are obsessed with debunking PIED having waged a 3-year war against this academic paper, while simultaneously harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions
All the above is fiction, and a disgusting attempt to misinform the public. The following sections chronicle Prause and ally David Ley’s long history of cyberstalking Alexander Rhodes, including Prause lying about filing FBI reports on Gary Wilson and Alex Rhodes (and David Ley retweeting her lies):
In her tweets, Prause linked to 3 dubious papers (not actual studies). Two papers are Prause’s own propaganda, which have already been extensively dismantled. The third paper is a hit piece on Nofap by a grad student from NZ. Here are Prause’s links, each followed by debunking:
3 – https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460717740248 – “‘I want that power back’: Discourses of masculinity within an online pornography abstinence forum”. This link goes to an exchange about the paper between Bart and Prause, on Psychology Today, where Prause defamed Alexander Rhodes. It reveals that Prause is misrepresenting the paper:
In addition to the studies below, this page contains articles and videos by over 130 experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) who acknowledge, and have successfully treated, porn-induced ED and porn-induced loss of sexual desire.
David Ley joins Prause in the harassment of the journalist with unprofessional comments.
Kinsey grad Brian Watson joins Ley & Prause in the direct harassment of Guardian reporter Amy Fleming. Watson lies that the article cited NCOSE (it didn’t). In this tweet, Watson continues his harassment.
In reality, Fleming quoted from Alexander Rhodes’s talk given at a NCOSE event (hundreds of individuals have given talks at NCOSE). Watson is feebly attempting an ad hominem by association (in truth, Rhodes is an atheist and politically liberal), because Watson is incapable of addressing the content of Fleming’s article.
More harassment by Watson, who is obsessed with a NCOSE talk given by Rhodes:
Nope, the Guardian article didn’t “cite” NCOSE. It quoted one sentence from a NCOSE talk by Rhodes who has been featured at multiple conferences, on TV & radio, on podcasts, and in over a hundred different media outlets.
March, 2019: Prause urges journalist Jennings Brown (Senior editor & reporter at Gizmodo) to write a defamatory hit piece on Gary Wilson (she also defames former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid)
The Jennings Brown article featured Prause ally David Ley as one of its “experts.” David Ley posted the Gizmodo article on his Facebook page. Nicole Prause and Tammy Ellis posted the following comments under Ley’s post, revealing that Prause sent “info” on Gary Wilson to journalist Jennings Brown (in the hope that he would write a defamatory hit-piece):
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,” or otherwise “faked” his credentials. These 2 sections have already exposed Prause’s claims as lies:
In short, Gary was an Adjunct Instructor at Southern Oregon University and taught human anatomy, physiology and 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 where anyone can describe a speaker without contacting them first) he has always stated that he taught anatomy, pathology and physiology (YBOP About us page). He has never said he had a PhD or was a professor.
This incident is just one of many that expose Prause as manipulating the press and governing agencies to defame and harass anyone she disagrees with. Prause also employs a PR firm to contact media outlets as avenues of her fabrications and personal attacks.
NOTE: Prause also refers to her UCLA colleague, who just happens to be Rory Reid PhD. As documented in this section, Prause (using an alias) placed several defamatory comments on the porn recovery site YourBrainRebalanced (December 5th, 2014), urging readers to report Rory Reid to California authorities. As we saw in earlier sections, 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).
Key #1 – The PDF contained the same Rory Reid documents that Prause placed on her AmazonAWS account two years later (confirming Prause as TellTheTruth):
Key # 2 – Not long after Prause (as TellTheTruth) placed her defamatory documents on YBR, UCLA decided to not renew her contract. On the other hand, Rory Reid is still at UCLA.
March 17, 2019: Article by University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper (The Racquet) posts false police report by Nicole Prause
This extensive section concerns an article published in the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper: The Racquet Investigates: Fight the New Drug. This March, 17th 2019 hit-piece, masquerading as investigative journalism, targeted Fight The New Drug. Inexplicably, it gratuitously contained a section about Gary Wilson, which featured a baseless April 25, 2018 Los Angeles police report filed almost a year earlier, and supplied to The Racquet, by Nicole Prause.
In the days following publication of The Racquet hit-piece, the section about Wilson was first removed, followed by removal of the entire article. We provide background, details on the bogus police report report, and email exchanges between Wilson and The Racquet and University of Wisconsin administrators. Relevant links:
Original URL for the March 17th article, “The Racquet Investigates: Fight the New Drug” – http://theracquet.org/5838/showcase/the-racquet-investigates-fight-the-new-drug
Since 2013 Nicole Prause has repeatedly proclaimed that she reported Gary Wilson to the LAPD and UCLAP. This defamatory assertion was addressed in several sections of the two extensive pages chronicling Prause’s defamation and harassment of Gary Wilson and others (page 1, page 2).
While police departments do not provide written documentation confirming or denying the existence of a report (to anyone but the person who files them), the FBI does. In late 2018, Wilson filed a Freedom Of Information request with the FBI and the FBI confirmed that Prause was lying: no report had ever been filed on Wilson. See this section for the FOIA request and other documentation exposing Prause as a liar: November, 2018: FBI affirms Nicole Prause’s fraud surrounding defamatory claims.
As part of her full-service pro-porn campaign, Prause has publicly accused almost everyone who has spoken out about the risks of internet porn of serious offenses and crimes – all without one iota of objective evidence. Thus, she has repeatedly lied about reporting others to governing bodies, the police, and also the FBI.
In response to the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse’s chapter of CRU (Campus Crusade for Christ) hosting Fight the New Drug, Samantha Strooza published her first FTND hit-piece: Viewpoint: Fight the New Drug, what exactly are you fighting?Stroozas employed multiple logical fallacies in an attempt to discredit FTND. Yet she failed to cite a single peer-reviewed paper to support various “opinions.”
Dismayed by Stroozas’s biased, factually incorrect propaganda piece, Wilson engaged The Racquet on this Twitter thread, with several tweets linking to hundreds of studies and literature reviews falsifying claims put forth in the article. Strooazs responded with three non-substantive tweets, and Wilson replied:
Faced with overwhelming empirical evidence, student editors Karley Betzler and Samantha Stroozas blocked Wilson on Twitter. This was a critical event as Betzler and Stroozas later authored the March 17th “investigative” article, using it as a vehicle for retaliation against Wilson.
The March 17th Betzler & Stroozas Fight The New Drug article contains a fraudulent police report by Nicole Prause.
As stated, the Karley Betzler and Samantha Stroozas article (“The Racquet Investigates: Fight the New Drug”) was so egregious that University of Wisconsin officials forced the student editors first to remove any mention of Wilson, and, a few days later, to delete the entire article.
Like Stroozas’s first hit-piece, the March 7th article was devoid of peer-reviewed citations or statements from academics. Instead, it featured three non-academics who regularly team up on social media to harass and defame both Wilson & Fight the New Drug: Nicole Prause, David Ley, and Daniel Burgess. These links provide examples of Prause, Ley and Burgess engaging in provable defamation and targeted harassment of FTND and Wilson:
So it’s no surprise that the Betzler & Stroozas hit-piece was little more than cobbled together Prause/Ley/Burgess tweets and Facebook comments interspersed with narrative taken from this 2015 Daily Beast article by yet another “ex-Mormon.” All the signs point to Betzler and Stroozas regurgitating whatever Prause/Ley/Burgess furnished.
In apparent retaliation for Wilson’s February Twitter comments Betzler & Stroozas created a section about Wilson, which featured a baseless April 25, 2018 (i.e., a year earlier) Los Angeles police report filed, and supplied to The Racquet, by Nicole Prause. (Screenshot of section & police report to the right.)
The purported editorial justification for the defamation of Wilson was an malicious email Prause sent to UWL’s Chapter of Cru. Prause told Cru that they were “promoting sexual harassment in your selection of Fight The New Drug for a presentation.” Prause moves on to defame Wilson, feigning concern (“I was just floored“) that FTND contained a few links to www.yourbrainonporn.com, run by Gary Wilson. Prause tells Cru that “FTND is promoting a person who is stalking and threatening scientists. Like, that is not a joke.”
Actually it is joke, a bad joke. Because Prause is the perpetrator, not the victim here. These extensive pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) document hundreds of incidents where Prause has defamed and harassed Wilson and many others, including Fight The New Drug, researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, colleagues from her brief stint at UCLA, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity.
Did Prause provide any documentation for her spurious assertions? Nope. Did Betzler or Stroozas ask Wilson or FTND about Prause’s suspect allegations? Nope. Did Betzler or Stroozas even bother to do a Google search? Apparently not, as the top two Google returns for “Gary Wilson Nicole Prause” are two of the four primary pages documenting Prause’s harassment and defamation of Wilson and others (including FTND):
The two “investigative journalists” hadn’t bothered to investigate.
Prause’s baseless police report didn’t report any crime, including “stalking”
As explained, Prause had been claiming since 2013 that “a police report has been filed” on Gary Wilson. However, the police never bothered to contact Wilson, and a call in 2017 to the Los Angeles police and the UCLA campus police revealed no such report in their systems. This was not surprising as Prause is a pathological liar and filing a false police report is a crime.
Perhaps motivated by YBOP exposing her lies, Prause brazenly filed her bizarre police police report on April 25, 2018 – almost a year before The Racquet published it. Wilson was unaware of the malicious report until Betzler & Stroozas posted one page of it in their March 17th hit-piece. In a classic example of yellow journalism Betzler & Stroozas mischaracterized it as a “Stalking report filed by Dr. Nicole Prause.” It was not a stalking report as Prause’s never stated that Wilson was in Los Angeles, stalking her. Nor was it a cyberstalking report as the “Suspects Actions” section contained two incidents that were neither stalking nor a crime. A screenshot of the two alleged “crimes”:
What Prause alleges, followed by reality:
“Suspect posted victim name and pic on his website. Suspect refused to remove pictures.”
While screenshots of Prause’s defamatory tweets and her name appear on YBOP, this is not a crime. To the contrary, the pages with screenshots chronicling her ongoing harassment (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are documenting her misdeeds: libel and cyberstalking. As documented here, Prause has attempted to hide her egregious behavior by filing 3 unjustified, and unsuccessful, DMCA take-downs to have the screenshots of her incriminating tweets removed.
For those who may not know, DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A DMCA take-down notice is used to have copyrighted materials removed from a website. Prause filed a DMCA take-down as a backdoor way to have this page chronicling her harassment and defamation removed or gutted. Prause is claiming that screenshots of her defamatory tweets are copyrighted material. Tweets are generally not copyrightable, and hers are not.
“Suspect traveled to Germany to victim’s conference. Suspect was not invited.”
Apart form the fact that attending a conference is not a crime, Prause is lying.
It’s true that Wilson traveled to Germany and attended the 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions, which ran from April 23-25 (note that Prause filed her police report on April 25th). The untrue part is that Prause had no intentions of attending the ICBA conference in Germany. Prause has never attended or given a presentation at an ICBA conference. Prause doesn’t believe in behavioral addictions. Throughout her entire career Prause has waged a war against the concept of behavioral addiction, especially sex and porn addiction. She’s an “addiction-denier.”
There’s no better example of this than Prause spending the last 4 years obsessively posting in the comments section of ICD-11 beta draft, for Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder section (CSBD) – the World Health Organization’s new diagnosis suitable for diagnosing porn addiction. Prause posted about 40 comments, more than everyone else combined, doing her best to prevent the CSBD diagnosis from making it into the final manual (you can’t read the comments unless you create a username). Her attempt failed, as “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder” is now slated for inclusion in the ICD-11.
There is no way in hell that Prause would attend the ICBA as she would run into several members of the ICD-11 CSBD work-group and multiple other researchers who publish high-quality studies supporting the porn addiction model. In fact, several big name researchers who have formally criticized Prause’s flawed EEG studies and were scheduled to present (i.e. Valerie Voon, Marc Potenza, Matuesz Gola, Matthias Brand, Christian Laier). Put simply, Prause would have been surrounded by many of the people she deplores and attacks on social media and behind the scenes (links to these researcher’s critiques of the two Prause EEG studies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Many of these researchers are keenly aware of Prause’s ongoing unprofessional behavior and behind the scenes machinations.
Then we have the obvious: there is no way for Prause to have known in advance that Gary Wilson was attending the ICBA conference. As noted, Prause filed her police report on April 25th, the last day of the ICBA conference. This means that Prause was told of Wilson’s attendance by another conference attendee (Prause’s former UCLA colleague/roommate also attended).
Moving on, the second part of the Prause police report is equally factually incorrect, yet downright hilarious:
Even though Prause never claimed that Wilson was seen in LA, she describes his “personal oddity” as “wearing sleeping bag” and his weapon of choice as a “long sleave (sic) sweater.” Sounds like a SNL skit. It’s hard not to imagine the police officer biting her lip, trying not to crack-up, as she jots down Prause’s drivel. In any case, Gary Wilson hasn’t been in either Los Angeles or a sleeping bag in years.
In addition to wrongly describing his attire, Prause’s description of Wilson contains multiple inaccuracies: he’s not 65 years old, nor 5’6″, nor 120 pounds.
Did Betzler & Stroozas fact-check a single word in Prause’s bogus police report. Of course not. They had an agenda to fulfill.
The email exchanges between Gary Wilson and Betzler, Stroozas, University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse representatives
Reproduced below are the emails exchanged between Gary Wilson and Betzler & Stroozas or University of Wisconsin representatives. Relevant commentary is provided. Note: Wilson suspected that Betzler & Stroozas were forwarding his emails to David Ley and Nicole Prause. This was confirmed in the very last email and in David Ley’s rage-tweeting about The Racquet article being deleted, before all the parties were notified.
Gary Wilson’s initial email to editor-in-chief Betzler and the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse counsel, chancellor, and vice-chancellor (Sunday, March 17th):
From: gary wilson Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:43 PM To: Noah Finco; Karley Betzler Cc:[email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel Subject: Article in The Raquet contains a false police report naming me
I was alarmed to read in the above article that a false police report may have been filed about me with the LAPD. I have never heard anything about such a report, which makes me doubt it was actually filed. Do you have any evidence suggesting that it was? My guess is that Nicole Prause is too clever to waste police resources by filing a false report such as this, as that is a crime.
On the other hand, if indeed Prause did file this report, nothing in it is true. The police evidently did not believe the report was worth investigating (dated 4-22-18). I certainly have heard nothing about it.
Please be aware that Prause has, for years, been harassing me (and many others who raise concerns about the risks of internet porn over-use). She has made multiple false claims of reporting me to the police and the FBI, as well as claiming that she has a “no-contact order” against me. See:
Distressed by such reports, which I knew about solely via Prause’s ongoing defamatory social media campaign, I called the LAPD a couple of years ago. They explained that they do not supply formal evidence that no reports have been filed, but the woman I spoke with took pity on me and assured me that no report existed. Again, if this latest effort on Prause’s part had indeed been filed, I believe I would have heard from the LAPD by now.
As I have never stalked Prause or attended any conference where she was present, there is no way this can be a legitimate report. Kindly remove the report from your publication, so I don’t have to take legal action.
Please let me know that you have removed the defamatory police report.
Best regards,
Gary Wilson
Co-author Karley Betzler replied on the same day (UWL is on Central Time)
From: Karley Betzler Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:24 PM
To: gary wilson
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel; Samantha Stroozas
Subject: Re: Article in The Raquet contains a false police report naming me
Good evening,
Thank you for reaching out to us. I have attached the full report we received from Nicole Prause above.
Gary, we will gladly update the article to include a quote from you stating the report is fake.
Gary Wilson replied saying he would soon follow-up with a more extensive response:
From: gary wilson Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 3:51 PM
To: Karley Betzler
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel; Samantha Stroozas
Subject: Re: Article in The Raquet contains a false police report naming me
Thanks Karley. The report certainly looks genuine. The issue is that the allegations are false, and were not even investigated by the police. Yet they still appear in your paper. I will send you a more thorough response shortly.
Had you performed an actual investigation you would quickly have found the carefully documented pages I linked to earlier, and this page where Nicole Prause placed my redacted employment documents (Southern Oregon University) on multiple social media outlets and on porn-industry website (falsely claiming that I was fired). See – Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired (March, 2018).
Southern Oregon University lawyers were forced to get involved to respond to Prause’s falsehoods. Documentation and the lawyer letters are posted on the above page documenting Prause’s libelous claim that I was fired.
I will email soon with much more.
Best regards
Gary
A few hours later Gary Wilson provided more documentation of Prause’s long history of harassment and defamation, including Prause chronically lying about having filed FBI reports, and copies of Gary Wilson’s FBI report he filed on Prause:
From: gary wilson <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 8:40:05 PM
Dear Karley,
It is disturbing that your paper would publish a police report about someone, endorsing its content, without contacting the person named in it for comment, and without doing a more thorough investigation of the person from whom you received such a defamatory item. I would like you to remove the report.
With respect to the allegations in the report (about which I had heard nothing until your paper published it), here are my comments:
I haven’t stalked Dr. Prause or ever considered it. In fact, I haven’t been in LA, or in a sleeping bag, for many years.
It is true that Dr. Prause’s name appears on my website many times, mostly on the two extensive pages carefully documenting her defamation and unending attacks on others and myself. Again, have a look at them so you understand more fully whom you are dealing with when you print content from Dr. Prause.
The pictures she complains of (and wants removed from my website) are screenshots of her tweets, not photographs of her. They document her ongoing campaign of malicious harassment of people who call attention to the harms associated with overuse of internet pornography, myself included. Screenshots of tweets are not copyrightable images, and are therefore not subject to DMCA take-down demands (which she has repeatedly made to my internet provider unsuccessfully). Her trip to tell the police about it doesn’t surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that they did not follow up on her baseless accusations.
The only conference I attended in Germany is one that Dr. Prause would never have been interested in: the International Conference on Behavioral Addictions. Prause is an avid addiction-denier, who regularly fails to cite any of the research by addiction research experts of the type who attended that conference. I registered and attended as an interested member of the public, not as a gate-crasher as she claims. Nor did I announce my attendance publicly, so how would she even know I attended? I have never attempted to attend any conference where Prause was presenting. Nor would I want to.
For your information, I am the author and co-author of two peer-reviewed papers on the subject of internet pornography, and also the author of a very highly regarded lay book on internet pornography and the emerging science of addiction, so my decision to attend such a conference is hardly surprising. If you would like a copy of my book, I’ll send you one.
Karley, contrary to your claims your paper’s article was not an investigative piece concerning the current state of the research related to porn’s effects (which can found on this page: The Main Research Page). There’s abundant academic research highlighting the risks of internet porn overuse, and that’s a very interesting story indeed.
Instead your journalists attempted to smear Fight The New Drug – in part by smearing me, then connecting me to FTND. But it makes no sense to smear me without considering the pages upon pages of peer-reviewed research linked to on my 11,000-page website: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/. I must assume FTND linked to my site because the links to all that research are available there.
I would like you to remove the police report smearing me, and any mention on me. It is baseless and malicious, and part of a long line of such activities engaged in by Dr. Prause and her pro-porn colleagues. Please know that Dr. Prause has been under investigation by the California Board of Psychology for more than 2 years for her harassment of others (while posing as the victim). Your paper appears to be helping her with her defamatory campaign. This is unacceptable.
More on police and FBI reports.
As documented on the two pages, Nicole Prause has been claiming since 2013 that she reported me to the LAPD. In the last few years Prause has tweeted dozens of times that she has also reported me (and others) to the FBI (for what, it was never clear). In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts. That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015).
Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause began tweeting she had reported me to the FBI and LAPD. Just know that I have screenshots of about 500 Prause tweets defaming me. It is Prause who is the cyber-stalker. While I wouldn’t have put it past Prause to file false police and FBI reports, it wasn’t until 2016 that I contacted the LAPD. In a phone conversation I asked if a police report by a Nicole Prause, or on Gary Wilson, was in their database. None were. This is documented in this section: Ongoing – Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson
Note: while Prause claimed to have filed a police report all the way back in 2013, she provided you with an April, 2018 LAPD report. Put simply, Prause had been lying for 5 years. While the LAPD will not provide written documentation of police reports, the FBI will. In October, 2018 I filed an FOIA request with the FBI to find out if Prause had ever filed a report naming me. As expected the FOIA revealed that Prause has never filed a FBI report, even though she has tweeted this multiple times and posted this same claim on the FTND Facebook page (see this section May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice).
In talking to FBI agents on the phone I was encouraged to file an official FBI report on Nicole Prause. Which I did. Put simply, while Prause filed a silly police report (its not a crime to screenshot defamatory tweets), I was encouraged by an FBI agent to report Prause to both the FBI and the LAPD. My FBI report, which I have yet to place on the Prause pages, is below in a series of screenshots. The last screenshot is my signature confirming that I am aware that lying to the FBI is serious crime:
———-
———-
————–
——————
———————
Again, I request removal of the spurious Prause “police report,” and any mention of me. Otherwise, I will seek legal counsel in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gary Wilson
Author of the first FTND hit-piece, and managing editor, Samantha Stroozas immediately replied and retaliated by placing all 3 pages of Prause’s malicious LAPD police report into the published article:
From: Samantha Stroozas <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:01 PM
To: gary wilson; Karley Betzler
Cc: [email protected]; Joe Gow; Bob Hetzel
Dear Gary,
The article is being updated to include the full police report. We understand your claims, but it is not The Racquet’s job to engage in politics between businesses, but more so, to prove further description to publicly accessed information. That is what the police report serves as – a representation of a publicly assessed document that aided in our research. If there is a true problem with this, that is not in regard to politics of institutions that do not involve us, the Office of General Counsel will contact us and we will take care of it. Until then, we appreciate your concerns, but we stand by our piece.
On Wednesday, March 20th Gary Wilson directly emails the 3 senior counsels for the University of Wisconsin system. The University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse counsel, chancellor, and vice-chancellor are once again copied. Student editors Betzler & Stroozas are omitted from this and all later emails sent by Wilson.
RE: Baseless, defamatory police report reproduced in The Racquet
This email concerns a highly defamatory article that appeared in La Crosse’s school newspaper, The Racquet: https://theracquet.org/5838/showcase/the-racquet-investigates-fight-the-new-drug/. This is another request to remove the groundless and maliciously filed police report about me that appears in it, along with the defamatory and disproven allegations the editors gratuitously included in the article. (The piece is purportedly an expose about a quite different organization that is critical of pornography, Fight the New Drug, or “FTND.”) See email thread below current email.
As explained to The Racquet editors (with much supportive documentation), the person who filed the police report (and who supplied it to the editors in full) is a known harasser who is under investigation by the State of California for similar attacks against myself and many others: Nicole Prause, a former UCLA researcher whose suspect coziness with the porn industry has been documented. For at least 6 years she has been claiming to have filed police and FBI reports against me. When (in 2017) I finally confirmed with the LAPD that she had not, in fact, done so, and made that fact public, she filed this report.
I first learned of this police report, which says it was filed almost a year ago, a few days ago, when I saw it being tweeted twice in one day by Dr. Prause (as well as her colleague Dr. Ley) with a link to The Racquet. This was extremely distressing. Apparently, the police correctly identified the report as unwarranted last year, as their investigation had not extended to even informing me of its existence. A quick examination of what the report contains reveals that it doesn’t actually allege any illegal behavior, but appears to have been submitted solely with the malicious intention of furthering Prause’s ongoing campaign of defamation (and “no platforming”).
The Racquet editors, however, imply in their very biased article that this defamatory report is legitimate – despite the extensive documentation calling into question Prause’s motives and willingness to exploit bureaucracies for her own ends. For example, Prause has made claims for years that she has (also) filed FBI reports about me. Via a FOIA request, I recently verified that she has not dared misuse FBI resources in this way, as filing fraudulent FBI reports could result in criminal repercussions. In light of The Racquet piece, I have now written the LAPD to find out what remedies they offer for malicious misuse of their resources.
The editors of The Racquet did not seek my comment before publishing the defamatory police report, which they falsely characterized as accusing me of “stalking and threatening” Prause. They have apparently made no effort to confirm with the LAPD that this report is in any way merited. They have also refused to remove the image of the report and refused to include my corrective input in their article, implying instead that I believe the police report is fake, as opposed to baseless and malicious. They ignored the years of evidence that Dr. Prause consistently works in the best interest of the porn industry and has repeatedly defamed (and endeavored to “no platform”) various people and organizations who raise questions about the effects of internet pornography use. In fact, the editors’ response to my concerns was to put up all three pages of the report(!), in place of the screenshot of the first page that was originally published.
In short, given their evident pro-porn stance and previous communications with me on Twitter.com where I commented upon their first article, The Racquet editors appear to be acting with malice and recklessness and without attention to basic journalistic standards. I am conferring with legal counsel and intend to pursue all available remedies to address this defamation. I sincerely hope this will be unnecessary, but if the report, and all mentions of me, are not promptly removed from the article, I will have little choice.
On February 7thThe Racquet editor Samantha Stroozas published a supposed investigatory piece attacking FTND. It was devoid of peer-reviewed references to support its few substantive assertions, and like the current piece, most of the article consisted of ad hominem attacks. On Twitter, I politely responded to Stroozas’s February 7th article with several tweets containing substantial research that corrected her article’s research-related claims. My tweets: https://twitter.com/YourBrainOnPorn/status/1093585735381176320. Stroozas and her coauthor blocked me, refusing to address the content of my tweets or the numerous studies I cited. This was their prerogative, although responsible journalistic ethics might have suggested another course of action, such as correcting or addending the article to factually represent the current state of research, the preponderance of which supports the existence of porn-related problems, as well as the addiction model.
On March 17th, Stroozas and Betzler published their second hit piece on FTND. I am not employed by FTND. I run an independent website (About Us page) with more than 11,000 pages, most of them abstracts and links related to peer-reviewed research on behavioral addiction, and self-reports taken from those who experiment with giving up internet porn. In the interest of furthering the scientific debate, I critique some of the sketchier research about porn, as well as unsubstantiated claims made by pro-porn advocates/researchers. I am also the author or co-author of two peer-reviewed papers, and the author of a popular, highly regarded book on pornography’s effects.
For reasons that are entirely unclear, The Racquet editors “enhanced” their second smear of FTND by including defamatory remarks about me and reproducing Prause’s baseless police report. I can think of no reason to include me in an article about FTND, other than malicious retaliation for my unwanted tweets in February, 2018.
As explained, when I saw the piece with the groundless report, Stroozas and Betzler were informed of Prause’s long and carefully documented history of defaming and harassing me and others (most of it available here and here), including:
documentation of Prause’s false claims about FBI reports (and years of baseless claims about non-existent police records),
my own FBI report on Prause’s defamatory use of bogus “claims to have filed with the FBI,”
information about a California Board of Psychology investigation into Prause’s harassment (in progress), and
documentation of multiple Prause attacks on others and myself (essentially targeting anyone who dares to inform the public about the risks of internet porn overuse to some users).
Further information
Stroozas made false statements in her email response to me, incorrectly claiming that Prause’s spurious police report is “publicly accessed information”:
“The article is being updated to include the full police report. We understand your claims, but it is not The Racquet’s job to engage in politics between businesses, but more so, to prove further description to publicly accessed information. That is what the police report serves as – a representation of a publicly assessed document that aided in our research”.
The LPAD police report is not public. In fact, it cannot be retrieved by any member of the public other than the person who filed it. It was supplied to the editors by Prause.
The Racquet editors did not contact me to confirm or deny Prause’s assertions. If they had actually performed an investigation (as claimed), or even bothered to Google-search ‘Gary Wilson and Nicole Prause’, the top returns would have been the three extensive pages documenting Prause’s harassment of me and many others (1, 2, 3).
Why didn’t the editors interview independent researchers or mental health professionals doing work with porn addiction and problematic porn use? Why did they only talk to porn-addiction deniers who are not academics and not affiliated with any university? Why did these editors choose to feature Prause, who appears to have a cozy relationship with porn producers and performers; has asked for and apparently received “assistance” from the lobbying arm of the porn industry, the Free Speech Coalition (including possibly obtaining subjects for some of her research via the FSC); has been photographed attending porn industry awards shows (including an exclusive industry-member-only event), and much more.
Why didn’t Stroozas and Betzler discover in their so-called investigation that Prause’s most infamous papers and controversial studies have been critiqued by experts in the peer-reviewed literature no less than 16 times?
Prause & Pfaus, 2015. Letter to the editor by Richard A. Isenberg MD (2015)It appears that Prause also furnished the editors with her friends/allies to be featured in the The Racquet article. Specifically, Nicole Prause, David Ley, and Daniel Burgess often work together to defame porn skeptics in social media attacks. I have documentation of all three working together to post defamatory comments about me and FTND, among others.
Why were the editors contacted to write these pieces in the first place? Have they considered why Prause’s tiny company is heavily staffed with press experts, and why so much of her focus appears to be on generating positive press about pornography? Have they asked Prause why she is attempting to trademark my site’s URL and the name of my book, almost 9 years after I started using the name? Have they asked Prause why she has falsely accused almost every major porn skeptic of very serious offenses and crimes?
If the editors were eager to investigate FTND and its purported ties to the Mormons, were they equally eager to ask Prause about her potential ties to the porn industry? If the editors are concerned about free speech, have they asked Prause why she repeatedly attempts fraudulent use of the DMCA law to censor the screenshots of evidence about her tweets from the pages where they appear? Finally, why am I gratuitously included in an article that’s supposed to be about FTND?
On a more personal note, given this article remains published virtually as-is, I am disappointed that your university appears to sanction its journalism students not actually conducting investigative journalism, but merely acting as a platform for allies of the pornography industry to publish defamation. I would hope that given this extensive documentation, the editors will be appropriately reprimanded for not following basic journalistic principles, and trying instead to push a particular view while deliberately publishing defamation, opting not to make corrections when presented with documentation, and excluding the preponderance of research which supports the existence of porn-related problems, possibly with the motivation of retaliating because I factually criticized their earlier article about pornography.
I would like a response to this letter within a week. In the meantime, I will continue the initial steps of acquiring legal counsel to represent me in this matter.
Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention.
Best regards,
Gary Wilson
Faculty advisor Lei Zhang replies on the same day, informing Wilson that that story had been removed. In reality, Prause’s baseless police report and any mention of Wilson was removed, but the rest of the article remained. Notice Lei Zhang stating that she hopes we “can move on to more important matters” – implying that destroying a person’s reputation is of little significance.
From: Lei Zhang <> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Vitaliano Figueroa; Samantha Stroozas; Karley Betzler; Betsy Morgan
Subject: The story published on the Racquet
Dear Gary,
I am the faculty advisor for the student newspaper, The Racquet. I heard about your complaint during the spring break. I have advised the editors to remove the story from the website.
My sincere apologies. I hope we can put this behind us and move on to more important matters.
Best,
Lei
Wilson replies the following day, Thursday, March 21st:
From: gary wilson <> Date: Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:58 PM
To: Lei Zhang <>
Subject: Re: The story published on the Racquet
Dear Lei,
I appreciate your kind apology.
Are you aware that the story has not been removed as you apparently believed when you wrote me? It is still quite misleading, although it no longer defames me personally.
Incidentally, I suspect that most people would consider the publication of a baseless, malicious police report a highly “important matter.”
Best regards,
Gary Wilson
Faculty advisor Lei Zhang replies on the next day, Friday, March 22nd:
From: Lei Zhang <> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 10:06 AM
To: gary wilson
Cc: Vitaliano Figueroa; Samantha Stroozas; Karley Betzler
Subject: Re: The story published on the Racquet
Dear Gary,
The student newspaper is an independent organization. The editors decided to publish the story after removing the section about the police report. If the story contains any more false or defamatory information, please let me know. The editors will remove this type of information. The writers spent a lot of time working on the story. I agree with their decision to publish it.
The story was written in the third-person voice. The views expressed in the story belong to the interviewees, for example, the psychology professor at UWL. If you disagree with the views expressed in the story, you are welcome to contribute an opinion piece. The Racquet welcomes diverse views.
At our next advisory meeting, I will discuss with the editors how to produce a more balanced story and double check information for accuracy.
I would suggest you contact Fight The New Drug about the accuracy of your editors’ claims concerning its organization.
As chronicled in earlier emails, both this article and the February 7th Stroozas article appear to violate The Racquet’s own guidelines as outlined on the letter to the editor page (“The Racquet reserves the right to deny publication if the story does not address all sides of the issues with accuracy and clarity”). Both articles by Stroozas were one-sided and evidently meant to smear their target (and others), while simultaneously ignoring the preponderance the empirical evidence establishing the risks of internet porn overuse.
My complaint to UW is supported by my Twitter exchange with Sroozas where I countered her incorrect statements and unsupported claims with peer-reviewed studies. In response to empirical research, Stroozas blocked me and then retaliated in the March 17th, 2019 article by reproducing a malicious police report and Dr. Prause’s falsehoods in an article that had nothing to do with me.
When Stroozas and Betzler were informed on March 17th of Dr Prause’s long, documented history of harassing and libeling me, and the falseness of Prause’s police report, Stroozas retaliated a second time, spitefully publishing all 3 pages of the report. Despite CC’s to university officials on all emails, the defamatory police report remained online for 4 days.
The internet is forever, and the police report and associated text were likely captured for later defamatory use by some of the unethical people your editors continue to validate in their (still) published hit pieces.
My legal advisors assure me that the University of Wisconsin’s students’ actions have already defamed me irreparably. I’ll have to give further thought to next steps.
Best regards,
Gary Wilson
On Wednesday, March 27th student editor emails the following short note announcing the removal of the entire article. In a break from protocol Karley Beltzer cc’s Gary Wilson’s harassers, David Ley, Nicole Prause and Daniel Burgess (along with several lawyers and university officials):
Karley Betzler <>
Wed 3/27/2019 2:34 PM
Good afternoon,
I hope you’re all having a good day. Sam Stroozas and I have made the decision to remove our article from The Racquet’s website. This was not an ideal situation for us, but we felt as if we had no other choice due to lack of support.
We stand by our commitment to providing a necessary conversation to the UWL public and beyond. The Racquet has forever been changed for the better by this experience.
Addendum: Evidence that Betzler and Stroozas had been forwarding Gary Wilson’s emails to Nicole Prause and David Ley. First, Dr. Ley quickly retorted with the sole response, ranting about Wilson:
David Ley <>
Wed 3/27/2019 3:44 PM
indeed. I warned you that wilson regularly intimidates journalists through threats and bully tactics.
He should run for president
As neither Prause nor Ley were included in any of the earlier emails, Ley’s retort indicates that they were kept apprised of Wilson’s correspondence (or bullying as Ley calls it) with The Racquet and its ultimate decision to cease its targeted defamation. More telling is that the following unhinged tweet wasposted 3 hours before the final Karley Betzler email to everyone:
It’s important to keep in mind that Prause and Ley often work together on social media, attacking and defaming anyone they disagree with. For example Ley has tweeted several times the lie that Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University. This is libel and cyberstalking, and Ley’s involvement is documented on this page: Libelous Claim that Gary Wilson Was Fired (March, 2018).
Others – March 17, 2019: Prause employs multiple sock-puppets to edit the Fight The New Drug Wikipedia page, as Prause simultaneously tweets content from her sock-puppets’ edits
One of the Prause tweets containing the same material as the above Wikipedia edits:
The following sockpuppet, who made only 3 edits on March 15th, appears to be Prause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.2.36.41. We suggest this because the 3 edits were identical to the edits by NewsYouCanUse2018, and only Prause tries to insert info about FTND financials (which no other editor does):
Prause seems to “own” Wikipedia, having employed over 30 aliases to post her lies and propaganda, despite the fact that aliases are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). Even though Wikipedia finally took some disciplinary action (below), much of her propaganda remains on Wikipedia. See these sections for documentation of many of Prause’s other Wikipedia sock-puppets:
Clerk endorsed – Please confirm & check for sleepers. The behavioral evidence (fixation on Fight the New Drug) indicates they’re puppets of the stale NeuroSex20:11, 4 May 2019:
Group 1 – the following accounts are Confirmed to each other and Unrelated to NeuroSex:
How many sock puppets remain? Knowing the truth, why doesn’t Wikipedia reverse all of her biased handiwork on its platform and replace the editors who acquiesced to her edits in the first place?
Others – April, 2019: Prause harasses and threatens therapist D.J. Burr, then maliciously reports him to the State of Washington Department of Health
Prause initiates her defamation by accusing anyone who treats porn addiction of also being a “reparative therapist” (practice of trying to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual).
In her assault, Prause publishes two lies in one tweet:
The lies: 1) No Nikky, treating porn addiction is not analogous to conversion therapy. 2) Wrong, The world’s most widely used medical diagnostic manual, The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains a new diagnosis suitable for porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”
Nikky continues on the Joe Kort thread responding to licensed therapist D.J. Burr with false allegations and threats. Prause asserts that Burr is engaged in malpractice (for treating porn addiction), and that his patients should be report him to state boards. Prause says she would “support” his patients in their reports.
Prause blocks D.J. Burr and adds this bizarre tweet to the thread. It’s 3 random pictures snatched from internet. The screenshots fail to support her continued lies that CSAT’s treating porn addiction are masquerading as reparative therapists.
Prause never links to the page of an actual CSAT or members of SASH or IITAP. She just makes stuff up, as is her M.O.:
A few months later D.J. Burr receives a letter from State of Washington Department of Health informing him that the disciplinary board dismissed a complaint alleging unprofessional conduct. The alleged unprofessional (“using racist language”) occurred April 7, 2019 – the same day as the last of the above tweets.
Prause reporting DJ Burr was no secret as he exposed her malicious reporting in response to Ley’s propaganda piece claiming that he and Prause (not named, but described) were victims of malicious reporting (if they were reported, it was for good reason).
First, David Ley provides zero documentation for claims of victim-hood. Second, Prause does not comment on Burr’s tweet (which is out of character). Ley replies, strategically avoiding the facts presented to him:
The above organizations found no merit in Prause’s fraudulent allegations.
Note – Numerous individuals maliciously reported to universities of governing boards by Prause have filed sworn affidavits in the Don Hilton defamation lawsuit against Prause:
Prause long history of misusing regulatory bodies to harass innocent victims has finally caught up with her. Karma.
April, 2019: Prause, Daniel Burgess and associates engage in unlawful trademark infringement of YourBrainOnPorn.com, by creating “RealYourBrainOnPorn” website & social media accounts
As Your Brain on Porn has been continuously engaged in vigorous debate around the subject of compulsive pornography consumption since before 2011, our website certainly doesn’t take issue with, or fear, opposing views. Sexual health experts are welcome to offer views about internet pornography’s effects that differ from our views.
We thrive on debate as we believe that the facts surrounding the issue, along with the research, support that problems often emerge when people use too much internet pornography. But to this day, not many pro-porn activists have been willing to engage in substantive debate with us, resorting instead to unsavory tactics such as straw-men, lies, personal attacks, harassment, and defamation – and now, trademark infringement, impersonation, and domain-name squatting.
While we encourage these intellectual opponents to share their pro-porn views for us to continue to refute with facts and citations, they are not legally permitted to impersonate us.
Why not revert to ScienceOfArousal.com?
Why did these self-proclaimed experts change their site name to mirror our website’s name, when their first-choice URL was “ScienceOfArousal.com?” Proof: copy & paste that URL into your browser. It will redirect you to “realyourbrainonporn” – https://www.scienceofarousal.com. Why do they claim that they have been censored by a request to cease their trademark infringement, when they could simply revert to their erstwhile brand name “ScienceOfArousal.com” and continue to operate both freely and legally?
SCREENSHOT FROM APRIL 16, 2019, when SOA first appeared
We have never attempted to censor opposing views and critiques, unlike one of their “experts,” Dr. Prause, who has repeatedly tried to remove evidence of her behavior with groundless DMCA takedown requests. We simply ask that that these vocal spokespersons hold forth from their original pulpit, the URL and brand name “Science of Arousal” (ScienceOfArousal.com). And that they relinquish the subsequent name they employed along with the corresponding trademark application (for a name that YBOP has operated under for almost 10 years ). Why do they engage in these apparent attempts to suppress traffic to our website and confuse the public?
Trademark infringement and targeted harassment: Details
The URL for this website (YourBrainOnPorn.com) was registered in 2010, has some 20,000 unique visitors a day, more than 11,000 pages of content, and has long functioned as a well-known clearinghouse for information related to internet porn’s effects. For almost a decade it has been linked to by thousands of other websites, and mentioned in numerous news articles or podcasts, as well as being cited in several peer-review studies. The host of the site is also the author of a highly regarded book entitled Your Brain OnPorn, first published in 2014.
In April, 2019, a blatant trademark infringement campaign was launched targeting YourBrainOnPorn.com. A new website with the URL realyourbrainonporn.com appeared, just a few days after the website ScienceOfArousal.com (see above) had appeared. As explained above, the later URL, featuring much the same cast of self-proclaimed “experts,” replaced the earlier ScienceOfArousal.com. Use of the URL for the latter redirected its visitors to the second (infringing) site’s URL.
The imposter site attempts to trick the visitor, with the center of each page declaring “Welcome to the REAL Your Brain On Porn,” as the tab falsely proclaims “Your Brain On Porn.”
When the link for the imposter site is emailed it appears as “Your Brain on Porn”:
When a RealYourBrainOnPorn (@BrainOnPorn) tweet is retweeted it appears as “Your Brain on Porn” and “YBOP (our most frequently used nickname)”:
Although the Whois Record withholds the identity of the registrant, those apparently responsible for this unlawful trademark infringement can presumably be found among the site’s so-called “Experts”: https://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts.
This collection of porn-science deniers and their friends is well known to YBOP and other porn skeptics, as some of these deniers’ outlier studies and inadequately unsupported talking points are regularly featured in the mainstream media. These deniers frequently mislead journalists and academic journal editors about the true state of internet porn research. On social media and in lay articles they promote their cherry-picked, outlier papers, and/or misrepresent the true implications of their data. Visit this page to see critiques of some of their most dubious progeny.
The two most vocal and best known deniers, Nicole Prause and David Ley, have engaged in overt and covert defamation, harassment and cyberstalking, targeting groups and individuals who believe, based on the objective evidence, that today’s porn might be causing significant problems for some users. (Hundreds of harassment incidents are documented on these extensive pages page 1, page 2.) The current trademark infringement campaign is merely the latest crusade.
To promote their new site, while maliciously disparaging Gary Wilson and the legitimate YourBrainOnPorn, the creators of the imposter site created a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn), YouTube channel, Facebook page, and published a press release. In a further attempt to confuse the public, the press release falsely claims to originate from Gary Wilson’s home town – Ashland, Oregon. (None of the imposter site’s “experts” live in Oregon, let alone Ashland.)
Judge for yourself whether the imposter site and its “experts” further the interests of the porn industry or the authentic search for scientific truth by perusing this collection of RealYBOP tweets. Written in Dr. Nicole Prause’s distinctive, misleading style, the tweets extol the benefits of porn, misrepresent the current state of the research, and troll individuals and organizations Prause has previously harassed.
On April 25th, the Sciencearousal username appeared on Wikipedia, inserting links and deleting legitimate material about pornography’s effects. (On April 17 one of Sciencearousal’s aliases tried to do the same: SecondaryEd2020). See the scienceofarousal Wikipedia edits below. This campaign of misinformation is business-as-usual, as these 2 pages have documented over 20 apparent, illicit sock-puppets of Prause (one of the new site’s “experts”), which she has created to insert her propaganda and defame individuals and organizations: page 1, page 2. (Wikipedia’s rules prohibit sock-puppets.)
The legitimate YBOP, this website, stands by its brand, services and resources and is taking steps to address the infringing and unfair activities of the “Real Your Brain On Porn” site.
April, 2019: On January 29, 2019: Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YourBrainOnPorn & YourBrainOnPorn. Prause is sent a Cease & Desist letter for trademark squatting and trademark infringement (RealYBOP).
The URL for this website (YourBrainOnPorn.com) was registered in 2010, has some 10-20,000 unique visitors a day, more than 12,000 pages of content, and has long functioned as a well-known clearinghouse for information related to internet porn’s effects. For almost a decade it has been linked to by thousands of other websites, and mentioned in numerous news articles or podcasts, as well as being cited in several peer-review studies. The host of the site is also the author of a highly regarded book entitled Your Brain OnPorn, first published in 2014.
On January 29, 2019, Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. These marks have been used by the popular website www.YourBrainOnPorn.com and its host Gary Wilson for nearly a decade – facts well known to Prause, who has frequently disparaged the latter website and its host since 2013.
On May 1, 2019 the attorneys for the common-law owner of the trademarks “Your Brain On Born” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com” (this website) sent a cease and desist letter to all of those who appeared to be behind the infringing site (the so-called “Experts”): Marty Klein, Lynn Comella, David J. Ley, Emily F. Rothman, Samuel Perry, Taylor Kohut, William Fisher, Peter Finn, Janniko Georgiadis, Erick Janssen, Aleksandar Štulhofer, Joshua Grubbs, James Cantor, Michael Seto, Justin Lehmiller, Victoria Hartmann, Julia Velten, Roger Libby, Doug Braun-Harvey, David Hersh, Jennifer Valli.
UPDATE: Knowing she would lose a federal lawsuit (which was about to go forward), Nicole Prause withdrew her illegal attempt to trademark YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. On October 18, 2019 the United States Patent and Trademark Office entered a judgement against Prause (the applicant):
The legitimate YBOP, this website, stands by its brand, services and resources and is taking legal steps to address the infringing and unfair activities of Nicole R. Prause and Daniel Burgess. Next up, “RealYourBrainOnPorn” and its twitter account.
April, 2019: RealYBOP Twitter account (@BrainOnPorn) – In an attempted trademark grab Daniel Burgess, Prause & allies create a twitter account which supports a pro-porn industry agenda.
Prause and some of her pro-porn sexology chums are collaborating in a glossy reincarnation of the now-defunct “PornHelps” effort. This one, “RealYourBrainOnPorn,” was founded on an illegal trademark squatting effort. Lawyers are now involved. Update: legal actions revealed that Daniel Burgess is the current owner of the realyourbrainonporn.com URL.
On January 29, 2019, Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. These marks have been used by the popular website www.YourBrainOnPorn.com and its host Gary Wilson for nearly a decade – facts well known to Prause, who has frequently disparaged the latter website and its host since 2013.
The organizers of the imposter site employed many tactics calculated to confuse the public. For example, the new site attempted to trick visitors, with the center of each page declaring “Welcome to the REAL Your Brain On Porn,” while the tab falsely proclaimed “Your Brain On Porn.” Also, to advertise their illegitimate site, the “experts” created a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/BrainOnPorn), YouTube channel, Facebook page, all employing the words “Your Brain On Porn.”
In addition, the “experts” created a reddit account (user/sciencearousal) to spam porn recovery forums reddit/pornfree and reddit/NoFap with promotional drivel, claiming porn use is harmless, and disparaging YourBrainOnPorn.com and Gary Wilson. It’s important to note that Prause has a long documented history of employing numerous aliases to post on porn recovery forums. Comments in her easily recognizable style promote her studies, attack the concept of porn addiction, disparage Wilson and YBOP, belittle men in recovery, and defame porn skeptics (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).
We start with the very first tweet by Real YBOP. Notice that about half of the retweets were by accounts associated with the porn industry. Note: As the RealYBOP account had no followers at that point, it means these accounts were likely notified via email. In fact, PornHub was the first account to retweet this, indicating a coordinated effort between PornHub and the RealYBOP account!
PornHub was the first account to retweet the above.
Evidence that RealYBOP Twitter and website are in cahoots with the porn industry?
———————
Just as Prause often does, RealYBOP trolls an account that claims porn use may cause problems:
———————-
Trolling another porn skeptic:
——————
Just like Prause, RealYBOP attacks state resolutions about porn:
——————-
RealYBOP tweeting under a Ley tweet libeling Gary Wilson (Prause & Ley’s top targets are Wilson and YBOP). Who else but Prause would do this?
——————
Just as Prause often does, RealYBOP cites Taylor Kohut’s oulier non-quantitative study on relationships:
RealYBOP mimics all of Prause’s favorite talking points in this second tweet.
————————
Next up: Promoting a new study on female porn stars, which reported an expected finding: lower rates of sexual dysfunction than the general population. BUT RealYBOP did not tweet a study by the same research group, which found much higher rates of ED in male performers! The research survey of male adult film actors published in 2018 reported 37% of male porn stars, ages 20-29, had moderate to severe erectile dysfunction (the IIEF, which measures performance during partnered sex, is the standard urology test for erectile function).
Real YBOP lies about replication, as Park et al., 2016 was review of the literature, and the new study was survey data from a naval urology clinic. (You can’t “replicate” a review.)
The authors of the new paper believe it supports the existence of porn-induced ED.
In the following 4-tweet series, RealYBOP posts on Gary Wilson’s thread. Both Prause and RealYBOP blocked Wilson so they could sneak tweets onto his threads. Are they afraid that Wilson will debunk their misinformation?
There are many more RealYBOP tweets on this page (which were collected for legal reasons). Now we turn to RealYBOP and Prause’s responses to receiving a well founded cease and desist letter.
On May 1, 2019 the attorneys for the common-law owner of the trademarks “Your Brain On Born” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com” (this website) sent a cease and desist letter to all of those who appeared to be behind the infringing site (the “Experts”). Prause’s letter also demands that she abandon her trademark-squatting application for the marks “Your Brain On Porn” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com.”
Instead of complying with the letters’ reasonable, well documented demands, a number of the Experts responded with a derisory Twitter rage storm, baseless accusations that their “free speech rights” were being violated, and indications of malicious intent, such as threats to go to the press to have their infringing activities mischaracterized as “free speech.”
Here’s a Twitter response to the C&D letter by one of the experts, Lynn Comella, who incorrectly spins this as squelching her freedom of speech. PornHelp.org educates Comella. Eventually RealYBOP responds with a link that only Prause ever posts:
The old CBC link is mischaracterized by RealYBOP, as it has always been by Prause. It’s part of a very long saga, other highlights of which include Prause’s Twitter account being permanently banned, Prause publicly asking Gary Wilson about the size of penis…and so much more. See:
On the same Lynn Comella thread PornHelp.org educates a confused PhD:
——————————-
Prause & RealYBOP mirror each other’s tweets:
RealYBOP continues her rampage against Wilson:
Above tweet is nearly identical to 2 earlier tweets by Prause.
RealYBOP comes back with a bizarre tweet under a 2-week old libelous tweet by David Ley, who actually (falsely) stated that the “folks at YBOP threatened his life.” (This false felony-accusation is grounds for a “defamation per se” a lawsuit).
RealYBOP claims Wilson has a puppet account (he doesn’t) and of course fails to link to this imaginary puppet account.
Playing tag-team, Prause provides her legal expertise to the Twitterverse:
April, 2019: Daniel Burgess? Nicole Prause? As “Sciencearousal” – Reddit account promotes “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com” while disparaging Gary Wilson & the legitimate “Your Brain On Porn”
user/sciencearousaltrolled and spammed reddit porn recovery forums, usually posting wherever Gary Wilson’s name or “Your Brain On Porn” appeared. Until otherwise informed, we must assume that user/sciencearousal speaks (defames?) for all the “experts” listed on their collective website: https://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts.
Sciencearousal’s first post boldly references to the imposter site “Your Brain On Porn”:
———————-
More trolling/spamming:
———————-
Trolling a 2-month old post about Gary Wilson, disparaging him:
The above comments mirror those made by both Nicole Prause (and her many aliases) and David Ley. The defamatory and malicious comments began appearing in July, 2013, a few days after Wilson published a critique of Prause ‘s first EEG study. The comments are very similar in content and tone. In the beginning Prause employed dozens of fake usernames to post on porn recovery forums, Quora, Wikipedia, and in the comment sections under articles. Prause rarely used her real name or her own social media accounts.
That all changed after UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015). Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause began to put her name to falsehoods, openly cyber-harassing multiple individuals and organizations on social media and elsewhere. As Prause’s primary target was Wilson (hundreds of social media comments along with behind-the-scenes email campaigns), it became necessary to monitor and document Prause’s tweets and posts. This was done for her victims’ protection, and crucial for any future legal actions. These 2 pages document hundreds of incidents of harassment and documented defamation:
Once again, comments mirror those made by Prause (and her many aliases), disparaging Wilson. In addition, Sciencearousal misrepresents the state of the research, promotes the porn industry’s agenda, and informs a r/pornfree member that porn use is positive for 99% of the population:
———————-
Sciencearousal trolls another thread mentioning “Your Brain On Porn”:
——————-
Sciencearousal trolls another thread mentioning “Your Brain On Porn”. She posts a comment in a one-person subreddit that spams NoFap. The pots is a 2012 rant about Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk, by ReaYBOP “expert” Jason Winters:
Jason Winters rant was thoroughly debunked on these 2 extensive pages:
As Prause and her internet aliases have done countless times, Sciencearousal disparages Wilson’s TEDx talk:
There’s evidence that Prause (and some of the other “experts” listed on “RealYBOP”) harassed TED for 5 straight years… until its biased “science curator” gave in (the curator only has a bachelor’s degree in writing, not science) and placed an unmerited note on the talk. In reality everything in the TEDx talk is fully supported, with hundreds of new studies supporting its assertions since the talk was given (March, 2012). See these 2 extensive pages for scientific support for Wilson’s talk:
Sciencearousal continues to disparage Wilson while try to persuade the world that RealYBOP accurately represents the current state of the research (it doesn’t):
———————-
More inaccurate, unsupported claims by Sciencearousal. Continued attacks on Wilson:
Incidentally, the imposter site features cherry-picked studies, while excluding nearly every study linking porn use to negative outcomes (that is, the majority of porn studies). In those few RealYBOP studies listed that did report negative outcomes, RealYBOP omits such findings from its descriptions. Thanks to YBOP’s curated lists of relevant studies anyone can easily identify RealYBOP’s bias:
Sciencearousal posts 17 comments under the above post. Many comments involve defamation and disparagement of Wilson and this website.
This comment is identical to emails, social media posts, and Wikipedia edits by Prause. Prause fabricates a story that Wilson is being paid off by a charity. Not so, as documented.
For documentation of Prause’s lies and harassment related to the charity see:
Sciencearousal’s “expert” continues with defamation of Wilson and a Scottish charity:
More falsehoods and disparagement of Wilson and YBOP:
When called out for blatant trademark infringement, Sciencearousal accuses a r/pornfree member of “libel”:
Note: everyone on r/pornfree is aware of the legitimate YBOP, as a link to YourBrainOnPorn.com has been in the right-hand sidebar there for years.
When called out Sciencearousal responds by accusing the pornfree member of “misrepresenting the science”:
Sciencearousal escalates:
Pointing out blatant trademark infringement by RealYBOP is mischaracterized as “attacking scientists.”
Sciencearousal’s comments become increasingly bizarre:
No one accused anyone of “being in porn.” However, a few r/pornfree members wondered in comments if Sciencearousal might just be Prause. They, and the r/pornfree moderator, were obviously aware of Prause’s past history of employing various aliases to spread her propaganda on r/pornfree (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). Prause has long had an odd habit of creating most of her usernames from 2-4 capitalized words (i.e. GaryWilsonStalker). See list of her apparent aliases below. While many of the usernames and comment were deleted, a few examples with content remain:
Sciencearousal tunes up a few days later on r/NoFap, telling us that masturbation, not porn is the real problem. (Apparently, porn must be protected at all costs, even if it means throwing masturbation under the bus.)
Sciencearousal on r/NoFap once again trying to convince men with problematic porn use that masturbation, not porn, is the real culprit. Also falsely claims that 7 labs have independently confirmed her assertion (simply untrue).
On April 24th, the Sciencearousal username appeared on Wikipedia, inserting links to RealYourBrainOnporn.com and deleting legitimate material about pornography’s effects. This wasn’t Sciencearousal’s first attempt, as an alias (SecondaryEd2020) tried to do the same on April 17th. (Wikipedia’s rules prohibit sock-puppets, but pro-porn posters seem immune from its rules.) Screenshot of the Pornography Wikipedia talk page with SecondaryEd2020 and Sciencearousal, trying to convince other Wikipedia editors to allow her to cite “RealYourBrainOnPorn.com”:
Eventually Wikipedia banned both Sciencearousal and SecondaryEd2020 as sockpuppets of NeuroSex/Prause (several more sockpuppets are still being investigated): wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NeuroSex. (These 2 pages document over 20 apparent illicit sock-puppets of Nicole Prause, created to insert her propaganda and defame individuals and organizations: page 1, page 2.)
We present further evidence that Sciencearousal and SecondaryEd2020 and NeuroSex all are Prause.
Sciencearousal inserts the infamous 2016 AASECT proclamation (asserting sex addiction doesn’t exist) and disparages America’s top addiction experts at The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM). Numerous Prause sockpuppets have inserted the same edits.
Sciencearousal went on to edit Prause’s other obsession, the Wikipedia page of academic publisher MDPI. As explained in other elsewhere, 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. Prause has a long history of cyberstalking and defaming Wilson, chronicled in this very extensive page. The two papers:
Prause immediately 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. Instead of publishing a formal comment, she unprofessionally turned to threats and social media (and most recently the Retraction Watch blog) to bully MDPI into retracting Park et al., of which I am a co-author with 7 US Navy physicians (including two urologists, two psychiatrists and a neuroscientist). In addition, she informed MDPI that she had filed complaints with the American Psychological Association. She then filed complaints with all 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 also complained repeatedly to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). COPE finally wrote MDPI with a hypothetical inquiry about retraction, based on Prause’s narrative that the “patients weren’t consented.” MDPI thoroughly re-investigated the consents obtained by the doctors who authored the paper, as well as US Navy policy around obtaining consents. On and on Prause went, including employing multiple aliases to edit MDPI Wikipedia pages inserting falsehoods about Wilson, his coauthors. and the paper. For much more, see: From 2015 through 2019: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted.
Below are examples of Prause (as Sciencearousal) inserting her usual drivel. First, she tried to insert a mistake by the Norwegian Register, who accidentally downgraded MDPI’s rating from the normal “1” to a “0”.
The downgraded rating was a clerical error, and had long been resolved on the MDPI Wikipedia page. Prause knows the zero rating was a clerical error, yet she tweeted last month that MDPI was downgraded and that MDPI is a predatory journal (both are false and both are in Sciencearousal’s Wikipedia edit):
Prause caught in another lie about the Norwegian ratings. The correct link to ratings page for each journal: https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/VedtakNiva1. Search for MDPI and you will see that all its journals have a “1” rating, including Behavioral Sciences, where Park et al., 2016 was published.
May 9, 2019: Prause’s (Wayne Giampietro) reply to Gary Wilson’s cease and desist for trademark infringement contains numerous lies and false allegations
On May 1, 2019 the attorneys for the common-law owner (Gary Wilson) of the trademarks “Your Brain On Born” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com” (this website) sent a cease and desist letter to all of those who appeared to be behind a trademark-infringing site – www.realyourbrainonporn.com (the so-called “Experts”). The letter to Nicole Prause demanded, in addition, that she abandon her trademark-squatting application for the marks “Your Brain On Porn” and “YourBrainOnPorn.com.” See PDF of the 8-page cease and desist letter to Nicole Prause (May 1, 2019).
On May 9, 2019 we received a reply from former BackPage (sex trade) attorney Wyane Giampietro who was now representing Nicole Prause. The letter falsely asserted that Dr. Prause was not involved with realyourbrainonporn.com. A few paragraphs of Wayne Giampietro’s 3-page (reply) letter repeated Prause’s lies that my pages documenting her ongoing defamation and harassment constitute “untrue defamatory attacks upon Dr. Prause.“
Giampietro’s letter listed a few of the same Prause falsehoods documented on the “Prause pages.” He also demanded that I immediately remove all the pages documenting Prause’s unethical and illegal behaviors, and that I refrain from adding any “similar accusations” to YBOP:
Giampietro – “These statements made by your client are false, defamatory and actionable. He must remove them from his web site immediately, and refrain from posting any similar accusations in the future. “
Since May 9th I’ve added several new pages related to the trademark infringement/trademark squatting and harassment/defamation by RealYBOP Twitter (an apparent Prause alias), two related to the Hilton and Rhodes defamation lawsuits, an extensive page documenting Prause’s defamation and harassment of Alex Rhodes and some 30 new sections on Prause page #2, and Prause page #3, which document her escalating harassment and defamation. So no, Mr. Giampietro, I will not refrain from exposing your client as a serial defamer, harasser and cyberstalker. Nor, it seems, will Hilton, Rhodes, or the many Prause victims who have filed sworn affidavits about her in Federal court.
Because Prause often tweets or emails her lawyers’ letters, misrepresenting her fairy tales as factual, I am forced to expose Mr. Giampietro’s falsehoods below (the typos remain). As in her spurious 2015 cease and desist letter, Giampietro’s May 9th letter, and all subsequent letters from Giampietro, Prause provides no evidence to support her fabricated allegations of victim-hood or untruths about me. Here I repond to Giampietro (whose statements are in maroon):
Giampietro – “Finally, despite having been warned in 2015 by counsel for Dr. Prause, Mr. Wilson has continued his barrage of untrue defamatory attacks upon Dr. Prause. Apparently he has embarked upon a vendetta against Dr. Praise and others with whom she is associated. Dr. Prause name alone appears on more than 4000 pages of Wilson’s web site, and over 108,000 times with his link online.”
Everything I have chronicled concerning Prause is true, and nothing Prause’s 2015 attorney (pre-Giampietro) alleged in his C&D was true. These are simply Prause talking points, calculated to shape public opinion. First, as you can see from this search, Prause’s name appears on only 110 out of YBOP 13,000 pages – not 4,000 pages as Prause falsely asserted. The vast majority of these mentions are links to other pages containing my and other’s critiques of Prause’s dubious papers and articles (I purposely do a lot of internal linking).
Prause is not the only researcher whose work I analyze. For example, YBOP contains critiques of multiple Josh Grubbs papers, which results in his name appearing 70 times in a YBOP search.
As for her claim that there are 108,000 mentions of “Prause” on YBOP, this falsehood was already debunked in this section.
Giampietro – “While a dispute regarding issues of public interest is one thing, making false and defamatory allegations against Dr. Prause is indefensible. Among the false allegations Wilson has made against Dr. Prause are: she has engaged in “obsessive, unrelenting cybcr-harassment” against Wilson”…
In fact, she is engaged in “obsessive, unrelenting cybcr-harassment” against me. Extensive documentation: page 1, page 2, page 3.
“she tells a porn addict to visit a prostitute (a violation of APA ethics and Calfornia law)”….
Prause’s quora answer shows a complete disregard for professional APA ethics, ethical and social norms, and the rule of law in California. This theme permeates everything revealed about Nicole Prause on this page.
she is “unprofessional and unethical”…
Most definitely. Also a serial defamer and harasser.
she was fired, terminated and/or reprimanded by the University of California,…
Never said that she was. However, UCLA did not renew Prause’s contract (late 2014 or early 2015). This coincided with Prause harassing and defaming UCLA colleague Rory Reid (Dr. Reid is still at UCLA). I hope a court, in the defamation suits against Prause, investigates the actual events surrounding Prause’s departure from UCLA, her harassment of Rory Reid, and any legal threats made by Prause towards UCLA personnel.
she falsified or utilized “bogus” data in her studies…
May, 2019: The World Health Organization publishes a paper describing Nicole Prause’s numerous ICD-11 comments (“antagonistic comments, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence”)
The World Health Organization publishes its own diagnostic manual known as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which includes diagnostic codes for all known diseases, including mental health disorders. The next edition of the ICD, the ICD-11, has now officially been adopted (2019). The beta version of ICD-11 has allowed comments since 2014 on proposed diagnoses, such as “Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder” (CSBD). Here’s where most of the comments are located for CSBD. Additional comments can be found in the “proposal section” for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder. To view the comments you must sign up and create a username.
Beginning in March, 2015 Nicole Prause has compulsively posted in all the comment sections related to CSBD. Her goal was to prevent the inclusion of CSBD in the ICD-11. Prause failed, as CSBD has now been adopted. The majority of Prause’s comments constitute personal attacks and defamation. The “substantive” portions of her comments often involve misrepresentation of both the science and the current state of the research on CSBD.
On May 6, 2019, WHO officials published the following paper in the eminent journal World Psychiatry –Public stakeholders’ comments on ICD‐11 chapters related to mental and sexual health. The paper summarized the nature of the comments with some quantatative data. WHO starts by detailing the number of comments and proposals. Note the large number of comments for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder:
Between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017, 402 comments and 162 proposals were submitted on mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders, sleep‐wake disorders, and conditions related to sexual health. The largest number of submissions related to mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders focused on compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (N=47), complex post‐traumatic stress disorder (N=26), bodily distress disorder (N=23), autism spectrum disorder (N=17), and gaming disorder (N=11). Submissions on conditions related to sexual health mainly addressed gender incongruence of adolescence and adulthood (N=151) and gender incongruence of childhood (N=39). Few submissions were related to sleep‐wake disorders (N=18).
Of the 47 comments under the main CSBD proposal 26 were by Nicole Prause! Prause also posted 2 proposals to delete CSBD, with an additional 10 comments. WHO is clearly describing Prause and her allies (David Ley, Roger Libby, Luke Adams, Tammy Ellis Johnson) in this excerpt:
Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder received the highest number of submissions of all mental disorders (N=47), but often from the same individuals (N=14).
WHO goes on, portraying the nature of the CSBD comments as polarized and describing Prause’s comments in which she personally attacked individuals and organizations, including numerous incidents of defamation (some of which have already been documented on the Prause pages):
The introduction of this diagnostic category has been passionately debated3 and comments on the ICD‐11 definition recapitulated ongoing polarization in the field. Submissions included antagonistic comments among commenters, such as accusations of a conflict of interest or incompetence (48%; κ=0.78) or claims that certain organizations or people would profit from inclusion or exclusion in ICD‐11 (43%; κ=0.82). One group expressed support (20%; κ=0.66) and considered that there is sufficient evidence (20%; κ=0.76) for inclusion, whereas the other strongly opposed inclusion (28%; κ=0.69), stressing poor conceptualization (33%; κ=0.61), insufficient evidence (28%; κ=0.62), and detrimental outcomes (22%; κ=0.86). Both groups cited neuroscientific evidence (35%; κ=0.74) to support their arguments. Few commenters proposed actual changes to the definition (4%; κ=1). Instead, both sides discussed nosological questions such as conceptualization of the condition as impulsivity, compulsivity, behavioural addiction or expression of normal behavior (65%; κ=0.62). The WHO believes that the inclusion of this new category is important for a legitimate clinical population to receive services4. Concerns about overpathologizing are addressed in the CDDG, but this guidance does not appear in the brief definitions available to beta platform commenters.
Next, a few exmaples of Prause’s “antagonistic comments.” We begin with Prause’s numerous unprovoked and often libelous attacks on Gary Wilson (who never posted in the ICD-11 comments section). Prause accuses Wilson of commenting on the ICD-11, and lies about Wilson being “employed by The Reward Foundation.” (He is not. Nor has he ever received funds from TRF.) The following comment was Prause’s ad hominem response to commenter Monte Burris’s debunking of her usual assertions:
Staci replied one more time, providing links that expose Prause as lying:
Prause continued with the now familiar falsehoods, while disparaging Staci Sprout:
Hmmm.. bankruptcy, just as dozens of fake names on porn recovery sites have been saying since 2013. As for the LAPD and UCLAPD, both said in 2016 that Prause never filed anything with their departments. An FOIA from the FBI exposed Prause as lying about reporting Wilson. As for Prause claiming Wilson never challenged her claims, he has clearly done so on these extensive pages:
Darryl Mead, PhD, the Chair of The Reward Foundation, eventually responded:
Prause becomes even more irrational and vituperative:
Prause’s many lies are specifically addressed and debunked in these sections. (We are amazed at how many lies Prause can fit into a paragraph – impressive.)
More examples of Prause’s inaccurate, aggressive and defamatory comments. Here Prause misrepresents the research on PIED, while disparaging Stefanie Carnes:
Disparaging Stefanie Carnes:
As we recently outlined in our chapter (Prause & Williams, 2018), this is a common mistake specific to Marriage and Family Therapists like Stephanie Carnes. They misperceive their own clinical efficacy regularly, in a manner financially beneficial to them, and refuse to use treatments supported by research.
Prause cites her opinion piece, as she had nothing else to cite. More:
There are zero clinical data supporting the false claim that a treatment of “abstinence” reduces ED. Indeed, there are zero randomized controlled trials from which such a claim could even possibly be made. This is a fabrication by Stephanie Carnes.
False. See below.
Misrepresenting the research:
There are zero clinical data supporting the false claim that a treatment of “abstinence” reduces ED…
In reality, multiple laboratory studies and a representative survey have found sex film viewing is associated with less sexual dysfunction and erectile problems…
Prause lecturing no one in particular, falsely accusing all involved of “misrepresenting actual neuroscientists,” and “the intention to value profit over patients at any cost of course“:
Prause claims – “I also have cited multiple neuroscientists explicit conclusions (as above)“. In reality, Prause cited only one neuroscience paper “above” – her own 2015 EEG study – Prause et al., 2015. As with many of the studies she cites, that study, Prause et al., 2015, isn’t what it appears to be. While Prause boldly asserted that her lone, deeply flawed EEG study had debunked porn addiction, nine peer-reviewed papers disagree. All nine papers do agree that Prause et al., 2015 actually found desensitization or habituation in the more frequent porn users (a phenomenon consistent with addiction): Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015.
————-
Staci Sprout said nothing about Prause or research, yet Prause is compelled to disparage Sprout, claiming that Staci is “spamming” the ICD-11. Let’s do the math: Prause – 38 comments/posts; Staci Sprout – 4 comments (2 of which were defending Gary Wilson). As you can see, pure bile:
It’s important to know that the enterprising Prause offered (for a fee) her “expert” testimony against sex addiction and porn addiction. It seems as though Prause is attempting to sell her services to profit from the unsupportable anti-porn addiction conclusions of her two EEG studies (1, 2), even though 17 peer-reviewed analyses say both studies actually lend support to the addiction model! Prause has since deleted the following from her Liberos website:
—————–
After Stefanie Carnes PhD (who has published several studies) cites multiple studies and reviews in support of the addiction model, Prause responds with personal attacks (because Prause cannot address the studies cited):
Comments: Yes, Carnes did send Prause a cease and desist letter for her numerous defamatory statements about IITAP and IITAP therapists, which are documented in these sections:
On the other hand, Prause sent at least 10 bogus cease and desist letters, which were meant to intimidate, yet contained nothing but fabricated assertions. See:
Prause falsehood – “SASH board of directors has religious faith healers.”
—————-
In response to Candice Christiansen’s extensive comment, citing numerous studies and ASAM, Prause tells Candice that she doesn’t understand science, and is profiting from treating “these behaviors”:
Prause is omitting one tiny detail: her Liberos company was founded to “profit from treating these behaviors” (compulsive sexual behaviors)! Prause uses “direct current stimulation” (DCS) to alter sex drive, including to treat compulsive sexual behaviors as long as her clients refer to their porn addiction and sex addiction as “higher sex drive.” Screenshot from Liberos DCS page:
DCS is not free:
DCS is not FDA approved. Ironic that Prause attacks sex and porn addiction therapists for using unproven methods (according to Prause), yet she uses a completely unproven, novel method.
————
In reponse to no one, Prause’s goes off, disparaging Don Hilton, Stef Carnes, Debra Kaplan, Candice Christiansen with the same tired litanny of personal attacks and propaganda:
Debunking this Prause claim:
The largest neuroscience study to date falsified a core tenet of the addiction model, the cue reactivity biomarker. No one has published data failing to replicate these studies.
In reality, the findings of Prause et al. 2015 align perfectly with Kühn & Gallinat (2014), which found that more porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to pictures of vanilla porn. Put simply, frequent porn users were desensitized to static images of vanilla porn. They were bored (habituated or desensitized). Nine peer-reviewed papers agree that this study actually found desensitization/habituation in frequent porn users (consistent with addiction): Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015. Even if Prause were correct she conveniently ignores the gaping hole in her “falsification” assertion: 24 other neurological studies have reported cue-reactivity or cravings (sensitization) in compulsive porn users: 1,2,3,4, 5,6,7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Science doesn’t go with the lone anomalous study hampered by serious methodological flaws; science goes with the preponderance of evidence (unless you are agenda-driven).
And this Prause claim:
There are also a series of behavioral studies replicated by independent laboratories falsifying other predictions of the addiction model (reviewed in Prause et al., 2016)
Prause disparages David House with the same vile, accusatory language (while she sells clients non-approved brain stimulation for their “high sexual desire”):
Re AASECT: First, AASECT is not a scientific organization and cited nothing to support the assertions in its press release – rendering its support meaningless.
Finding AASECT’s tolerance of the “sex addiction model” to be “deeply hypocritical”, in 2014 Dr. Aaron set out to eradicate support for the concept of “sex addiction” from AASECT’s ranks. To accomplish his goal, Dr. Aaron claims to have deliberately sowed controversy among AASECT members in order to expose those with viewpoints that disagreed with his own, and then to have explicitly silenced those viewpoints while steering the organization toward its rejection of the “sex addiction model.” Dr. Aaron justified using these “renegade, guerilla [sic] tactics” by reasoning that he was up against a “lucrative industry” of adherents to the “sex addiction model” whose financial incentives would prevent him from bringing them over to his side with logic and reason. Instead, to effect a “quick change” in AASECT’s “messaging,” he sought to ensure that pro-sex addiction voices were not materially included in the discussion of AASECT’s course change.
Dr. Aaron’s boast comes across as a little unseemly. People rarely take pride in, much less publicize, suppressing academic and scientific debate. And it seems odd that Dr. Aaron spent the time and money to become CST certified by an organization he deemed “deeply hypocritical” barely a year after joining it (if not before). If anything, it is Dr. Aaron who appears hypocritical when he criticizes pro-“sex addiction” therapists for having a financial investment in the “sex addiction model”, when, quite obviously, he has a similar investment in promoting his opposing viewpoint
Several commentaries and critiques expose AASECT’s proclamation for what it truly is:
Replying to no one, Prause disparages the 3,000 medical doctors at the American Society for Addiction Medicine:
Prause hates ASAM because in 2011, the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM) came out with a public statement clarifying that behavioral addictions (sexual, food, gambling) are fundamentally like substance addictions in terms of brain changes. Said ASAM:
We all have the brain reward circuitry that makes food and sex rewarding. In fact, this is a survival mechanism. In a healthy brain, these rewards have feedback mechanisms for satiety or ‘enough.’ In someone with addiction, the circuitry becomes dysfunctional such that the message to the individual becomes ‘more’, which leads to the pathological pursuit of rewards and/or relief through the use of substances and behaviors.
ASAM specifically addressed sexual behavior addictions:
QUESTION: This new definition of addiction refers to addiction involving gambling, food, and sexual behaviours. 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 behaviours 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 behaviours and gambling behaviours can be associated with the “pathological pursuit of rewards” described in this new definition of addiction.
————–
More victimhood combined with personal attacks and misrepresentation of the research:
Actually there is scientific consensus: The ICD-11 accepted CSBD, and that was partially due to the fact that there are now 44 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal), providing strong support for the addiction model as their findings mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies.
————–
Geoffrey Goodman, whom Prause later maliciously reported to his university for calling her out, comments. Prause responds with her usual ad hominem:
Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder seems to fit well with non-substance addictive disorders proposed for ICD-11, consistent with the narrower term of sex addiction currently proposed for compulsive sexual behaviour disorder on the ICD-11 draft website.3 We believe that classification of compulsive sexual behaviour disorder as an addictive disorder is consistent with recent data and might benefit clinicians, researchers, and individuals suffering from and personally affected by this disorder.
Stefanie Carnes on her AASECT blog post, with a Prause reply spewing her usual array of disparaging remarks and unsupported assertions:
Prause claim:
The vast majority of neuroscientists, of which I speak with regularly and extensively, because it is my field, do not believe sex or porn are addictive.
Reality: First CSBD was accepted by the world’s health experts. Second, and most important, there have been 44 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) published on porn users and CSBD subjects. Out of all the neuroscientists on those 44 papers, Prause is the ONLY one to publicly state that porn/sex addiction does not exist. Note – all 44 studies provide strong support for the addiction model as their findings (including her own) mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies.
Prause drivel:
The division between profiteering therapists with no science training asserting to interpret neuroscience data differently than the actual scientists themselves interpret it has been a longstanding strategy to line their pockets.
Reality: The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 23 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.
————–
Prause reponding to Geoff Goodman, PhD with her usual disparaging remarks, citing her and David Ley’s unsupported opinion piece – Ley et al., 2014 (not 2015 as Prause wrote).
The following is a very long analysis of Ley et al., 2014, which goes line-by-line, citation by citation, exposing all the shenanigans Ley and Prause incorporated in their “review”: The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review. It completely dismantles the so-called review, and documents dozens of misrepresentations of the research they cited. The most shocking aspect of the Ley review is that it omitted any study that reported negative effects related to porn use or found porn addiction! Yes, you read that right. While purporting to write an “objective” review, these two sexologists justified omitting hundreds of studies on the grounds that these were correlational studies. Guess what? Virtually all studies on porn are correlational.
Since Ley et al., was published, over 20 legitimate reviews have come out. The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 23 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.
Next, Prause responds to no one, posting her short commentary, and fabricating nonsense about imaginary attempts to silence her (from the person who posted more comments than everyone else combined!), and “profiteers”:
Prause’s paper falsified nothing as it addressed one person masturbating to porn – who wasn’t a porn or sex addict.
Prause cites a sloppy, scientifically inaccurate PDF from 3 kink organizations (notice how she rarely cites actual studies – and if she does, they are usually her own studies).
Perhaps you are wondering how YBOP can produce so many critiques of reviews or articles purporting to debunk sex and porn addiction? It’s mostly cut and paste for YBOP as all the addiction opponents cite the same often-irrelevant studies (or each other’s drivel), while ignoring the vast preponderance of evidence. These extensive critiques debunk all the usual often-repeated talking points and cherry-picked studies:
Prause posted her upcoming study 3-4 times on ICD-11. As of July, 2019 it still hasn’t been published. The facts surrounding this paper are very, very interesting.
This paper was funded by “Orgasmic Meditation” (to legitimize their very shaky reputation), was not about porn or sex addiction, and may have used subjects supplied by the porn industry! Let’s expand on this.
The study (or studies) in question is said to be funded by OneTaste, a for-profit company charging $4,300.00 for a 3-day workshop to learn clitoral manipulation. As described in this Bloomberg.com expose, OneTaste offers several different packages:
Currently, students pay $499 for a weekend course, $4,000 for a retreat, $12,000 for the coaching program, and $16,000 for an “intensive.” In 2014, OneTaste started selling a yearlong $60,000 membership, which lets buyers take all the courses they want and sit in the front row.
The official description of the OM study:
“Neurological effects and health benefits of orgasmic meditation” Principal Investigator, Direct costs: $350,000, Duration: 2 years, OneTaste Foundation, co-Investigators: Greg Siegle, Ph.D.
In the Bloomberg article Chief Executive Officer Joanna Van Vleck pretty much says that OneTaste is now dependent on Prause’s upcoming EEG studies to legitimize OM (which is now being investigated by the FBI):
The newish CEO is betting that the study OneTaste has funded on the health benefits of OM, which has taken brain-activity readings from 130 pairs of strokers and strokees, will draw fresh crowds. Led by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh, the study is expected to yield the first of multiple papers…eventually. “The science that’s coming out to back what this is and what the benefits are is going to be huge in terms of scaling,” Van Vleck says.
To perform the OM study Prause needed willing participants comfortable with being hooked up to machines, having their genitals exposed, and being masturbated by a man as researchers observe their responses. It’s not hard to imagine that it was challenging to locate females willing to act as sexual guinea pigs in Prause’s Hollywood Boulevard office. Whatever the reasons, Ruby insisted that Prause obtained subjects for her OM study via the FSC, and that Prause had an ongoing relationship with the FSC:
If the above is true it reveals a very cozy working relationship between Prause and the FSC. A relationship that may have started in 2015, when with Prause publicly accepted assistance from the deep-pocketed FSC. This was immediately followed by Prause throwing her scientific weight behind some the FSC’s major agendas (rejection of Proposition 60 [condoms in porn], porn stars are not damaged goods, porn addiction is a myth, porn is not public health crisis, watching porn is mostly beneficial, etc.)
The plot thickens. Originally funded to explore only the benefits of “Orgasmic Meditation,” Prause began crowing that her yet to be published OM study “falsified” porn and sex addiction. In her tweets and comments Prause revealed that she showed her clitoris stroking couples “sex films” and the results (in her opinion) debunked the porn addiction model. Prause’s OM study has magically morphed from a “partnered sex” investigation into an anti-porn addiction, pro-porn industry paper. How could this happen?
—————-
David Ley falsely asserting that OCD is probably synonymous with CSBD.
Ley suggests to WHO – “this category should only be supported if there is extant research showing effective differential diagnosis from individuals experiencing OCD.” Those studies you’re demanding have already been published, David.
In arguing against the concept of behavioral addictions, including porn addiction, skeptics like Ley & Prause often claim that that addiction is really just a form of OCD. Research demonstrates that addictions differ from OCD in many substantive ways. In fact, the DSM-5 has separate categories for OCD and behavioral addictions, so its experts realize that the two conditions are physiologically different. An excerpt from this 2016 review sums it up:
Obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders have been considered to conceptualize sexual compulsivity (40) because some studies have found individuals with hypersexual behavior are on the obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum. OCD for hypersexual behavior is not consistent with DSM-5 (1) diagnostic understandings of OCD, which exclude from the diagnosis those behaviors from which individuals derive pleasure. Although obsessive thoughts of the OCD type often have sexual content, the associated compulsions performed in response to the obsessions are not carried out for pleasure. Individuals with OCD report feelings of anxiety and disgust rather than sexual desire or arousal when confronted with situations triggering obsessions and compulsions, with the latter being performed only to quell uneasiness the obsessive thoughts arouse. (41)
Few studies have examined associations between compulsivity and hypersexuality. Among males with nonparaphilic hypersexual disorder, the lifetime prevalence of obsessive compulsive disorder—a psychiatric disorder characterized by compulsivity—ranges from 0% to 14% (Kafka, 2015). Obsessiveness—which may be associated with compulsive behavior (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (MMPI-2); Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989)—in treatment-seeking men with hypersexuality has been found to be elevated relative to a comparison group, but the effect size of this difference was weak (Reid & Carpenter, 2009). When the association between the level of obsessive-compulsive behavior—assessed by a subscale of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-II) (First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997)—and the level of hypersexuality was examined among treatment-seeking males with hypersexual disorder, a trend toward a positive, weak association was found (Carpenter, Reid, Garos, & Najavits, 2013). On the basis of the aforementioned results, compulsivity appears to contribute in a relatively small manner to hypersexuality.
While there are definite overlaps between hypersexuality and conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and other impulse control disorders [61], there are also some notable differences pointed out: for example, OCD behaviors do not involve reward, unlike sexual behavior. Moreover, while engaging in compulsions might result in temporary relief for OCD patients [62], hypersexual behavior is usually associated by guilt and regret after committing the act [63]. Also, the impulsivity that can sometimes dominate the patient’s behavior is incompatible with the careful planning that is sometimes required in CSB (for example, in regards to a sexual encounter) [64]. Goodman thinks that addiction disorders lie at the intersection of compulsive disorders (which involve anxiety reduction) and impulsive disorders (which involve gratification), with the symptoms being underpinned by neurobiological mechanisms (serotoninergic, dopaminergic, noradrenergic, and opioid systems) [65]. Stein agrees with a model combining several ethiopathogenical mechanisms and proposes an A-B-C model (affective dysregulation, behavioral addiction, and cognitive dyscontrol) to study this entity [61].
From an addictive behavior standpoint, hypersexual behavior relies on sharing core aspects of addiction. These aspects, according to the DSM-5 [1], refer to the mentioned problematic consumption model applied to hypersexual behavior, both offline and online [6,66,67]. Evidence of tolerance and withdrawal in these patients might probably be key in characterizing this entity as an addictive disorder [45]. Problematic use of cybersex is also often conceptualized as a behavioral addiction [13,68].
In this study, we were interested in the prevalence and the associated sociodemographic and clinical features of CSBD in patients with OCD. First, we found that 3.3% of patients with OCD had current CSBD and 5.6% had lifetime CSBD, with a significantly higher prevalence in men than in women. Second, we found that other conditions, particularly mood, obsessive–compulsive, and impulse-control disorders, were more common in OCD patients with CSBD than in those without CSBD, but not disorders due to substance use or addictive behaviors.
The early estimations of prevalence rates of CSBD provided by Carnes (1991) and Coleman (1992) suggested that up to 6% of people from the general population suffer from compulsive sexual behavior. Although it is unclear how these estimates were obtained (Black, 2000), subsequent epidemiological research confirmed that compulsive sexuality, which may include increased masturbation frequency, pornography use, number of sexual partners, and extramarital affairs, is common in the general population (Dickenson et al., 2018). Our findings on prevalence rates of CSBD in OCD seem roughly comparable to those in the general population (Langstrom & Hanson, 2006; Odlaug et al., 2013; Skegg, Nada-Raja, Dickson, & Paul, 2010).
In conclusion, our data indicate that prevalence rates of CSBD in OCD are comparable to those in the general population and in other diagnostic cohorts. Moreover, we found that CSBD in OCD was more likely comorbid with other impulsive, compulsive, and mood disorders, but not with behavioral- or substance-related addictions. This finding supports the conceptualization of CSBD as a compulsive–impulsive disorder. Going forward, standardized measures with sound psychometric properties are needed to assess presence and severity of CSBD. Future research should continue to consolidate the conceptualization of this disorder and to gather additional empirical data, in order to ultimately improve clinical care.
While these incidents might have been sufficient to warrant legal action, it wasn’t until Prause sank to accusing Dr. Hilton of sexual harassment that a suit was filed. The court filings are here.
On July 24, 2019 Don Hilton amended his lawsuit to include:
Affidavits from 9 other victims of Prause,
Prause’s malicious complaint to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners containing false and defamatory statements,
Prause’s accusations with two different professional journals in which Dr. Hilton has published, incorrectly accusing Dr. Hilton of falsifying and exaggerating his credentials.
UPDATE: Nicole R. Prause filed a motion to dismiss Donald Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against her. Prause’s motion contained false statements and myriad unsupported allegations. Don Hilton responded with a 21-page opposition to dismiss and .
June, 2019: David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) continue their campaign to connect porn recovery forums to white supremacists/Nazis
It’s 2019 and not much has changed. David Ley and Prause (as RealYBOP Twitter & “sciencearousal”) are still campaigning to connect porn recovery forums and anti-porn activists to anti-Semitism and fascism. This is just the latest, as we have already documented Prause and Ley’s previous attempts in other sections:
It appears that David Ley collaborated again with journalist Rob Kuznia to produce the following June, 2019 NY Times piece: “Among Some Hate Groups, Porn Is Viewed as a Conspiracy.” Back in 2017 Kuznia collaborated with Prause and Ley to produce a factually inaccurate hit-piece for The Daily Beast. The 2017 article painted Prause as a victim of Gary Wilson’s supposed stalking, while promoting Prause’s two high profile EEG studies as landing, “like PR torpedoes on the controversial notion that sex or porn can be addictive like booze and drugs.” They were bombs all right.
In fact, the opposite of Kuznia’s statement is true as Prause is the perpetrator (not the victim), and her two EEG studies were critiqued an unbelievable total of 17 times in the peer-reviewed literature. In fact, experts stated that that the results of these flawed studies actually appear to support the porn-addiction model:
Kuznia’s 2017 hit-piece purposely omitted all the other neurological studies on this list of 44 neuroscience-based studies. Taken together, these studies provide strong support for a porn-addiction model. We say “purposely,” because Kuznia was given the list of research by Wilson, along with hundreds of other studies on this list. He ignored them all – unlike the World Health Organization, which has adopted a diagnosis for “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” that is plenty broad enough to encompass “porn addicts.”
As was cleverly done in his 2017 Daily Beast article, Kuznia tricks the reader into presuming connections that don’t really exist. For example, in this new piece he places two unconnected sentences into a single paragraph to fool the reader into thinking that reddit/nofap is populated by white nationalists and somehow connected to the Proud Boys.
For example, a forum on Reddit is a support group of sorts for 440,000 members who take breaks from masturbation and porn for what they believe to be mental, physical and sexual-health reasons. The Proud Boys, a self-professed “western chauvinist” group, encouraged a similar message.
Neither is the case, and Kuznia provides no evidence. But hey, that’s what you can expect from agenda-driven journalists.
Concurrently with the latest Kuznia smear, Prause tunes up with two apparent aliases representing her new website (which illegally infringes on YBOP’s trademarks): realyourbrainonporn twitter account and reddit user scienceofarousal. First, here are the targeted tweets (which both Ley and Prause retweet):
RealYBOP falsely claims the “anti-porn” movement is rooted in hate groups.
RealYBOP trolls another thread with Prause’s standard allegations about being stalked or receiving rape threats. Prause has yet to provide documentation of these incidents. On the other hand, the page you’re reading, and its sister page, document Prause lying numerous times by making false claims that Gary Wilson, Alex Rhodes, and Clay Olsen have threatened or stalked her physically.
As RealYBOP was tweeting, the RealYBOP Reddit account (user/sciencearousal) was spamming r/nofap with the Kuznia article, implying that r/nofap is a hate group:
Sciencearousal (Prause) followed up her post with what on the surface appears to be an uncharacteristically sincere answer:
However, closer examination reveals a link to one of Prause & Ley’s all time favorite propaganda articles: a 2016 David Duke article with a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Ley and Prause have used this over and over to suggest (falsely) that Wilson is allied with Duke. That’s what sciencearousal is trying to do with her oh-so-reasonable comment (hoping not to be deleted). Disgusting ploy.
Wilson’s TEDx talk has 12+ million views, so thousands of folks of all stripes have linked to (and recommended) Wilson’s talk, “The Great Porn Experiment.” How does this implicate Gary Wilson as a “white supremacist?” It doesn’t, of course. This ridiculous assertion is like suggesting all dog lovers are Nazis because Hitler loved his dogs.
In the Kuznia article Ley asserts that he has received “death threats.” Whether he has or not, Ley has certainly lied about receiving death threats from YBOP. In April, 2019. David Ley tweeted that the folks at YBOP had threatened his life.
David Ley is lying about YBOP death threats. Nor have the “folks at YBOP” censored, stalked, or deplatformed David Ley. Simply ridiculous.
Ley was asked several times on Twitter to supply evidence to support his claims. He provided none, as can be seen in the above thread. Ley has engaged in several instances of documented defamation. This latest defamatory assertion that YBOP “folks” threatened his life falls into a special category of defamation per se. YBOP is still weighing the options of a defamation per se lawsuit against Ley.
Missing from Kuznia’s NY Times article: the list of harassment, defamation, and threats, which many individuals documented on these 2 pages experience from Ley and Prause and their troupe of flying monkeys.
RealYBOP/Prause continues to tweet the NYTimes article in her propaganda.
As herself, for a change, falsely claiming to have recieved death & rape threats:
As they intended, Prause & Ley’s fabrications incite unstable Twitter trolls to harass Gary Wilson, Alexander Rhodes, and Nofap. A few of Prause’s allies join in here. (Even though nerdykinkycommie was long ago blocked, he joins the thread):
As soon as kinkycommie retweets Wilson’s tweet (the above tweet), Prause joins her friend in the defamation (Wilson’s tweet reads “unavailable” because kinkycommie is blocked).
Prause is claiming that: (1) she is receiving death threats, 2) Wilson is somehow behind these death threats because he is posting libel directed at “us.” As for Wilson posting libel, Prause provides no example, because she is lying and engaging in libel herself. While the posted threat may be legitimate (and that would be terrible), we are given no documentation as to the source. While this may seem harsh, we have documentation of several instances of Prause lying about having received rape threats from specific individuals. In one instance, Dr. Prause called the office of a doctor she had been harassing, telling office workers that threats to her (Prause) had been traced back to that office’s IP address, and must have come from the doctor. Unbeknownst to Prause the doctor hadn’t worked there for over a year. Prause busted in another lie.
Prause has also falsely asserted that she was sexually harassed by Don Hilton, MD and John Adler, MD. (Dr. Hilton was obliged to file a lawsuit in response to Prause defamatory statements in order to defend his professional reputation.)
Back story: This page documents much of Prause’s unethical behavior surrounding Park et al., 2016 – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted – including, lying in emails to MDPI and COPE; using fake names to harass The Reward Foundation (a Scottish charity); threatening Gary Wilson’s publisher and his website manager; inserting false information about Wilson and The Reward Foundation into Wikipedia; harassing numerous individuals who published articles in MDPI journals; mischaracterizing her “review” of Park et al.; hiding the fact she had reviewed Park et al. at a previous journal; being banned from Wikipedia for employing multiple sockpuppets to edit the MDPI page; maliciously reporting US Navy doctors to medical boards; lying to Retraction Watch; using aliases to contact the US Navy; falsely accusing a US Navy doctor of harassment, when she was the perpetrator; and on and on and on. All this because Prause is obsessed with attempting to deny porn-induced sexual dysfunctions.
In August 2017, Behavioral Sciences published the article [1], which includes a case study of three individuals in the US Navy. The paper underwent our usual editorial process, including peer review, and was accepted for publication. Since then, we have received a number of complaints from a single individual claiming that the paper is seriously flawed and calling for withdrawal of the article. In this comment we wish to reiterate that the correct procedures were followed in the handling of the manuscript and to publicly counter some of the claims. The Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) considered some of these issues and we are grateful for their advice and cooperation. We also wish to thank the authors for their cooperation.
One serious claim leveled against the paper was that the required consent was not sought from the three individuals featured in the case studies presented. According to the instructions for authors posted on the Behavioral Sciences website, informed consent should be obtained for case studies where there is any risk that individuals could be identified. When asked to confirm this point, the authors verified that consent had been obtained for two individuals and that for the third not enough details were shared in the paper to require consent. The editorial office has seen redacted copies of the consent form used and is satisfied with the authors’ explanation.
Another issue was that the academic editor of the article was not aware that he was making a final decision to accept article [1] for publication. Behavioral Sciences uses a standard template to invite editors to make the final decision to accept manuscripts, which was also done in this case. Since the complaint, the original academic editor has informed us that he was not aware that this was his role for the paper. We re-evaluated the peer review process with the (now former) Editor-in-Chief John Coverdale and made the decision that the manuscript should not be removed for this reason. In the published Correction [2], the academic editor information has been amended.
Numerous claims about conflicts of interest of the authors were made in relation to [1]. Only one non-financial conflict of interest was found to be substantiated and the paper has been updated [2].
Consequently, MDPI has updated its instructions for authors to provide more clarity about informed consent issues and to better guide authors in this area. Our requirements and policies have not changed and we continue to follow the guidelines provided by COPE.
We believe that the dispute surrounding this paper arose from a difference of opinion in terms of the treatment of individuals using high levels of pornography, and was not motivated by genuine concerns about the editorial work around the paper [3]. Our view is that the correct way to deal with such a dispute is by presenting arguments and counter-arguments in a peer-reviewed, scientific context where all conflicts of interest from both parties are properly disclosed. Personal criticism does not have a place in this context and attempts to shut down those with opposing views by removing their work from the literature is not the correct approach. We know that the majority of authors and readers approach research in a constructive and engaged way and we wish to advocate this approach for the benefit of the research community as a whole.
References
[1] Park, B.Y.; Wilson, G.; Berger, J.; Christman, M.; Reina, B.; Bishop, F.; Klam, W.P.; Doan, A.P. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports. Sci.2016, 6, 17.
[2] Park, B.Y. et al.; Correction: Park, B.Y., et al. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports Sci. 2016, 6, 17. Behav. Sci.2018, 8, 55.
What’s not clear in this article is that my (Wilson’s) affiliation with The Reward Foundation was disclosed from the start (see the original PubMed version, published in August, 2016 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/). The correction was published for my protection, in an attempt to stop Dr. Prause from continuing to claim that I was being paid by The Reward Foundation as a lobbyist, or just being “paid off.” (She has publicly advanced several baseless theories about my imagined corruption.) In the journal’s correction, only the title of my book (“Your Brain On Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction”) and a clear indication of my unremunerated role at The Reward Foundation were added. Again, this was to prevent further assertions of any possible financial conflict of interest. Corrected version: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/8/6/55/htm
Put simply, the correction was meant to protect me from Prause and her littany of falsehoods surrounding this paper.
Backstory: MDPI is the Swiss parent company of over 100 academic journals, including Behavioral Sciences. Prause is obsessed with MDPI because Behavioral Sciences published two highly cited reviews that Prause despises because they (1) critiqued 3 papers by her, and (2) the two papers lend support to the existence of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems. The 2 reviews:
Not long after Park et al., 2016 was published, Prause went on the warpath against MDPI, Behavioral Sciences, and the authors of Park et al., employing multiple avenues of overt and covert attack (documented on this extensive page – Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted ). One avenue of attack was to edit the MDPI Wikipedia page using multiple aliases (sockpuppets), which violates Wikipedia rules. To date we have indentified at least 30 likely Prause sockpuppets.
Let’s begin with Wikipedia user NeuroSex, who had a least 8 other aliases – all of which were banned as Wikipedia sockpuppets of NeuroSex. Neurosex, her sockpuppets, and other Prause sockpuppets have edited Wikipedia, inserting false information about Gary Wilson, Park et al. and MDPI.
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 Wilson and to Park et al., 2016 – followed by Wilson’s comments:
Wilson comment: NeuroSex linked to a redacted document, claiming that Gary Wilson was paid 9,000 pounds by Scottish charity The Reward Foundation. Two days earlier, 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 Wilson. Prause had not checked her facts, and she was mistaken (again). Wilson has never received any money from The Reward Foundation. Prause has repeated this same lie elsewhere.
Three sockpuppets of NeuroSex who edited the MDPI Wikpedia page (links show list of edits for each sockpuppet):
Wikipedia is an important source of community-based knowledge and MDPI supports the endeavor to openly disseminate knowledge, which closely matches the goals of MDPI. Unfortunately, some editors of the Wikipedia page about MDPI lack objectivity. This leaves the article heavily biased and uninformative about the majority of MDPI’s activities. Any potential improvements added to the page are quickly removed. We have made a number of attempts to discuss with Wikipedia editors to improve the quality of the article, but without success. Thus, for the time being, we do not recommend Wikipedia as a reliable source of information about MDPI.
Almost three quarters of the Wikipedia article covers controversial topics, mentioning 4 out of over 200,000 published papers, one instance where 10 editorial board members resigned (in 2018 we had over 43,000 Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors), and inclusion on Jeffrey Beall’s list, known as a source biased against open access and from which MDPI was removed (see our response here). While we do not object to these topics being mentioned, the way in which they are presented is misleading.
Responses to some of the topics covered can be found at:
Comment on Park, B., et al. Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports Behav. Sci. 2016, 6, 17: https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1616.
A large parent company posting two official statements related to the unethical behavior by a rogue PhD may be without precedent.
Others – July, 2019: Donald Hilton amends defamation lawsuit to include affidavits from 9 other victims of Prause, Texas Board of Medical Examiners complaint, incorrectly accusing Dr. Hilton of falsifying his credentials.
Prause’s malicious complaint to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners containing false and defamatory statements,
Prause’s accusations with two different professional journals in which Dr. Hilton has published, incorrectly accusing Dr. Hilton of falsifying and exaggerating his credentials.
UPDATE: Nicole R. Prause filed a motion to dismiss Donald Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against her. Prause’s motion contained false statements and myriad unsupported allegations. Don Hilton responded with a 21-page opposition to dismiss and 57 pages of exhibits:
We provide screenshots of only the narrative portion of the affidavit (omitting the exhibit portions which are in the full PDF).
You can see the rest of the affidavit here – Gary Wilson of YBOP (affidavit #2). These pagaes conatin hundreds more of documented incidents involving Prause harassing, defaming or cyberstalking Wilson:
As usual, Prause is lying: Geoff Goodman is still on the AASECT listserve, posting whenever he pleases. His university ultimately dismissed Prause’s malicious attempt to punish Goodman for challenging one of Prause’s minions.
July, 2019: Laila Haddad affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.
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 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.
This Salt Lake Tribune Op-Ed (debunking an earlier Op-Ed) contained 100 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 110 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 notsteal, cheat orengage 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.
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:
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.”
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?
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…
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.
Nine peer-reviewed papers disagree with Nicole Prause’s interpretation of her study: Peer-reviewed critiques of Prause et al., 2015. 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?
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.
Why the extreme bias and libelous attacks on anyone who suggests that internet porn might cause problems in some users?
It’s important to note that UCLA chose not to renew Prause’s contract (around January, 2015), and she has not been employed by an academic institution ever since.
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 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. …
Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ~George Orwell
A true academic will be willing to engage in discussion without defaulting to ad hominem insults or ascribing negative intentions to the other side.~ Dr. Debra Soh
July 4, 2019: Prause escalates her stalking and harassment by delivering a bogus Cease and Desist letter to my home at about 10:00 pm (her lawyer, Giampierto, also represented BackPage.com)
Nicole Prause and the lawyer she employs to threaten people, Wayne Giampietro (Prause has other lawyers defending her in defamation suits) cobbled together her usual spate of falsehoods, fairy tales, and empty threats in a hand delivered cease and desist letter.
On to the July 4th, 2019 C&D letter. Prause’s lawyer states that I continue to make false allegations, statements and publications, yet he fails to provide an example of a single one. Giampietro does allude to “eight new posts attacking and defaming Dr. Prause,” yet provides no links or screenshots. Standard Giampierto/Prause. Nevertheless, I assumed Prause was upset that I debunked her factually-inaccurate July 2, Daily Beast article in this series of tweets (which remain):
1/ Debunking the new Daily Beast article "Porn Didn’t Break Your Penis” (by RealYBOP "expert" Nicole Prause): https://t.co/mRYk7kRrXw It links to RealYBOP research & falsely states that 7 labs found no relationship between porn use & ED. Debunked here: https://t.co/0oSsPrE5xK
I was also told on July 4th, 2019 that “Dr. Prause has reached the end of her patience with Mr. Wilson”. These threats were not only unfounded, but also empty. Not only does the above Twitter thread remain, Prause’s continued harassment means that I have since added 30 new sections to Prause page #2, and Prause page #3, and these extensive pages chronicling Prause’s ever increasing defamation and cyberstalking:
Prause may be at the end of her patience with me, but I chose to disregard the above threat. The next communication I received was not a summons or complaint, but yet another full-of-lies cease and desist letter.
July, 2019: Prause supplies troll NerdyKinkyCommie with a YBOP trademark lawsuit document; NerdyKinkyCommie lies about a document; & RealYBOP experts spread his libelous tweets, adding their own lies
Background: NerdyKinkyCommie, whose Twitter handle is @SexualSocialist, appears to be a prolific troll. He freely admits to being obsessed with porn and sex and revels in harassing and defaming anyone who suggests that internet porn might cause problems. Among his favorite targets are Alexander Rhodes, NoFap, Fight The New Drug, Gary Wilson, and men in recovery from porn-related difficulties. Nerdy’s original Twitter account was permanently banned for relentless harassment of Fight The New Drug (Prause’s original account was also banned for harassment). In violation of Twitter rules, and just like Prause, Nerdy created a new Twitter account for trolling: https://twitter.com/SexualSocialist
NerdyKinkyCommie often re-tweets Ley, RealYBOP and Prause propaganda. Prause, Ley and Nerdy regularly engage in friendly banter, expressing their disdain for the aforementioned targets. In June and July, NerdyKinkyCommie trolled Gary Wilson threads posting material mirroring Prause & Ley’s disgusting tweets and screenshots struggling in vain to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap with Nazis and white nationalists. One example of many such tweets:
Wilson reported NerdyKinkyCommie, who was eventually banned for a week by Twitter.
After the ban, NerdyKinkyCommie continued where he left off, this time aided by Prause, the RealYBOP Twitter account, and RealYBOP “experts.”
On July 21 David Ley tweets in Nerdy’s thread that defamed Wilson:
The next day NerdyKinkyCommie produced a tweet that was most certainly constructed by Nicole Prause.
It falsely accused Wilson of being funded by The Reward Foundation (Prause concocted this lie in 2016, repeating it on social media and on Wikipedia)
The screenshot is of a the YourBrainOnPorn UK trademark provided to Prause’s lawyers, by Wilson, in trademark infringement case made necessary because Prause had filed an application for an infringing trademark.
What the above screenshot actually shows: Acting as Gary Wilson’s UK representative and using Wilson’s money, The Reward Foundation (a UK charity) paid the UK government to trademark YourBrainOnPorn in the UK. The UK trademark was a response to Prause trying to shut down YBOP by:
publicizing a new website with the trademark-infringing URL realyourbrainonporn.com in April of 2019.
As thoroughly explained elsewhere Wilson donates the proceeds of his book to The Reward Foundation. Wilson accepts no money, and has never received a dime for any of his efforts. YBOP accepts no ads and Wilson has accepted no fees for speaking. As documented in these sections, Prause has constructed a libelous fairy tale that Wilson is being paid by the same charity he donates his book proceeds to:
In fact, this is not true. The above two sections are addressed in Gary Wilson’s sworn affidavit, which is part of the Dr. Hilton’s defamation lawsuit filed against Dr. Prause. Here are the relevant sections of Wilson’s sworn affidavit filed in Federal Court: Gary Wilson of YBOP (affidavit #2 in Hilton defamation lawsuit):
Put simply, Nikky and Nerdy are collaborating in provable defamation (to repeat, Prause provided Nerdy with the “evidence” for his misleading tweet). Then RealYBOP, RealYBOP “experts” and good old PornHub jumped aboard. First we have RealYBOP (Prause) immediately retweeting Nerdy’s lies, and adding her own (RealYBOP “expert” Roger Libby also comments):
All lies. RealYBOP isn’t a registered non-profit. In fact, all the experts advertise their services on RealYBOP. Moreover, David Ley and two other RealYourBrainOnPorn.com “experts” (Justin Lehmiller and Chris Donaghue) are being paid to promote xHamster websites! If you believe that RealYBOP isn’s biased, check out their tweets, or their so-called “research page”. Other RealYBOP “experts” joined NerdyKinkCommie in defaming the legitimate YBOP, Wilson, and The Reward Foundation. First, “expert” Victoria Hartmann:
Finally we have PornHub, a RealYBOP ally, “liking” the defamatory tweet (PornHub’s was the first Twitter account to tweet about RealYBOp’s new Twitter account and website when it appeared):
Hmmm… PornHub, Prause, Ley and Hartmann all “liking” the tweet of an obscure Twitter troll who had recently completed a 7-day ban for harassing Gary Wilson. Go figure.
The cherry on top of RealYBOP’s targeted defamatory cyberstalking: As described here, RealYBOP’s reddit account, sciencearousal trolled and spammed reddit porn recovery forums, usually posting wherever Gary Wilson’s name or “Your Brain On Porn” appeared. In her recent reddit posts, sciencearousal spammed a nofap subreddit with the same Rob Kuznia article frequently tweeted by RealYBOP and Nikky (Kuznia is pals with Nikky). Nofap deleted her post:
RealYBOP/sciencearousal comment where she links to her fav – David Duke’s article about porn, which conatins a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx Talk (Sciencearousal comment was deleted):
Scouring the internet for anything Ley can use to smear Wilson, he pounced upon an obscure (and disgusting) David Duke blog post containing a link to Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk. Wilson’s TEDx talk has some 12 million views, so thousands of folks of all stripes have linked to (and recommended) Wilson’s talk, “The Great Porn Experiment.”
Update August 20, 2019: Nerdykinky, Prause, David Ley and Ron Swanson (Daniel Burgess alias) form a twitter thread surrounding the above section. Since Nerdy is unaware of the Prause pages, it’s highly likely this twitter orgy was orchestrated by Prause.
Wilson suspected Ron was Burgess because the account was 3 years old, dormant, had only a dozen or so tweets – yet it contained a tweet to Instagram pictures of Daniel Burgess and his wife doing CrossFit training (Burgess is a cross-fit nut: even has a Facebook page called “CrossFit Dan“, which he used to post numerous libelous comments about Gary Wilson). A dead give-away.
The minute the legally irrelevant ACLU letter was tweeted by RealYBOP, Prause and Ley, Ron Swanson awoke – tweeting it 4 times @ the YBOP twitter account.
Suspicions confirmed.
“Ron Swanson” hasn’t tweeted since the above 4 tweets – until August 2oth, when Ron went after Gary Wilson again with bizarre tweets claiming that YBOP contained porn (a screw-up on the Wayback Machine – all the links are bogus and go nowhere):
The cyberstalkers join forces again: Burgess, Ley, Prause and Nerdykinkycommie. It’s almost comical.
August, 2019: In the wake of two mass shootings (El Paso & Dayton), Nicole Prause & David Ley try to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap to white nationalists & Nazis
In a new low (which is saying something), Nicole Prause used the tragic deaths of innocent people once again to defame Gary Wilson and NoFap while promoting the porn industry agenda. On the Monday following two mass shootings (Dayton and El Paso) Prause posted tweets and screenshots vainly trying to connect Gary Wilson, YBOP and Nofap to Nazis and white nationalists.
As chronicled in many other sections, when such tragedies occur, Prause and Ley appear to scour the internet for any comments mentioning Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk, YBOP, or NoFap – all in the hope that a few are posted by white nationalists. (Alternatively, Prause or Ley may be using aliases to post their own fabricated comments – to use in their propaganda campaign. We have documented over 60 Prause aliases on these pages: page 1, page 2.)
Here are other sections of the “Prause pages” documenting Prause and Ley’s repugnant campaign to falsely characterize YBOP and porn recovery communities as Nazi sympathizers.
Prause/Ley capture (or produce) the posts, store them, and wait for the next racist-fueled tragedy. Then they grab meaningless screenshots and “explain” them with defamatory assertions. Is it a surprise that Prause is now being sued for defamation? Gary Wilson and Alex Rhodes of Nofap have provided sworn affidavits in connection with that suit, which include among numerous incidents, Prause’s lies that both are Nazi sympathizers. See:
Even if Prause’s screenshots are real, a white nationalist linking to Wilson’s TEDx Talk tells us nothing about Wilson or anyone else who believes viewing porn may cause problems. If a Nazi links to a Motor Trend review of the Ford F150 does that mean that everyone who drives a Ford, or is employed by Ford is a Nazi? This type of malicious propaganda is simply how Prause and Ley roll.
On to the current set of Prause/Ley revolting tweets. (tweet #1)
Below we provide the two screenshots Prause featured with the above tweet (picture #1, picture #2). Notice how Gary Wilson’s name is highlighted, which means that Prause searched these sites for Wilson’s name, his TED Talk, or his website. Given her preoccupation with fabricating dirt, how does Prause find time to do research? (Such as completing her upcoming study that allegedly acquired subjects via the Free Speech Coalition – the lobbying arm for the porn industry!)
Also note that “anonymous” posted Philip Zimbardo’s famous TED talk, The Demise of Guys?, a Buzzfeed article, a Max Planck Institute fMRI study on porn users, and an article by aidshealth.org. Is Prause suggesting that Zimbardo, everyone at BuzzFeed, everyone the Max Planck Institute, and all associated with aidshealth.org are Nazi sympathizers? Absurd.
In this second screenshot, Gary Wilson’s obsessed cyberstalker (Prause) once again highlights his name:
As before, the list includes links to other well known Nazi sympathizers (joke) such as Phil Zimbardo, Buzzfeed, Brown University, Cambridge University researchers, PlosOne, InternetSafety.org, and Scribd.
Once again, Prause is searching only for Gary Wilson or his website. How this screenshot implicates Wilson as a Nazi is anyone’s guess:
This second Prause screenshot mentions a growing body of research, which is quite solid, even if “Sentinel” turns out to be a white nationalist rather than her own cyber progeny. (Prause provides no evidence of who Sentinel might be.)
August 9, 2019: Don Hilton’s 21-page response (with 57 pages of exhibits) to the Nicole Prause motion to dismiss his defamation lawsuit
Nicole R. Prause filed a motion to dismiss Donald Hilton’s defamation lawsuit against her. Prause’s motion contained false statements and myriad unsupported allegations. Don Hilton responded with a 21-page opposition to dismiss (screenshots below) and 57 pages of supporting exhibits.
August 27, 2019: In response to Wilson exposing Prause & Burgess’s lies & defamation surrounding fake porn URLs they discovered on the Wayback Archive, their lawyer sends another bogus Cease & Desist letter with more false accusations.
During this 4-day rampage @BrainOnPorn posted over 110 tweets targeting me. Nearly every @BrainOnPorn tweet contained at least one defamatory statement (most contained several). Rather than posting 100+ tweets here, including tweets RealYBOP posted under other comments out of context, I’ve created this link. There you can see all the @BrainOnPorn tweets targeting me between August 22-26: PDF of over 100 RealYBOP tweets targeting Gary Wilson from August 22-26. Most contain defamation by RealYBOP.
In addition to the baseless character-impugning campaign conducted by the “Brain On Porn” Twitter account, the Twitter account also explicitly accused me of at least 3 felonies (screenshots below):
Stalking women in person
Making death threats, and
Hacking into websites.
Publicly accusing people of sexual/professional misconduct and felonies is actionable. In fact, if a tribunal deems RealYBOP’s (Burgess’s) actions “defamation per se,” I need not show any commercial damages in order to recover. I am investigating the remedies open to me to seek redress for RealYBOP’s (Burgess’s) actions.
In addition to approximately 150 tweets in 4 days by “Brain On Porn” Twitter and its allies (@RonSwansonTime -Burgess alias, Nicole Prause, NerdyKinkyCommie, and David Ley), on August 22 this email by the realyourbrainonporn website admin was forwarded to Gary Wilson (is it Burgess who owns the URL, or Prause?):
As the organization forwarding the email knows me, and is keenly aware of both RealYBOP’s trademark infringement and Prause’s long history of defaming and harassing those in the porn-skeptic movement, its personnel knew it was all lies.
On August 27th Prause & Burgess’s lawyer, Wayne Giampierto, sent me another one of his lie-filled Cease and Desist letters:
Nothing but untruths by Prause/Burgess/Giampierto. While I strongly suspect that Prause, or Prause colleagues, were behind the fake Mormon porn URLs placed on the Internet WayBack Machine, I never stated that she or any of the RealYBOP “experts” inserted the fake “Mormon porn” URLs into Wayback Internet Archive. Nor did Giampietro’s bogus Cease and Desist letter provide evidence that I had said anything the sort. Nor did I “illegally alter the archives” of RealYBOP, and Giampietro provided zero evidence that I had (note: it is not “illegal” to insert URLs into the The Wayback Archive, even though I did not). In any case, our attorneys responded with this stern letter to Dr. Prause and her lawyer (reproduced below).
In response to RealYBOP’s Twitter rampage (in which Prause, apparently, was aided by @RonSwansonTime, who is likely a Burgess alias), NerdyKinkyCommie, and David Ley) I posted the following extensive Twitter thread exposing how “they” inserted fake YBOP URLs into the WayBack Machine archive and how I was being cyberstalked by RealYBOP, its aliases, and its allies. As you can see, none of the tweets accused anyone of “committing a felony of computer hacking”:
1/ BE AWARE- @BrainOnPorn is emailing organizations & individuals with false claims about YBOP. In the last 24 hours @BrainOnPorn has posted 30 tweets about YBOP@BrainOnPorn also appears to have created a troll account to spread lies. It was suspended: https://t.co/VhbZ3HdU9s
In the thread I explained how easy it was to insert fake URLs into the WayBack Machine Archive, and demonstrated by adding one for my own site.
5/ It's easy to insert fake URLs into The Wayback Machine. WayBack allows you to insert ANY URL as a way to save a page, even fake URLs. I just inserted this fake URL into the WayBack (eventually the URL enters the URL list): https://t.co/zDRWWbkpanpic.twitter.com/WW01FaKiLA
I also tweeted that another individual had inserted fake URLs into realyourbrainonporn.com’s Wayback Archive, thus disproving RealYBOP’s Twitter claim that it could not be done: https://web.archive.org/web/*/www.realyourbrainonporn.com/*
16/ Hilarious: An anonymous email reported that 2 fake URLs were inserted into the WayBack Machine archives of REALyourbrainonporn. Link to RealYBOP URLs: https://t.co/gGMVljnaQP The @BrainOnPorn twitter falsely stated that fake URLs could NOT be inserted. Caught in another lie: pic.twitter.com/uRj8ImkhG8
Now on to our lawyer’s 8-page response to Mr. Giampietro’s bogus August 27, 2019 cease and desist letter (PDF):
—————————
—————–
———————
——————
———————–
—————-
—————————-
Again, this PDF of 120 tweets contains many more examples of RealYBOP (Prause or Burgess) defaming and harassing over a 4-day period.
September, 2019: Nicole Prause gets Medium user Marny Anne suspended. Prause falsely states in defamatory tweet (along with other lies) that Marny Anne was Gary Wilson
On September 15, 2019 Prause posted the following defamatory tweet (note how she never provides evidence for any claim). Link to suspended account: https://medium.com/@marnyanne/the-experts-who-of-course-never-disagree-e6c12f0fda16
Prause’s tweet contains several instances of defamation:
2) Unlike Prause (here) and Ley (below), I have never doxxed anyone. Using the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account, Prause/Daniel Burgess posted 20 defamatory tweets in 2 days, falsely claiming that Gary Wilson “threatened families” or “posted photos of families” or “doxxed families.” In its 20 tweets, RealYBOP provided no examples of me doing so, because @BrainOnPorn is lying. Note: Burgess owns the URL of realyourbrainonporn.com and Nicole Prause filed a trademark application to obtain YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM. Together they are trying to shut down YBOP.
The introduction of the above article contains a blurry picture of a single 2018 Daniel Burgess post defaming me on the YBOP Facebook page. My “first contact” with Burgess was his 5-comment defamatory tirade on the YBOP Facebook page (Feb, 2018). Before this, I had never heard of Daniel Burgess. He came after me, out of the blue, for no discernible reason.
The solitary screenshot is included to provided context. It is this excerpt that Prause/Burgess mislabel “doxxing and threatening families”:
As an example of his malice, I’ll provide Burgess’s initial comment on YBOP’s Facebook page. It includes Nicole Prause’s baseless 2015 cease and desist letter to me. (How did Burgess obtain this letter?)
According to RealYBOP’s Twitter, it’s OK for Burgess to harass and defame using multiple social media platforms. Yet, my single screenshot of Burgess defaming me on my home page means I am threatening his family and “doxing the families of all the 30 RealYBOP experts!” Welcome to the upside-down world of Prause & Burgess.
On to an example of David Ley actually doxxing a young man who criticized his agenda-driven articles. In retaliation psychologist Ley tweeted the guy’s full name, location, email and IP address:
Twitter bans Ley, yet he acts sheepish, as if he doesn’t know why:
A few years later David Ley lies about why he was really banned (always playing the victim, even when he is the perpetrator):
Notice how Ley insinuated that Mr. Eskelin had threatened him. Ley often lies about receiving threats.
In this tweet Ley commits defamation per se, falsely claiming that the folks at YBOP have sent him death threats. Ley cannot produce evidence for this supposed threat, even when challenged by several other twitter accounts:
3) Police reports? Starting in July, 2013 (a few days after I published a careful critique of Prause’s first EEG study) various usernames began posting defamatory comments wherever my name appeared. The comments were very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that “Wilson has a police report filed on him,” “Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,” and “Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site”, and that “Wilson has been reported to LAPD (which agrees that he’s dangerous) and the UCLA campus police.” Very soon Prause, as herself, began to claim that a “person” had been reported to the police for physically stalking her, threatening her lab, mapping a route to her lab (whatever that means), and other vague fabrications.
By 2016, as Prause was no longer employed by UCLA or any other institution that could rein in her cyber-harassment, she finally began to identify Gary Wilson as the “person” she had reported to the LAPD and the UCLA campus police. Prause even claimed that she posted armed guards at her public talks because I had threatened to attend. (The claim that I threatened to attend is a lie and Prause has never provided documentation for this assertion.)
All these claims are untrue, and the claim that “Wilson has been spotted seen near the scientist’s home” is also fiction. I haven’t been to LA in years. It’s almost 2020, and no law enforcement agency has ever contacted me. (Any harasser can file a fake police report.)
I used to presume that Prause had, in fact, filed fraudulent, groundless reports (which were subsequently disregarded), but it turned out Prause was lying – again. In late 2017 a call to the Los Angeles Police Department and the UCLA campus police revealed no report in their systems on a “Gary Wilson,” nor any report filed by a “Nicole Prause.” I made this section to report my findings: Los Angeles Police Department and UCLA campus police confirm that Prause lied about filing police reports on Gary Wilson.
Perhaps motivated by YBOP exposing her lies, Prause brazenly filed a bizarre police report on April 25, 2018 – five years later than her claims.
After 5 years of claiming I had physically stalked her, what did Prause actually report to the LAPD? It was not a stalking report as Prause’s never stated that I was in Los Angeles, stalking her. Nor was it a cyberstalking report. The “Suspect’s Actions” section contained two incidents that were neither stalking nor a crime. A screenshot of the two alleged “crimes”:
What Prause alleges, followed by reality:
“Suspect posted victim name and pic on his website. Suspect refused to remove pictures.”
While screenshots of Prause’s defamatory tweets and her name appear on the 2 main “Prause pages,” this is not a crime. To the contrary, the pages with screenshots chronicling her ongoing harassment (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are documenting her misdeeds: libel and cyberstalking. In reality, Prause has been breaking the law by falsely stating she has reported me to both the FBI and LADP.
The second infraction?
“Suspect traveled to Germany to victim’s conference. Suspect was not invited.”
Apart from the fact that attending a conference is not a crime, Prause is lying.
It’s true that I traveled to Germany and attended the 5th International Conference on Behavioral Addictions, which ran from April 23-25 (note that Prause filed her police report on April 25th). The untrue part is that Prause had no intentions of attending the ICBA conference in Germany. Prause has never attended or given a presentation at an ICBA conference. Prause doesn’t believe in behavioral addictions. Throughout her entire career Prause has waged a war against the concept of behavioral addiction, especially sex and porn addiction. She’s an infamous “addiction-denier.”
There is no way in hell that Prause would attend the ICBA as she would run into several members of the ICD-11 CSBD work-group and multiple other researchers who publish high-quality studies supporting the porn addiction model. In fact, several big-name researchers who have formally criticized Prause’s flawed EEG studies and were scheduled to present (i.e. Valerie Voon, Marc Potenza, Matuesz Gola, Christian Laier, Matthias Brand – who ran the conference). Put simply, Prause would have been surrounded by many of the people she deplores and attacks on social media and behind the scenes (links to these researchers’ critiques of the two Prause EEG studies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Many of these researchers are keenly aware of Prause’s ongoing unprofessional behavior and behind the scenes machinations.
Then we have the obvious: there is no way for Prause to have known in advance that I was attending the ICBA conference. As noted, Prause filed her police report on April 25th, the last day of the ICBA conference. This means that Prause was told of my attendance by another conference attendee (Prause’s former UCLA colleague/roommate also attended).
Moving on, the second part of the Prause police report is equally factually incorrect, and downright hilarious:
Even though Prause never claimed that I was seen in LA, she describes my “personal oddity” as “wearing sleeping bag” and my weapon of choice as a “long sleave (sic) sweater.” Sounds like a SNL skit. It’s hard not to imagine the police officer biting her lip, trying not to crack-up, as she jots down Prause’s drivel. In any case, I haven’t been in either Los Angeles or a sleeping bag in years.
Others – September, 2019: In response to a CNN special involving NoFap, the RealYBOP twitter (run by Prause & Burgess) defames and harasses Alex Rhodes of Nofap (over 30 tweets)
In response to a CNN program featuring NoFap and Rhodes, RealYBOP engages in targeted harassment and defamation, tweeting its lies in CNN threads and elsewhere:
Alex Rhodes did not lie. RealYBOP fails to cite an example of anyone lying. Research vs. RealYBOP propaganda? Check out the main YBOP research page, which contains links to about 1,000 studies associating porn use with myriad negative outcomes.
RealYBOP twitter continues its cyberstalking of Alex Rhodes:
On the day of Lisa Ling broadcast, RealYBOP’s cyberstalking escalates, with silly slides that have nothing to do with the program, and entering threads wherever Nofap is mentioned.
What the public may not know is that neither the ICD-11 nor the APA’s DSM-5 ever uses the word “addiction” to describe an addiction – whether it be gambling addiction, heroin addiction, cigarette addiction, or you name it. Both diagnostic manuals use the word “disorder” instead of “addiction” (i.e. “gambling disorder,” “nicotine use disorder,” and so on). Thus, “sex addiction” and “porn addiction” could never have been rejected, because they were never under formal consideration in the major diagnostic manuals. Put simply, there will never be a “porn addiction” diagnosis, just as there will never be a “meth addiction” diagnosis. Yet individuals with the signs and symptoms of consistent with either a “porn addiction” or a “methamphetamine addiction” can be diagnosed using the ICD-11’s provisions. For a complete debunking of Prause’s claims, see: Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Watching Porn?,” by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause (2018).
RealYBOP falsely claims that porn has never caused harm to children.
Reality: This page lists 45 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal). They provide strong support for the addiction model as their findings mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies.
RealYBOP suggests that it is unliekly your kid will see porn
Continues to troll threads. Falsely claims that stats were false, but provides no example:
Trolls another person in Lisa Ling’s thread:
RealYBOP lies about the nature of its experts, claiming most are university professors: https://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/experts
Reality: Of the 19 “experts” who still allow RealYBOP to use their picture, only 6 are at universities.
In this tweet, RealYBOP seems to be encouraging other to report Alex Rhodes to the Pennsylvania Psychology board.
It wouldn’t surprise us to eventually learn that RealYBOP filed a false and malicious report on Rhodes (numerous incidents of Prause’s false and malicious reporting are on these pages – page 1, page 2).
While the WIPO decision did not go his way (these are complex matters), Wilson will continue into federal courts, if necessary.
RealYBOP re-tweeting porn star complaining about CNN program (appears to have been egged on):
Note: Prause/RealYBOP falsely claims that others (Wilson, Rhodes, etc.) are stalking her. If this were true (it’s not) why does Prause/RealYBOP continue to enter Wilson and Rhodes twitter threads – tagging both, naming both, and aggressively harassing both? The answer – Prause/RealYBOP is lying about being stalked.
The next day RealYBOP harasses Lisa Ling, lying about most everything:
Ley, Prause and RealYBOP are obsessed with opinion papers by NZ grad student Kris Taylor. Taylor, who is beyond biased – and knows nothing about neuroscience. He’s a sociologist. YBOP critiqued a 2017 article by him where he disparaged Gary Wilson and the review with US navy doctors (Taylor often resorts to simply lying in his article): Debunking Kris Taylor’s “A Few Hard Truths about Porn and Erectile Dysfunction” (2017).
This paper is a fav of Prause and Ley with Prause’s Wikipedia aliases inserting both into Wikipedia pages. Prause obsessively cites (and misrepresents) Taylor’s paper about Nofap. Reality: grad student Kris Taylor’s dissertation assessed only 15 comments from reddit/nofap, while ignoring millions of other comments. Taylor chose the 15 comments because they contained the word “masculinity”. Contrary to lies by Prause/RealYBOP, Taylor’s was not an analysis of Nofap or its users. From Taylor’s paper:
Given this approach to data collection, we wish to highlight that the data presented is not intended to be read as representative of NoFap as a whole, but to present how some users express a particular investment in masculinity and its constitution (Edley, 2001; Edley and Wetherell, 1997). That is, as opposed to an analysis in which users’ posts are understood as oblique references to masculinity (through their talk about video games, pornography, exercise and diet, etc.), our study presents the ways in which users actively constitute masculine positions. Our search term ‘masculinity’ rendered numerous pages of ‘original posts’ which pertained specifically to defining masculinity.
October, 2019: For no particular reason (on a Sunday) RealYBOP disparages NoFap. RealYBOP/Prause/Burgess are obsessed with porn recovery forums (probably because they hurt the porn industry’s bottom-line).
RealYBOP falsely calls nofap “anti-sex”. In reality, a large percentage of individuals abstaining from porn (NoFap) are doing so to regain normal sexual function.
—————————-
After 50 or so tweets about Nofap, we can officially refer to RealYBOP as Nofap/Alex Rhodes’s stalker. After its Sunday tweets, RealYBOP scoured the millions of Nofap.com comments for just the right ones to smear Nofap. RealYBOP screenshots a few random comments, tweeting 3 of them with her out-of-context take any human on the planet can comment on Nofap, including RealYBOP).
Another by RealYBOP:
Yet another
RealYBOP the cyberstalker (Note: RealYBOP has posted 150 tweets about Gary Wilson in the last 2 months). Question: Are the RealYBOP experts legally liable for its twitter hrassment?
Others – October, 2019: RealYBOP twitter (Prause & Daniel Burgess) defame Alex Rhodes & Gabe Deem, falsely claiming both tried to “take down” realyourbrainonporn.
In its twitter tirade, RealYBOP coughed up its usual lies about Alex and Gabe, while adding a new one: Gabe and Alex were involved in the legal actions by YBOP to defend its trademark. Or as RealYBOP incorrectly describes it:
“Tried to have our website taken down bc he cannot answer science”
RealYBOP is referring very specific legal actions by the owners of YBOP to defend our trademark. My attorneys filed a complaint requesting that WIPO conduct an administrative review of the apparent misuse of my trademark in the URL www.realyourbrainonporn.com.
My attorneys filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as a possible route to having the trademark-infringing website www.realyourbrainonporn.com removed from the Web as swiftly and economically as possible. While the arbitrator declined to support its removal, he acknowledged that the infringing URL was indeed “confusingly similar” to my URL www.yourbrainonporn.com. He then decided that the infringing site was a “gripe” site, and as such, entitled to criticize my site.
My attorneys say it is not, in fact a “gripe site.” It does not criticze my work. In fact, it does not address the content of my site at all, and merely holds itself out as the “real” version of my site in a confusing manner. However, the arbitrator, having concluded that the infringing site was a “gripe site,” declined to examine the third element of my complaint: Prause’s abundant bad faith. He stated that the evidence my attorneys provided “could well suffice to establish bad faith,” but found no need to reach a conclusion on that element in view of his “gripe site” determination. The entire ruling is available here: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2019/d2019-1544.html. This is not over.
It goes without saying that Prause’s attempt to steal my trademark, while mimicking the appearance of my website and Twitter account, reveals she is the aggressor, the obsessed harasser. She is not the victim, but the perpetrator. Prause has weaponized the WIPO decision via a press release and constantly twees a link to the WIPO page as if it exonerates her entirely.
Our legal proceedings have nothing to do with Alex Rhodes or Gabe deem. RealYBOP (Prause & Burgess) lied, defaming Rhodes and Deem. By the way, the RealYBOP tweets give the false impression that our legal actions are over. Not even close. On to RealYBOP’s defamation:
September 30, 2019 tweet about Alex Rhodes. In it RealYBOP falsely sates that NoFap tried to silence the actual science, but they lost (linking to the WIPO decision in favor of RealYBOP)
In this tweet, RealYBOP said that Gabe Deem “Tried to have our website taken down bc he cannot answer science”:
RealYBOP continues, defaming Deem, and stating that he tried to silence scientists (linking to WIPO decision).
No one is trying to silence anyone. YBOP is simply protecting its trademark. Note: The original name of their website was ScienceOfArousal.com? Why did these self-proclaimed experts change their site name to mirror our website’s name, when their first-choice URL was ScienceOfArousal.com? Proof: copy & paste this URL into your browser. It will redirect you to “realyourbrainonporn” – https://www.scienceofarousal.com . Why do they now claim that they have been censored by a request to cease their trademark infringement, when they could simply revert to their erstwhile brand name ScienceOfArousal.com and continue to operate freely and legally?
We have never attempted to censor opposing views and critiques, unlike one of the Alliance “experts,” Dr. Prause, who has repeatedly tried to remove evidence of her behavior with groundless DMCA takedown requests. We simply ask that that these vocal spokespersons hold forth from their original pulpit, the URL and brand name “Science of Arousal” (ScienceOfArousal.com). And that they relinquish the subsequent name they employed along with the corresponding trademark application (for a name that YBOP has operated under for almost 10 years). Why do they engage in these apparent attempts to suppress traffic to our website and confuse the public?
Josh Grubbs (member of RealYBOP), quote-tweets Gabe Deem, and RealYBOP is compelled to enter the thread:
RealYBOP obsessively cyberstalking young men who recovered from porn-induced ED.
—————————
A few weeks later RealYBOP, and sidekick NerdyKinkyCommie, troll Gabe Deem (note that Gabe had blocked both, but that doesn’t stop cyberstalkers):
First, The links posted by trolls Nerdy and James F. were given to them by RealYBOP/Prause.
Second, Nerdy’s screenshot has been tweeted dozens of times by Prause & RealYBOP. It had nothing to do anything in thread, but it matters not, because RealYBOP/Prause are obsessed with MDPI (parent company of the journal Behavioral Sciences). Behavioral Sciences published Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports(Park et al., 2016). Nerdy is lying about MDPI’s rating. Here are examples of Prause (as Sciencearousal) inserting the above clerical error by the Norwegian Register, who accidentally downgraded MDPI’s rating from the normal “1” to a “0”. The downgraded rating had long been resolved on the MDPI Wikipedia page. Prause knows the zero rating was a clerical error, yet she and RealYBOP tweet that MDPI was downgraded and that MDPI is a predatory journal (both are false and both are in Sciencearousal’s/Prause Wikipedia edit).
Third, the 5-year video has nothing to do with China, or internet addiction boot camps. It was about porn.
——————-
Blocked troll Nerdy quote-tweets Gabe (who healed porninduced ED), and RealYBOP joins with lies.
Lie #3: As for the 7 RealYBOP studies, its trying to fool the public. Four studies of the seven reported significant links between porn use and sexual problems. Data in all 4 of these studies run counter to the Allliance’s claims:
Of the Alliance’s remaining three citations, one is not peer-reviewed, while the other two were formally criticized in the peer-reviewed literature.
RealYBOP trolling again:
Reality: Gabe was accurate for a drawing. The other 2 comments are red herrings. However, RealYBOP’s comments are irrelevant. Instead, this twitter account claims represent 20 experts, yet its trolling accounts it has blocked, with inane, spurious tweets. How embarrassing. How mentally deranged.
October, 2019: In response to “The Doctors” featuring Alex Rhodes, RealYBOP twitter (Prause & Daniel Burgess) cyberstalks, defames & harasses Rhodes with numerous tweets (even asks Twitter to un-verify Nofap)
On October 30, 2019 the TV show “The Doctors” featured Alex Rhodes in a segment on porn addiction. In response, realyourbrainonporn twitter posted numerous tweets under “The Doctors” many tweets about the show. RealYBOP’s tweets involve defamation and expose RealYBOP as a cyberstalker. RealYBOP scoured the web for anything it can weponize against Alex, including random comments on Nofap (there are literally millions of comments on Nofap.com and reddit/nofap). On to RealYBOP’s obsessive cyberstalking.
Below, RealYBOP refers to specific legal actions by the owners of YBOP to defend our trademark. Our legal proceedings have nothing to do with Alex Rhodes. RealYBOP (Prause & Burgess) lied, defaming Rhodes in this tweet.
Once again, RealYBOP saying not using porn = misogyny (the porn industry isn’t misogynistic, right?). As usual RealYBOP cites Grad student Kris Taylor’s paper, lying about what its methodology and what it stated. Contrary to lies by Prause/RealYBOP, Taylor’s paper was not an analysis of Nofap or its users. Nor was it about misogyny (word is not found it paper).
Prause falsely asserts that Kris Taylor’s paper was an analysis of nofap comments. In reality Taylor’s dissertation only assessed 15 comments from reddit/nofap. “Masculinity” search criteria for the 15 cherry-picked comments. Taylor’s explicitly states the 15 comments were not representative of Nofap as a whole:
RealYBOP exposes itself as the cyberstalker, trolling millions of NoFap comments for just the right one to take out-of-context and spin
More comments taken out-of-context (out of millions of comments. For exmaple, the use of “little bitch” was a guy describing his own penis and loss of erection due to porn-induced ED. He wasn’t calling anyone a bitch.
More trolling of forums full of young men, looking for just the right out-of-context excerpt to tweet:
——————–
Cyberstalking continues:
RealYBOP lies (while citing nothing):
There is no treament offered on Nofap.
RealYBOP is suggesting that quitting porn “makes men worse”. OK
————————–
Creepy. RealYBOP taking screenshots of Rhodes’s youtube presentations. Also attacks Kanye West for saying he was addicted to porn:
The above excerpt is a fabricated assertion from a blog post. It cites nothing. Complete BS.
—————————
RealYBOP asking twitter to un-verify the Nofap account.
Again, citing a blog, that cited nothing.
———————
First, neither the ICD-11 nor the APA’s DSM-5 ever uses the word “addiction” to describe an addiction – whether it be gambling addiction, heroin addiction, cigarette addiction, or you name it. Both diagnostic manuals use the word “disorder” instead of “addiction” (i.e. “gambling disorder,” “nicotine use disorder,” and so on). Thus, “sex addiction” and “porn addiction” could never have been rejected, because they were never under formal consideration in the major diagnostic manuals. Put simply, there will never be a “porn addiction” diagnosis, just as there will never be a “meth addiction” diagnosis. Yet individuals with the signs and symptoms of consistent with either a “porn addiction” or a “methamphetamine addiction” can be diagnosed using the ICD-11’s provisions.
Notice how RealYBOP nevers give an exmaple of “fraudulent medical information”. Never.
———————————–
Tweeting Kris Taylor’s paper and misrepresenting it:
——————————
Tweeting the same excerpts, again (the young man is describing PIED)
———————–
At the same time RealYBOP is tweeting on “The Doctors” threads, she tweets lies about porn recovery forums promoting ant-semitism.
Let’s be very clear: Nicole Prause and David Ley, are the ones who initiated this disgusting smear campaign years ago. Have a look at these sections of a page documenting some of the many attacks Nofap and others have been subjected to:
Like RealYBOP, Ley scours twitter for bizarre tweet he can use to disparage NoFap and Alex Rhodes:
Doesn’t Ley have anything better to do?
David Ley’s disgusting, factually innacurate interview attacking nofap becomes a pinned tweet:
This leads to RealYBOP tweeting NumbNutsNovember for the 20th time (not an exagerration):
————————-
Retweeting hit-piece by Rolling Stone (by an author who regularly places RealYBOP members in her articles):
Check out Nofap’s threads exposing the hit-piece:
Given a platform in this article:
– PornHub vice president – xHamster vice president – A guy with a financial relationship with xHamster – A porn performer/director – Host of a podcast about porn
Asked for comment just hours before publishing without any time to respond:
We were emailed at 5:56 pm last night for comment, after working hours, to only find the article was already published at 9:02 am today before we could respond. We were eventually quoted, but just barely, as far more platform was given to porn site executives & industry insiders. https://t.co/3DbSKBXWDE
UPDATE #1: On January 24, 2020 Alex Rhodes filed his amended complaint against Nicole Prause. The new court filings contain several recent incidents of defamation (including alleged collaboration with the porn industry to defame Alex), and sworn affidavits from other Prause victims. Downloadable PDFs of the court documents filed in the amended complaint:
This is the second defamation lawsuit filed against Nicole Prause in 2019. The first was filed by Donald Hilton MD, and it contains sworn affidavits from 9 other victims of Prause.
As documented on these extensive pages – page 1, page 2 – the Rhodes and Hilton lawsuits expose just the tip of the Prause iceberg. A partial list of her victims includes researchers, medical doctors, therapists, psychologists, a former UCLA colleague, a UK charity, men in recovery, a TIME magazine editor, several professors, IITAP, SASH, Fight The New Drug, Exodus Cry, NoFap.com, RebootNation, YourBrainRebalanced, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences, its parent company MDPI, US Navy medical doctors, the head of the academic journal CUREUS, and the journal Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity. (see below for What’s going on here? )
Others – Ongoing: In response to Alex Rhodes’s defamation lawsuit Nicole Prause and alias RealYBOP twitter defame & harass Rhodes (adding to Prause’s counts of defamation).
We will no longer be silenced by those cozy with the porn industry.
Please support our founder Alexander Rhodes's federal lawsuit against the main orchestrators of this relentless campaign to smear him, our website, and 100,000s of people in recovery.https://t.co/io3eagkxLZ
In response to the lawsuit and crowdfunding Prause, RealYBOP (likely Prause), and their allies went on the offensive.
The day before NoFap put up the crowdfunding its twitter foretold of a big announcement:
Instead of just leaving us alone to focus on recovery, the porn industry and certain allies have decided to launch a campaign of defamation and smears against us and our founder. We've generally tried to ignore their attacks, but they have been escalating.
November 11, 2019: The next morning, before NoFap’s announcement, Prause began suspiciously tweeting that she had received death threats. (NOTE: Prause has never provided public evidence of verifiable threats, just as she has never provided evidence of anyone stalking her). She kept a running tab of the “death threats” throughout the first day of Alex’s crowdfunding:
While Prause is tweeting as Prause, @BrainOnPorn Twitter continued to defame and harass NoFap and Alex Rhodes:
At the same time, Prause (who is scouring the internet for material she can claim is evidence of wrongdoing) provides David Ley with a 2015 YBR podcast (featuring Alex Rhodes) to disparage:
Prause tweets about SLAPP, which refers to the legal argument she is attempting to use to dismiss the defamation lawsuits (not going to work):
Prause goes off the deep end, adding to her defamation of Rhodes and her tortious interference in NoFap’s enterpirse, by saying The FBI has asked me to make clear that the donations going to Alexander Rhode of NoFap are fraud. Law enforcement are involved.
Prause claims antisemitic death threats. Most importantly tags DonorBox, the company handling Rhodes’s fundraising. She is attempting to shut down the fundraising. This will now be a part of the lawsuit.
RealYBOP disparages Gail Dines, while posting random, out of context posts from Nofap (which contains millions of posts by people of all different mindsets) as if they are somehow representative of evidence of wrongdoing or of Alex Rhodes:
Would love to know who contacted Samantha Cole. Let’s hope that Rhodes’s lawyers are able to subpoena emails related to the VICE article. Are we looking at a 2nd, conspiracy lawsuit?
The next day 3 of the 4 porn-industry shills from the VICE hit-piece are involved in the same two tweets promoting Ley’s upcoming paid appearance on xHamster-owned Stripchat.
Nicole Prause – likely operator of @BrainOnPorn
David Ley, who is being paid by Stripchat (x-Hamster)
Vice President of Stripchat, who is paying Ley
Next, RealYBOP tweets, disparaging No-NutNovember (the real target is Nofap, even though NoFap did not create NNN).
Nothing suspicious here, folks. The official tweet:
So, the 3 people collaborating in the VICE article to defame and disparage NoFap, do the same on Twitter, to increase Stripchat’s traffic, and thus x-Hamster’s profits.
Stripchat follows up with a tweet linking to the VICE hit-piece, containing numerous lies:
Prause tweeting under the VICE hit-piece, falsely stating that she is being stalked (presumably she is alluding to Rhodes, Hilton, or Wilson). These lies are why she is being sued for defamation:
Yet another incident that will be entered into Federal court.
Prause posting under VICE article, gets into an exchange with an account calling out her lies:
She boasts Alex’s lawsuit will be dismissed. Unlikely.
RealYBOP posts in same thread falsely stating that Rhodes is a paid employee of NCOSE (yet more defamation).
In a strange turn RealYBOP is the first to discover that someone placed Alex’s lawsuit on The Daily Stormer. Many believe that Prause emails “tips” to the Daily Stormer, so she can then claim white supremacists are involved. Same events occured with Gary Wilson. Hope the defamation lawsuits subpoena relevant emails.
Above are just more examples of Prause cyberstalking Alex.
NOTE:Many of us running “anti-porn” sites receive daily threats and disparagement. Welcome to the internet. You don’t see us tweeting that they are from friends of Prause or Ley.
December 2, 2019: In several replies to a lawyer, she claims to be consulting with the FBI concerning Alex Rhodes’s fundraising. She also claims that “records” proving she has no relationship with the porn industry will be in her legal response to the Rhodes lawsuits:
Update: She lied. Her 2 motions to dismiss had nothing related to the porn industry. See this page for some actual documentation of Prause’s cozy relationship with those in the porn industry – Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?
———————————
January 23, 2020: David Ley and RealYBOP team up to defame and cyberstalk Alex Rhodes of Nofap (tweeting an untruthful article featuring Nicole Prause, who is being sued for defamation by Rhodes).
In a legally perilous move RealYBOP retweets the defamatory SCRAM article:
Two days after this tweet Alex Rhodes filed his amended complaint against Nicole Prause. In his new complaint the ScramNews article was added as a new incident of defamation:
February 8, 2020: Even though Alex Rhodes’s amended complaint against Prause also names the RealYBOP twitter account (@BrainOnPorn)as defaming him, RealYBOP continues to target Alex Rhodes and NoFap (harassers can’t help harassing):
Note on study RealYBOP cited: The program was pretty much like most guys do on nofap – logs, meditation, weekly check-ins, and trying to quit. In fact, the study is on my porn and sexual problems list as:
February 18th, 2020: Prause claims Rape threat on Nofap Forums, but cannot provide URL or screenshot. Prause never provides documentation for any of her claims (she has falsely accused Gary Wilson, Fight The New Drug, Alex Rhodes, and fictitious entities of rape threats.
Esteemed psychology professor, and real sex expert, Frederick Toates challenges Prause to cough up her evidence. She balks.
Yet another account challenges her. Nada:
————————–
February 20, 2020: More fabricated victimhood, with zero evidence:
Actually, she is making Alex Rhodes’s case really easy. She continues to harass and defame Rhodes, and his company – NoFap.
Pathological liar RealYBOP ends her twitter tirade by defaming Gary Wilson, falsely claiming that this twitter account is actually Wilson. For example, 2 of the account’s tweets under the authors’ tweet:
3 days later RealYBOP tweets under RT’s tweet about the same article (what a cyberstalker);
RealYBOP provides no examples of “errors”. Being sued by Alex Rhodes doesn’t slow down her harassment.
———————
February 29, 2020: Making fun of Rhodes and Hilton:
March 5, 2020: Implying the 2 defamation lawsuits against her are moving in a favorable direction:
———————————-
March 7, 2020: Being sued, but still going after Nofap. The study she cited was NOT about NoFap. None of the participants came from NoFap. Excerpt:
The largest group of participants came from only one subreddit (“r/everymanshouldknow”), where it had been endorsed by the moderator.
She failed to excerpt the study, only mischaracterize it.
The participants were concerned with porn’s effects, yet the paper mischaracterized this as concerns with masturbation. Contrary to claims of conservatism, and religiosity being a significant factor, the demographics of their subjects tell a very different story: 70% atheists or agnostics – far higher rates than the general population. Very low rates on erectile dysfunction (3.48%), so not representative of the men quitting porn.
———————-
March 9, 2020: Even though she is being sued by Alex Rhodes of Nofap, RealYBOP tweets a random attack on NoFap and the concept of quitting porn (called rebooting). The paper cited has nothing to with Nofap, rebooting or quitting porn (it was a questionnaire study on only Jewish Israeli adolescents – and none were attempting to quit porn).
March 9, 2020: RealYBOP goes after Nofap again, disparaging the concept of rebooting (eliminating porn use), a term coined on porn recovery forums such as Nofap.
————————
March 11, 2020: She finds a 3-month old thread to troll, tweeting under a link to Staci Sprout’s video supporting Nofap’s fundraising (See Staci’s write-up for documentation of Prause harassing and defaming her).
No evidence for the 30 so-called complaints. If any occure, no doubt all were well-deserved and legitimate, as are the defamation suits against her.
November, 2019: Prause enters the California “Safe At Home Program” under false pretenses, misusing it to harass her victims and critics
In the morning, before NoFap’s announcement of its crowd-fund (to pursue a defamation suit against Prause for her egregious defamation of Nofap and its founder), Prause suspiciously began tweeting that she had received death threats. (NOTE: Prause has never provided public evidence of verifiable threats, just as she has never provided evidence of anyone stalking her). In fact, throughout the first day of Alex’s crowd-funding, she kept a running tab of “death threats” supposedly sent her way. Her last tweet announces that she has entered the California Safe At Home Program:
Wilson has a documented history of stalking me. As a result, I qualified for California’s Safe at Home Program, and solicited a no-contact order against Wilson.
Prause’s “no-contact order” is pure fiction: I have never initiated contact with Prause, yet Prause has contacted me hundreds of time on social media (more below).
Our complaint to UCLA was factually accurate and justified (much more on UCLA below). Reality? UCLA did not renew Prause’s contract (late 2014, early 2015). We had simply asked that she remove defamation from her website (that posed as a UCLA website when it was not) and apologize.
Important to note that her false accusations of stalking began almost as soon as our paths crossed. In fact, she accused my wife and myself of stalking in an April, 2013 email exchange that occurred a few weeks after I published a response to David Ley’s Psychology Today blog post where Prause and he targeted my website: “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” Ley’s blog was about Nicole Prause’s unpublished, yet to be peer-reviewed EEG study (this was the first I had heard of Prause).
Prause immediately initiated her only contact with me in 2 emails and a comment under my Psychology Today response. Simultaneously, she contacted Psychology Today editors, who forwarded her second email. The following 2 emails are from the end of our brief exchange (screenshots of Prause & Wilson’s entire email exchange):
As you can see, Prause is accusing us of stalking her, although all I did was respond to two emails she sent my way. This is where Prause’s fabricated “stalking” claims began.
Question: Did I drive 800 miles to Los Angeles on the same day I published my detailed critique to hover around UCLA, or did Prause initiate a fabricated campaign of being stalked on the day after my critique? The latter. I’m really looking forward to a jury trial, testifying under oath to Prause’s litany of falsehoods. Even more, I’m looking forward to Prause being cross-examined and exposed as the serial perpetrator, not the victim.
November, 2019: Prause misuses “Safe At Home Program”: She threatens YBOP’s web-host (Linode) with a fraudulent Cease & Desist letter, falsely claiming her address is on YBOP (it wasn’t).
When her attempts failed to remove documentation of her defamation and harassment from this website, she turned to threatening YBOP’s web host Linode with a bogus cease & desist letter, penned by sex-industry lawyer Wayne Giampietro. (Prior to this dispute, Giampietro represented a party associated with Backpage – an online marketplace that was shut down for trafficking minors. Backpage.com was shuttered by the Federal government “for its willful facilitation of human trafficking and prostitution.” See this USA Today article: 93-count indictment on sex trafficking charges revealed against Backpage founders. The indictment charged Backpage owners, along with others, of conspiring to knowingly facilitate prostitution offenses through the website, and contended that the trafficked people included teenage girls.)
Wayne Giampietro’s lie-filled cease & desist letter (Prause failed to provide a screenshot or URL, because her address was not on YBOP):
Linode never informed me about Prause’s bogus C&D letter because they had no reason to act on it. Instead, the above C&D was forwarded to me from the owner of a YouTube channel whom Prause sucessfully silenced with her threats. The young man was frightened into deleting his video that contained screenshots of YBOP pages documenting her defamation/harassment. Prause falsely told him that I was violating her rights because her home address was on YBOP. She cited California’s “Safe At Home” regulations and her bogus C&D letter (above).
This screenshot from a January, 2020 Linode communication confirmed that (1) YBOP was not publishing Prause’s home address or telephone number, and (2) Prause failed to provide any actionable requests (i.e. URLs of pages allegedly containing her address):
Using “Safe At Home” to silence her critics, when no one was violating her rights under the Safe At Home Act, is misusing the Act. According to the Act, it constitutes a misdemeanor under California law.
Others – November, 2019: Prause misuses “Safe At Home Program”: She threatens YouTube channel with legal action, falsely claiming a video was defamatory & linked to her home address on YBOP (her address was never on YBOP)
Around the time the Rhodes v. Prause defamation lawsuit was filed, YouTuber Fearless Dan posted a short video discussing the Rhodes suit and Prause’s long, documented history of defamation and harassment. His video contained images of him scrolling through the first YBOP Prause page, showing the table of contents, and briefly highlighting a few sections.
I watched the video and put it up on YBOP. Fearless Dan’s video was factually accurate and defamed no one. Nevertheless, Prause reported it to YouTube and threatened Fearless Dan with legal action. Here’s what Prause emailed to YouTube:
Please see the following document supporting the defamation, harassment, and financial fraud in Mr. “Fearless Dan’s” video posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjeulxvGwLA
This also violates my California safe-at-home program protections. Mr. “Fearless Dan” links in the comment to a description of my physical location with images of me which he does not own.
My attorney will follow with a Cease and Desist specific to your client’s video, most likely tomorrow, if it not removed immediately.
All lies. Prause’s so-called “document supporting the defamation, harassment, and financial fraud” appears to have been her attorney Wayne Giampietro’s lie-filled cease & desist letter, which I posted in the previous section. Prause also lied when she claimed that Fearless Dan “links in the comment to a description of my physical location.” He linked to YBOP which, as documented, has never contained her home address.
Unfortunately, Fearless Dan then deleted his video, fearing that he might otherwise place his entire YouTube channel at risk. Prause thus successfully censored his right to speak the truth freely. See below.
Others – November, 2019: In response to Diana Davison’s Post Millennial expose’ Prause harasses/defames Davison, followed by a bogus Cease & Desist letter and demanding $10,000 to not file a suit
A few weeks after Rhodes v Prause was filed, accurate media coverage on serial false accuser/defamer Nicole Prause finally arrived:
Davison also produced this 6-minute YouTube video touching on Prause’s egregious behavior: “Is Porn Addictive?”
The Diana Davison YouTube video provided a link to the timeline of events chronicling Prause’s nearly 7-year campaign of harassment, defamation, threats, and false accusations called “VSS Academic War Timeline.” Prause eventually got the timeline removed(!), on what basis no one knows. Several revealing comments under the Diana Davison video expose Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim:
———————————
———————————
———————————
As she had done with other journalists (e.g. Belinda Luscombe, Amy Fleming) Prause went on the attack, harassing, defaming and threatening Diana Davison. Prause eventually resorted to sending Davison and The Post Millennial a baseless cease & desist letter. (PDF of bogus C&D letter). We begin with Diana Davison’s original tweet linking to her article:
Is it a coincidence that the AVN email to Prause is dated November 21, the day The Post Millennial expose’ on Nicole Prause was published? This suggests that Prause emailed AVN and they immediately responded with the requested statement. It appears as if Prause and AVN have an ongoing relationship.
However, the AVN email fails to back up Prause’s claims. First, AVN’s email is only concerned with 2019, yet Don Hilton only contends that Prause stated she had attended AVN in 2015 (which Prause did tweet in 2015). Second, the AVN respnse concerns itself with only RSVP tickets, not general admission. The only thing the AVN email proves is that the AVN is at Prause’s beck and call.
Next she tweets this gem (featuring more of her private emails with porn industry insiders):
The screenshot of the XRCO Chairman’s email to Prause from the above tweet is priceless:
Bob Krotts confirms Prause had attended XRCO (contrary to Nikky’s sworn affidavit), yet he’s not sure if she’s a “part of” the porn industry or not. Prause’s tweet contains a second screenshot – of a Davison tweet:
Davison is referring to this XRCO picture of Prause sitting at a reserved table with porn-industry friends (blonde at left behind porn star Melissa Hill):
In the same thread, here she is ranting about the 2019 AVN (rather than 2015), and tweeting receipts supposedly showing she was in LA during the 2019 AVN (which is held in Las Vegas). However, no one said Prause attended the 2019 AVN award (even though Prause apparently once planned to attend AVN), and The Post Millennial article said nothing about either the AVN or the XRCO awards.
Davison responds to being blocked, then harassed by Prause:
Why does Twitter allow people who have blocked you to reply to tweets? I've got some nutter (Nicole Prause) falsely accusing me (surprise, surprise) and other people have to tell me what's going on.
The next day Prause gets her Backpage.com lawyer to send a bogus cease and desist letter to Davison and The Post Millennial. All of Prause’s alleged wrongs are fabricated nonsense – as usual.
Continues threats against Davison, The Post Millennial, and two other Twitter accounts in the Davison thread (note: Prause had already blocked Davison).
Notice how Prause’s C&D letter says RE: Your Brain On Porn. Just shows that she is probably the one writing the bogus C&D’s, not her lawyer.
Diana Davison responds to Prause’s harassment and bogus C&D letter.
That she lied about attending the XRCO event and she's threatening to sue people who say they've seen a picture of her there. Also, falsely accusing people of stalking just for doing research and defending themselves.
So I've just been threatened with a bogus lawsuit for saying things that are provably true. Interesting. For the person issuing this threat: I have an LA lawyer and you'll be hearing from him if you persist in this attempt at silencing my speech.
The problem with your question is that the person alleging defamation claims I said things I didn't. What I said is that a person was in a place where photos prove she was. She's alleging I said she was somewhere else which I have no interest in.
Weird year indeed. I did my own investigation and agree with your conclusion but disagree on some of your other statements. Disagreement isn't defamation is it? Meanwhile Prause is threatening to sue me now for stating the truth. She's the biggest nutter in No Nut November.
To clarify, when I say "stating the truth" I mean she wants to sue me for producing a picture of her at a porn award show that she claims she didn't attend.
December 19, 2019: Prause apparently scared Tiki-Toki.com into taking down Davison’s timeline of Prause’s defamation & harassment.
To be honest, I kind of feel like I should have an affidavit of being bullied in the lawsuits now. Just got a notice that Prause had my timeline documentation removed from the website that allowed me to track her nefarious activities.
March 10, 2020: Evidently Diana Davison received emails from more victims of Prause. It never ends:
At what point can Nicole Prause be declared a vexatious litigant? I'm getting messages and screenshots from numerous people of her saying she's suing them… and she doesn't. Because she knows she can't.
Hmm. Criminal harassment has to be repeated unwanted contact after being told the target is afraid of you. I'm not afraid of her. She threatens then disappears so I don't think it would meet the threshold. And she's like buckshot scattering her threats without follow up.
Davison ends with what many of us know to be true:
A fucking nutter. Obsessed with saying porn has no addictive qualities or downsides. She'll sue anyone who calls her a nutter or points out inconvenient facts that interfere with her academic neutrality.
Prause and Tom Jackson exchanged tweets back in March, and again when Diana Davison tweeted her expose’. On November 22, Prause threatens Jackson with a defamation suit, demanding a payment of $10,000:
She claims that a process server is working to locate an anonymous Twitter account. Sure, it is.
Prause enters the March, 2019 thread with additional legal threats:
Another threat under a different March tweet:
Yet another threat under a yet another March tweet:
She files a small claims court “suit” against Tom Jackson’s anonymous Twitter account in Los Angeles court.
Tom Jackson may not know that:
California small claims suits for defamation are only applicable to residents of California. If Tom lives anywhere else the suit is automatically dismissed (as long as he avoids service in CA).
Anyone can file a small claims suit, because it’s as easy as clicking a few online boxes.
No lawyers can be involved. You must represent yourself.
Suing an anonymous online account in small claims court is liking suing a ghost. Unless one is willing to spend tons of money to force Twitter to reveal an email, and the hapless victim is served in CA, it is an empty threat.
Tom Jackson deletes his Twitter account:
The members of the private Facebook group celebrate like juvenile trolls:
Too bad people don’t know their rights. The Tom Jackson small claims suit did not go forward.
She then pinned a tweet boasting about all the porn industry groups and individuals that were coming to her aid:
If any bit of evidence shows Prause’s intimate relationship with the porn industry, the above certainly does. She has big porn players at her beck and call.
Two more threats targeting Kurall_Creator (Mark Schuenemann). To threaten, she boasts about her upcoming lawsuits with Diana Davison and Tom Jackson – which never came to fruition.
More defamation and lies by Prause:
Epilogue: No “defamation” suit was filed by Prause.
Concurrently, a lawyer gives his 25-tweet opinion of the defamation suits against Prause. Even though he states up front that he’s not a fan of NoFap (one of the plaintiffs), and is a fan of porn, he eviscerates Prause for her nutty behavior and bogus legal threats:
Tweets continued:
Further tweets:
Prause claimed to have a hotline to the FBI and to being advised by the FBI on what to tell the public about the Alex Rhodes defamation suit. Probably not.
———————————————————————————————
3) December, 2019: Matthew
Background: The following tweets come from a Pascal Gobry thread featuring his extensive article: A Science-Based Case for Ending the Porn Epidemic. RealYBOP and Nicole Prause responded with 90 rambling tweets in Gobry’s thread, consisting of personal attacks, ad hominem, and false accusations (but never addressing the substance of his article).
As for her claims, none of the small claims suits went to trial. Unless she serves the party while they are in California, the suit will be dropped within a couple of months. Prause knows her small claims filings will go nowhere. Sheer intimidation. Prause has never filed an actual defamation suit against anyone in regular court. Even in the 2 defamation suits against her, she failed to counter-sue. Truth is a defense.
——————————————————————————————–
4) January, 2020: TranshumanAI
Another account that also did not engage in actual defamation, yet was threatened by Prause with a suit in California small claims court. Under duress the account deleted the tweets, and changed its name:
More hyperbole and lies:
Again, this case never went to trial. Pure speech suppression and bluff. As mentioned above, California small claims suits for defamation are only applicable to residents of California. Anyone can file a small claims suit, and take a screenhot, because it’s as easy as clicking a few online boxes.
Prause threatens a defamation suit, even though the above does not rise to defamation (especially as it is true).
Under attack from Prause, Ley, and their pack of flying monkeys, the Twitter account goes private. Prause continues, claiming fake victimhood while falsely implying that she has “won” all sorts of lawsuits. In reality, the 2 defamation suits against her are the only actual lawsuits on record – and both are moving towards trial. Extensive page exposing Prause’s lies and fabrications: Nicole Prause & David Ley commit perjury in Hilton defamation lawsuit (September, 2019).
Co-harasser and defamer David Ley steps in with his usual litany of falsehoods and fake victimhood.
Others – 2019-2020: Multiple incidents – Nicole Prause and presumed aliases (@BrainOnPorn) target Don Hilton even AFTER his defamation lawsuit is filed
This section documents the attacks of Prause and her presumed aliases (@BrainOnPorn, Truth ShallSetYouFree) on Hilton after his defamation lawsuit was filed. Attorneys of individuals embroiled in defamation lawsuits usually instructed their clients to avoid discussing the case. It goes without saying that a person being sued for defamation would be wise to refrain from further defamation and targeted harassment. Nicole Prause is no ordinary defendant…or harasser. More than reckless, the following items demonstrate Prause’s malice toward Hilton.
This section documents the attacks of Prause and her presumed aliases (@BrainOnPorn, Truth ShallSetYouFree) on Hilton after his defamation lawsuit was filed. Attorneys of individuals embroiled in defamation lawsuits usually instruct their clients to avoid discussing the case. It goes without saying that a person being sued for defamation would be wise to refrain from further defamation and targeted harassment. Nicole Prause is no ordinary defendant…or harasser. More than reckless, the following items demonstrate Prause’s malice toward Hilton.
June 22, 2019: Prause’s closest ally, David Ley tweets about Hilton. Note: (1) David Ley filed a lie-filled affidavit on the behalf of Prause in this case, and (2) PornHub was the first to retweet Ley’s tweet:
——————–
July 5, 2019: David Ley’s tweet borders on defamation itself.
————————
July 15, 2019:While she doesn’t mention Hilton by name, Prause has tweeted much the same about Hilton in the past:
——————————
August 13, 2019: Prause/RealYBOP ally disparages Hilton with untrue statements:
RealYBOP likes the tweet:
————————
September 20, 2019: On the day of a very important hearing in her case, Prause tweets about a major issue in the suit: Kinsey collaborating with pedophiles, as is clear from Table 34 in his famous treatise Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948). This was a major point of discussion in the only conversation between Prause and Hilton. Prause later mischaracterizes the discussion as Hilton calling her a child molester (he never did).
While not overt, it’s still targeting Hilton.
———————
November 14, 2019: three tweets directly referring to Hilton and the lawsuit (tweet 1, tweet 2, tweet 3), and containing false or defamatory statements:
November 14, 2019: On the same day, Prause alias @BrainOnPorn tweets about Hilton’s appearance on a CBS show about pornography:
——————-
November 19, 2019: RealYBOP disparages Don Hilton, MD. (He was the so-called “religious physician” in the CBS segment about porn, but he sticks to the science and never makes religiosity part of his public talks. Only his critics do.)
November 24, 2019: In response to Diana Davison exposing Prause as lying about attending porn awards, Prause tweets a Chad Sokol email mentioning Don Hilton:
The email:
Chad Sokol & my email: This brings us to reporter Chad Sokol and his biased article about a February 23, 2019 conference on the risks of porn use held at Gonzaga University. In interviewing some of the presenters (such as Don Hilton) it became apparent that Sokol had already spoken with David Ley and Nicole Prause (and Prause co-author Cameron Staley). Sokol was clearly biased, having been prepared with Prause-generated materials and talking points.
In conversations with Hilton, Sokol parroted Prause, suggesting that Hilton’s religious faith skewed his views, making him biased. If bias (not the research) was Sokol’s primary concern, Hilton wondered if Sokol might be willing to examine evidence of Prause’s and Ley’s biases.
December 16, 2019: Prause tweeted links to PDFs of defamatory documents she filed in her unsuccessful September, 2019 Motion to Dismiss in the Hilton defamation suit. She had them re-published on www.reason.com, an online magazine. At the time of her tweets, her Motion to Dismiss had already been denied, which she failed to mention. In a desperate attempt to veil her defeat, she made it her pinned tweet, and appeared to pay for fake Twitter accounts to retweet and like her tweet(!).
Prause’s tweet was once up past 100 retweets (it’s now down to 70). Almost all were fake accounts. A few screenshots supporting this assertion:
Her Motion to Dismiss was, in large part, an extensive rant defaming me, Alex Rhodes, Don Hilton, Stefanie Carnes and others. She perjured herself throughout. More importantly, her decision to publicize her court documents brings with it numerous legal implications, supplying further evidence of defaming her targets anew, including both Hilton and Alex Rhodes, and the possibility of additional lawsuits by others defamed in her now publicized/published documents.
———————-
December 21, 2019: Prause once again tweets her defamatory, already denied, Motion to Dismiss court documents:
December 19, 2019: In an utterly shocking turn of events Prause creates and posts a YouTube video attacking Don Hilton, titles “Donald Hilton Bigotry.” It’s 5 minutes of spliced together out-of-context snippets. A good portion of the video is Hilton reading an article by someone else. Prause is attempting to make the viewers believe they are Hilton’s words, when it clearly they were not.
It was posted on the newly created YouTube channel “Truth ShallSetYouFree.” We know this is Prause’s YouTube channel because (1) it was named “RealYourBrainOnPorn” in the first few days of its existence, (2) it commented under the Rebecca Watson video outing Prause as a defamer and harasser, (3) the comment is Prause talking in the first person about the California Psychology Board complaints and the WIPO complaint (involving her). Again, she publicized her defamatory documents related to her failed Motion to Dismiss.
A screenshot of the above comment when it was named “Real YourBrainOnPorn” (before Prause changed the name of the YouTube channel to “Truth ShallSetYouFree”):
Bosmol tagged The University of Texas (where Hilton teaches), the UT Dean, the Texas Civil Rights Project, and The Daily Texan. Is this Prause once again trying to get Hilton fired from his teaching position at University of Texas? Can anyone say “undeniable malice?”
I discovered the Bosmol tweet because it was retweeted by two RealYourBrainOnPorn “experts” and close Prause allies, David Ley and Victoria Hartmann:
—
The Bosmol tweet was also “liked” by Prause’s apparent Twitter alias @BrainOnPorn:
December 31, 2019: Cyberstalking Gabe Deem (who has blocked RealYBOP) on New Years Eve, RealYBOP tweets defamation and PDFs of her defamatory Motion to Dismiss documents:
December 31, 2019: RealYBOP trolls under Gary Wilson (even though I blocked her and she blocked me), tweeting about Hilton & Watts, 2011 – again, and completely out of context:
December 31, 2019: In a truly bizarre event, @BrainOnPorn Twitter (apparently managed Prause) changed its home page to superimpose Rory Reid’s unpersuasive commentary on Hilton & Watts, 2011:
Huh?
———————————-
February, 29, 2020: Prause & Luke Adams team up to disparage so-called frivolous lawsuits:
Prause is the ruling monarch of frivolous legal actions and bogus C&D letters.
———————-
March 5, 2020: Implying the 2 defamation lawsuits against her are moving in a favorable direction:
—————————-
March 7, 2020: She threatens yet another person with a defamation suit, then falsely implies that she has “won” all sorts of lawsuits. In reality, the 2 defamation suits against her are the only actual lawsuits on record – and both are moving towards trial.
January, 2020: RealYBOP Twitter defames Dr. Tarek Pacha (who presented on PIED), falsely stating he’s not a urologist and has conflict of interests
On January 30, Gabe Deem posted the following tweet with snippets from urologist Tarek Pacha’s Porn-Induced ED presention givenat the American Urologialc Association Conference, May 6-10, 2016 (Part 1,Part 2,Part 3, Part 4)
i wake up every morning baffled this isn’t being talked about more.
Here we have a urologist, Dr. Tarek Pacha, presenting at the American Urological Association on the rise in porn-induced sexual dysfunction in young, otherwise healthy men. pic.twitter.com/lk9ymqoFgj
Right after @gabedeem tweeted Dr. Tarek Pacha’s presentation on PIED, RealYBOP twitter (thought to be run by Prause) defamed Dr. Pacha by falsely stating he is NOT a urologist and that he is somehow profiting through suggesting guys quit porn. Reality:
Pacha received only free meals and some lodging from medical companies in an amount far below the average for physicians. More to the point, medical companies would prefer Pacha refrain from telling guys that to achieve sexual health all they have to do is quit porn. Can’t sell any medical devices that way!
RealYBOP begins by posting 4 malicious and defamtory tweets:
No RealYBOP, your “critique” is defamatory, as you falsely stated that Tarek Pacha is not a urologist. You also falsely claim a conflict of interest when there was none: no medical supply company is buying Pacha lunch to encourage him to tell young men to eliminate porn to cure their ED.
RealYBOP then trolls therapist Staci Sprout with her misinformation. RealYBOP has blocked Staci Sprout (who was unaware of RealYBOP’s tweet). Important to note that Prause and RealYBOP chronically harass and defame Staci Sprout. Prause has maliciously reported Sprout to boards, defamed her, and sent her threatening letters.
Literally 5 min on Pornhub starting at most viewed videos & these faces all ended up in front of me. Millions of people are masturbating to what is depicted, if not real, child sexual abuse and Pornhub profits from it all. You think this is healthy? Think again. #PornIs#VAWGpic.twitter.com/F3DFI559KG
Please spread this message: Pornhub has no system in place to verify the ages of those in the videos or to verify their “consent”—NONE. The only thing required is an email address. There are likely thousands of trafficking victims on the site right now.#PornIs#Trafficking#Enditpic.twitter.com/x0QEXiHNYZ
As always, RealYBOP misrepresents what we say, while evading key points. The point of the Tweet is Pornhub has no age verification. Which RealYBOP confirmed and then confirmed she also found the girls most viewed video. It is completely irrelevant that other sites might have some form of ID check (which is questionable). So everything is A-ok because you can hunt around the internet trying to find these thousands of underage appearing girls and try to verify their age that way?
RealYBOP follows up with a retweet of Playboy writer, and RealYBOP expert, Justin Lehmiller’s propaganda:
Nicole Prause attempts to take down YBOP by threatening its web host with a bogus Cease & Desist letter (January, 2020)
The request has been made under the California Safe at Home Act, which prohibits you from engaging in the following:No person, business, or association shall knowingly and intentionally publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address, home telephone number, or image of a program participant or other individuals residing at the same home address with the intent to do either of the following:
(A) Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this harm.
(B) Threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her personal safety.
In order to comply with the California Safe at Home Act, we ask that you remove any infringing content referencing Nicole Prause.
Please let us know how you plan to proceed.
Thanks in advance!
Kind Regards,
Trust & Safety Team
WILSON’S REPLY TO WEB HOST
Dear Linode,
This demand is nothing more or less than misuse of the Safe At Home statute to further censorship and defamation.
Nicole Prause’s home address and telephone numbers are not on www.yourbrainonporn.com. The only so-called images of Prause on my website are screenshots of her own tweets, that is, tweets posted by her. She and others have placed thousands of these, or similar, images of her across the Web. Images of Prause are found in hundreds of articles and on Prause’s twitter account and two Facebook pages: https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause, https://www.facebook.com/nprause, https://www.facebook.com/LiberosCenter/.
In any case, the screenshots of her tweets on my website do not meet the test of the California Safe at Home Act. That is, there has been no intent to do either of the following:
(A) Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this harm.
(B) Threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her personal safety.
Prause’s current spurious cease and desist letter addressed to Linode is but the latest event in her 7-year history of harassment and defamation of me and various others, as documented on these 2 pages:
This is the 4th time Nicole Prause or her agents have contacted Linode to attempt to have evidence of her own carefully documented harassment and defamation removed from YBOP. Below are links to the 3 previous times Prause contacted Linode with unfounded claims. As you can see, all 3 were summarily dismissed by Linode:
It’s important to let you know that Nicole Prause is currently being sued for defamation by two individuals. I have filed sworn affidavits in both lawsuits (as have many other victims of Prause). YBOP pages with the 2 lawsuits:
The images of her tweets will not be removed from my website, as they do not violate the Safe At Home statute. If Linode cannot protect my free speech rights, I will regretfully have to move my website to a different server. While I would not like to have to take this step, if you feel you must yield to Prause’s threats, I will need the information necessary to remove my content to another host.
Could you please provide any correspondence that led to your message to me?
Thank you.
Best regards,
Gary Wilson
RESPONSE FROM WEB HOST:
Hello Gary,
My apologies if the tone of our prior communication did not convey our sympathy to your position. As in the prior instances of our interactions regarding Ms. Prause, we were merely advising you of the existence of Ms. Prause’s possible claims against your website, and to confirm that you had not published Ms. Prause’s home address or telephone number.
To this end, Linode has invested considerable resources in doing our due diligence in the instant matter (as was the case with Ms. Prause’s previous issues). We take all abuse claims seriously, though as advocates of all our customers, do our best to discourage frivolous reports.
At this time, Ms. Prause has provided us with no actionable requests, so Linode will not be taking any action….
Linode is legally required to forward claims regarding content to our customers, but in doing so, we should have also advised you as to Linode’s behind the scenes efforts.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Important to note that:
Linode confirmed that YBOP had not published Prause’s home address or telephone number.
Prause failed to provide any actionable requests (i.e. URL’s of pages containing her address)
As before, my web host was not fooled by Prause’s false allegations and fabricated stories of victim-hood. I doubt this will be her last attempt. No matter what she tries, the pages documenting her unethical and often illegal behaviors will remain on YBOP.
In the last few months, Prause has trumpeting to the world that she entered The Safe At Home Program. While I don’t know her circumstances, Prause implied in recent court filings (and tweets) that she entered the program under the pretense that I (Gary Wilson), Alex Rhodes (and maybe Don Hilton) are stalking her! This is a untrue, of course (Alex Rhodes and Don Hilton are suing Prause for her false accusations that they have stalked her, among other allegations). If Prause entered the Safe At Home Program under the false pretense of being stalked by any of us, she is abusing and misusing the program.
Why would Prause enter the Safe At Home Program under false pretense? To weaponize her victim-hood and to try to censor her critics.
As carefully documented on the pages chronicling her behavior (page 1, page 2), she has long falsely asserted that she is a victim of stalking and harassment. In reality, Prause is the perpetrator. For example, she has filed malicious, groundless complaints against over 20 individuals and organizations who held, or published, views on pornography counter to hers: PDF Documenting Prause’s Malicious Reporting Pattern.
Prause has been trying to censor critics with false allegations that they are somehow violating Safe At Home, which appears to disallow publishing home addresses and phone numbers. Please note: YBOP has never published Prause’s home address or phone number. Prause’s own actions demonstrate that she is, in fact, unconcerned about actual stalking. Up until a few weeks ago (months after she entered the program), Prause’s business address (rather than her surrogate Safe At Home address) was proudly displayed on her LinkedIn page. Just more of her fake victim-hood.
February, 2020: Prause tweets numerous lies: (1) that her address appears on YBOP, (2) that the CA Attorney General forced Linode to remove address from YBOP, (3) that Staci Sprout & I have been posting her home address “online”.
In response to being thwarted in her bogus C&D letter attempts, Prause went to Twitter to attempt to trump up support for her malicious de-platforming and harassment efforts (tagging Linode). She started with a series of three tweets that were nothing but lies. The first tweet falsely states that her address is on YBOP and that both the LAPD and California Attorney General were involved:
As explained above, Prause has never provided a screenshot or a URL to support this assertion. She can’t because her home address has never been on YBOP. Neither I or Linode have been contacted by the California Attorney General. Days earlier, my web host confirmed what I had told them after doing their own due diligence: Prause’s address is not on YBOP:
Important to note that:
Linode confirmed that YBOP was not publishing Prause’s home address or telephone number.
Prause failed to provide any actionable requests (i.e. URLs of pages allegedly containing her address).
In her 2nd tweet Prause flat out admits that no one, including YBOP, could have posted her home address, because all of her posted address are fake (including the address she used in her malicious US trademark application to obtain my trademarks YOURBRAINONPORN and YOURBRAINONPORN.COM). Her tweet also falsely states that I am “circulating her address from another account.” She can’t name the (imaginary) account I’m supposedly using to circulate her self-admitted fraudulent address. (Why hasn’t she provided actual evidence?)
Here’s her 3rd tweet with more lies and contradictions. Unlike tweet #2, she now says we all know her address. (How, if she has never posted it – by her own admission?)
“Brag”? “Followers to like it”? Again, why can’t she produce a screenshot of these events? Because they’re fabricated.
A few hours later, Prause claims the CA Attorney General immediately acted upon her Twitter request, forcing Linode to remove her fake address from YBOP. This never happened.
In a shocking “self-own”, she tweeted an excerpt from the current page of YBOP:
I should amend the above, as I now see that Prause’s address is still on her LinkedIn page as well as on other outlets she controls (as of 2/12/20).
Prause’s Twitter thread ends with her defaming and harassing Staci Sprout, yet again. Prause attempts to spread her smear campaign, tagging SASH and IITAP. However, the president of IITAP has filed affidavits in the defamation suits against Prause, and SASH is well aware of Prause’s malicious activity.
Becoming a public sex (addiction) educator has resulted in some major pushback…but I’m not quitting… Soon after I published my memoir and got busy promoting it, I realized I loved offering public education about sex/porn addiction and recovery.
It wasn’t long before my efforts had attracted the attention of a (once) widely quoted individual whose research is often used to “debunk” porn addiction…and her associates…at least two of whom are employed by the commercial sex industry.
Eventually, I was asked to give sworn testimony in two defamation lawsuits against her by others, which I agreed to – she is being sued for over $10 million for damages. I also supported the fund-raising efforts of one of her victims.
Now she’s filed a bogus lawsuit against me! Here is my testimony: This is a true and accurate account of the bullying, harassment, defamation and blame-shifting perpetrated by Nicole Prause to me, Staci Sprout
My name is Staci Sprout. I own two businesses, a private psychotherapy practice and Recontext Media, a publisher and platform for online education. I am writing to state that I have not defamed nor am I guilty of the wrongful allegations of libel or slander made against me by Nicole Prause. I created this statement to document her pattern of online harassment and defamation of me, starting in 2017. Her latest demand that I pay her $10,000 or she would take legal action against me felt like extortion…then she filed a small claims lawsuit in CA alleging that I am guilty of slander, libel and violating her protected victim status somehow. It is my belief that I have only sought to tell the truth about her online misconduct towards myself and colleagues I deeply respect.
In this letter I am summarizing my history of her attacks, false reports, and defamation. Far more evidence of her pattern of attacking and making false claims against not just me but many other professionals who disagree with her has also been carefully documented here, starting at least in 2013 (there is a pdf at this link that lists 20 people and organizations she has targeted – so I’m not alone). I’ve attached it at the bottom of this post.
I have never met Ms. Prause in person, nor has she been a psychotherapy client of my private practice. After enduring her online attacks and false reports against me, I eventually began to stand up for myself. I published facts online about her harassment of me, disagreed with her opinions, and made true public statements as an online educator and activist. I also stood up for colleagues she has attacked. That is not defamation. Her recent demand letter and filing a small claims suit three days later appears to be more attempts to intimidate me, this time adding financial threats. She continually uses nuisance claims and deceptive complaints in systems and organizations, forcing me to defend myself. It is exhausting.
OUR FIRST ENCOUNTER: HER ONLINE BULLYING – 2017
My first experience with Ms. Prause was when she posted a critical tweet in response to one of mine in November 2017. She used the account “Liberos@NicoleRPrause” to publicly name me and disagree with something I had posted on my public twitter account. I responded to her as a comment on her twitter post to debate the issue. Within a few exchanges it was clear to me she was not interested in genuine dialogue. In fact, I experienced her as an intellectual bully, and I responded by immediately blocking her on twitter. I have a personal policy to block people who are abusive in any way, or attempt to be. If I had known I would be facing two years of harassment after that, I would have taken a screen shot of this first exchange.
INACCURATELY ACCUSING ME OF PRACTICING WITHOUT A LICENSE – 2018
Ms. Prause also made a false accusation on my public Facebook author page in 2018, after I posted an article from World Psychiatry, saying that I was “lying to line [my] pockets” and that I “should have had a complaint filed against [me]” and stating, “…oh, you’re not licensed. Well, that makes sense.” Her comment is greyed out below because I quickly blocked her on Facebook so she could no longer harass me there. My post was not about her at all, it was an article on the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder diagnosis being considered by the World Health Organization – yet she personalizes so much of what I do as an online educator.
Her statement was untrue that I was practicing without a license. In fact I am a Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker in the state of Washington in good standing, first certified on 1/14/1997 and licensed on 7/22/2001.
Prause visits my Facebook page – greyed out because I immediately blocked her.
MS. PRAUSE FILES THREE FALSE NUISANCE COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME TO REGULATING BODIES – 2018
In the 25 years of practice since earning my Master’s Degree in Social Work, I have never had a complaint filed against me for any reason, until hers. Both of hers – after the first one was dropped without investigation, she quickly filed a second complaint, also dropped. Though I have never met Ms. Prause nor treated her for therapy, she has made three formal ethics complaints against me to my licensing or professional organizations. All three claims she reported were closed without investigation for having no merit:
1) An unfounded complaint to the WA Department of Health dated January 24, 2018, “closed without action.”
2) A second unfounded complaint to the WA Department of Health later that year, “closed without action.”
3) Another unfounded complaint to the National Association of Social Workers, where I am a member in good standing – also dropped without formal investigation.
Prause’s first bogus nuisance complaint to the WA State Department of Health, dropped without investigation.
Prause’s second bogus nuisance complaint to the WA State Department of Health, also dropped.
Yet a THIRD bogus nuisance complaint, also dropped, without investigation; this time to the National Association of Social Workers.
MS. PRAUSE IS SUED FOR DEFAMATION BY A COLLEAGUE FOR 10 MILLION DOLLARS, I CONTRIBUTE SWORN AFFIDAVIT – 2019
After being forced to address these false reports, even though they were all dropped without formal investigation, I sought support from other colleagues who had been similarly attacked by her – I know of more than a dozen, and there are far more out there I do not know. I was then asked to share my harassment experiences by a neurosurgeon colleague who had filed suit against her for defamation per se, for ten million dollars in damages. I agreed, and filed a sworn affidavit in this defamation lawsuit about my experiences up to that time.
MS. PRAUSE IS SUED A SECOND TIME FOR DEFAMATION – 2019
I have filed a second declaration for another defamation lawsuit against Ms. Prause by yet another victim of her relentless bullying. I was introduced to this young man by a mutual colleague, and felt concern for his suffering as a result of her harm to him. I offered to help him raise money for his legal campaign fundraiser, and recorded a video telling the truth about what’s been going on. To date he has received almost $100,000 in donations to support his case, for his legal fees. I suspect my activism on his behalf led to Ms. Prause escalating her targeting me to not just deceptive statements and false complaints, but now adding financial demands and legal intimidation.
MS. PRAUSE SENDS DEMAND LETTER FOR $10,000 – 2019
Ms. Prause then sent me a letter demanding that I owed her $10,000, for a list of claims that are either clearly false, or simply true things I have said. She sent a similar demand letter to a news organization that published an unflattering story about her, stating they owed her $10,000 also. Criticism based on true actions is not defamation, it is the outcome of being a public figure. She also sent a copy of this demand letter to yet another professional organization I belong to – the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. She also sent them a “cease and desist” letter about me (and several others), because this organization had awarded me the “Annual Media Award” last year, implying they should silence me somehow. This felt like an attempt to humiliate me in front of the entire Board of an organization I belong to. Ms. Prause’s list of allegations are either untrue or not defamation. She often conflates general statements I have made with personal attacks against her, when I did not name her at all. Where is the evidence of this list of claims?
Prause demands $10,000, page 1
Prause demands $10,000, page 2
By the way – I am not the only person she has sent a letter to demanding $10K. Another was a journalist, Diana Davison, who published an article and video about the Prause/porn controversy, and I believe there are others out there who have been silenced by her threat. The journalist’s subsequent quote about her attempts to fact-check with Prause:
Prause said many things to me but none of her “evidence” actually supported her claims. In every instance the evidence reversed who the aggressor was. She basically accuses others of the exact things she herself did. I emailed with her, on the record, for almost a week.
Yet another threatening legal letter, this time to a journalist Diana Davison, who posted it on her twitter page. Look familiar? The article was not removed, and to date no lawsuit has been filed by Prause. More empty threats.
MS. PRAUSE FILES IMPROPER SMALL CLAIMS SUIT AGAINST ME IN CALIFORNIA – 2019
Three days after emailing me her demand for $10,000, she filed a small claims suit in California, suing me for $9999. Now I am legally forced to deal with this – a small claims suit in a city I do not live in, work in, nor own property in – for her baseless claims. I believe once again she is trying to use systems with nuisance false complaints to harass others she seeks to silence.
The hearing was scheduled for 2/13/2020 – I requested it be dismissed as inappropriate. It was then postponed until 3/20/20. Prause was instructed by the court to produce documented evidence that she has served me in the state of California or the case will be dropped. She has not, it will be, and I predict she won’t even show up for the hearing. This was not about seeking justice because she is the one who has committed the violations. I believe this malicious prosecution is part of her ongoing attempts to intimidate and harass me.
HER CONTINUED DEFAMATION – NOW PERPETRATED FROM A WHOLE GROUP OF “EXPERTS” – 2019
After reading her detailed false allegations and contemplating all the attacks that have continued to me personally since 2017, I find myself feeling anxious and vigilant for the next online attack. For example, an organization where Ms. Prause serves on the “experts” panel just recently posted this defamation about me on social media – after she’d filed in small claims court against me for making false statements against her!
This statement said “my group” (what group?) recently sued them (I have not sued this organization) and lost (I have not lost a suit with any organization). This group, called “Real Your Brain on Porn,” also said I advertise myself as in recovery from bipolar disorder (I do not, and have never been given that diagnosis).
Tweet about me from organization of which Prause is a key member.
So, finally, I wrote to her directly. In order to take further legal steps I had to, though I wish to avoid all contact with her forevermore (My STOP HARASSING ME letter):
Yet even after I sent the above letter, to the P.O. box address she herself sent me via her Cease and Desist letter, she continues and even escalates her defamation per se, by tweeting on a thread where I was talking with SOMEONE ELSE about the main object of her stalking, Gary Wilson. I was explaining why Gary has meticulously documented Prause’s bad behavior on his website.
Lie. I don’t have her physical address and have never posted it anywhere. More empty legal posturing…and baseless accusations of me: defamation per se.
Hmmmm…could she be referring to me, perhaps?
In summary, dealing with all these attacks and lies has been stress-filled, time-consuming, distressing and exhausting. It has taking away my time from work, relationships, and other positive activities. I thank you for your consideration of my testimony about this situation.
Can I get back to supporting people to learn about recovery from porn/sex addiction now?
Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting Pattern: Nicole Prause has shown a consistent and troubling pattern of threatening, and filing groundless, malicious complaints, and publicly claiming she has filed complaints when she has not done so. Below is an incomplete list of such complaints and false claims. (Out of fear of reprisal we have omitted numerous additional individuals and organizations, and there must surely be more we don’t know about.) The baseless complaints Prause actually lodged were generally dismissed as nuisance filings. However, a few led to time-consuming investigations that were ultimately dismissed or produced little in the way of substantive results. Note: Prause regularly claims “whistleblower status” to keep her activities under the radar. So, there are likely other, non-public complaints in addition to those listed here. FOLLOW THE RABBIT TRAIL HERE
See other sections documenting Prause’s harassment and defamation of Staci Sprout:
The last tweet in the above string is a lie and constitutes defamation per se (see next section).
A few days later RealYBOP attacks and defames the author accusing him of accepting a bribe!
That’s defamation.
February, 2020: RealYBOP twitter (Prause) defames Gary Wilson, falsely claiming he created this twitter account (@RobbertSocial) to “stalk” and “threaten violence”.
RobbertSocial is apparently German. He tweets this a few days later:
February, March, 2020: Prause seeks groundless temporary restraining order (TRO) against Wilson using fabricated “evidence” and her usual lies. TRO appears to be an attempt to remove documentation of Prause’s defamation from YBOP.
She sent two spurious Cease & Desist letters to my webhost (Linode) falsely claiming that her home address was on YBOP. When her lie-filled C&Ds failed, she asked the California Attorney General to get involved. When the California AG couldn’t locate her address on YBOP, Prause resorted to badgering Wilson’s local police to take action against him (February 12, 2020). The officer determined that Prause’s assertions did not allege a crime (in any case, her home address was not on YBOP) and that this was a civil disagreement. He declined to act.
On the same day, Prause then publicly announced she was seeking a restraining order against Wilson, and did so ex parte (without having to notify Wilson):
Prause is lying about me posting her home address on YBOP or Twitter. You can always tell when Prause is lying, as she cannot provide a screenshot or link to support her claims. Prause’s earlier tweets expose her as lying. In fact, she publicly boasted that no one has ever posted her home address because she has posted only fake addresses on the internet:
In the above tweet she is lying, as I have never posted her home address and have never circulated her address (again, no link or screenshot from her).
The first judge denied the TRO, and set a hearing to determine whether a permanent restraining order should be granted on March 6, 2020.
Although Prause had promised publicly on her Twitter account that service was “coming,” Prause, in fact, did not serve me. Nevertheless, my counsel appeared as if she had, thus waiving any need for service. My counsel filed various documents (below) showing that her claims (and some of her evidence items) were false, and that I had never threatened her or placed her at risk.
To everyone’s surprise, the second judge, instead of dismissing the entire matter, continued the hearing until March 25, 2020, stating that he intends to force the parties to attend mediation before ruling.
An analysis of Prause’s Request for the restraining order revealed that she was claiming I was dangerous. She purported to “prove” this by including a photo of two young men holding guns, the shorter of whom she claimed was me. It’s absurdly obvious that he is not Gary Wilson, but rather a young man of Asian decent. Prause appears to have intended to deliberately mislead the court.
The rest of her claims were equally unfounded. She claimed that I have a second Twitter account that actively reveals her home address, and that her home address and pictures are on my website. As usual, she provided no screenshots or URL’s to support her allegations. That’s because both claims are false, although images of many of her tweets (some with her smiling face) are indeed on this website, as that is how I document her ongoing malicious activity for the benefit of members of the public who may be interested in evidence that points to her potential bias and close ties to the porn industry. Her tweets are public.
Prause’s Request for a restraining order is yet another thinly veiled attempt to have all of the incriminating evidence of her potential bias and malicious activity removed from this site. Four court filings related to Prause’s fraudulent TRO:
Respondent GARY WILSON (“Wilson” or “Respondent”) hereby submits this opposition to the Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (“TRO Request”) filed by petitioner NICOLE PRAUSE (“Prause”).[1]
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter does not involve “civil harassment” in any way, shape or form. Prause resides in California and Wilson resides in Oregon. Wilson has never used violence against Prause and has never made any threats against Prause. In fact, Wilson has never met Prause or even spoken to her.
The only conduct Wilson has engaged in that relates to Prause is to exercise his constitutional right to free speech by expressing opinions on his website regarding the adverse effects of pornography that differ from Prause’s pro-pornography position, and to provide truthful testimony in support of those who are currently suing Prause for defamation. In retaliation, Prause filed this frivolous TRO Request based on allegations that are demonstrably false. The Court should deny this TRO Request in its entirety and award Wilson his attorney fees incurred in defending the Request.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Relevant Background
Wilson is a former anatomy, physiology, and pathology instructor. Wilson taught at vocational schools in California and Oregon, and also as an adjunct instructor at Southern Oregon University. Wilson was forced to retire due to a chronic recurring illness. (Declaration of Gary Wilson (“Wilson Declaration”), at ¶ 3).
Since 2010, Wilson has maintained a website entitled www.yourbrainonporn.com that presently includes over 13,000 pages of material pertaining to research on pornography’s effects on individuals as well as other related matters of public interest. The purpose of the website is to report and archive the existing research that shows the effects of pornography, chronicle recovery stories of former pornography users, and serve as a clearinghouse for related items of public interest. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 4).
Wilson is also the author of a book entitled Your Brain on Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction, which tracks research developments in the field. This book was published in 2014 and updated in 2017. Wilson’s book and website are reviled by proponents of the pornography industry because of the viewpoints and opinions expressed by Wilson and others, including critiques of questionable research and studies made by proponents of pornography. (Wilson Declaration, ¶¶ 5-6).
Prause is a researcher and former academic who resides in Los Angeles. Prause’s opinions often differ from Wilson’s as she is a strong proponent of pornography. There is much evidence that she is cozy with the pornography industry – public acceptance of an offer of help from the industry online, photos of her attending industry events, backing the industry’s interests consistently on social media, and attacking and defaming on social media and in false reports those who raise awareness of the potential risks of digital pornography use. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 7).
In or around 2013, Wilson critiqued a questionable study published by Prause, which Prause and her allies assert “debunks porn addiction.” Since then, multiple other researchers have critiqued this study in the peer-reviewed literature, questioning her interpretation of its findings. Since that time, Prause’s false accusations and defamatory attacks on her critics have escalated. In recent years, she has engaged in a repeated practice of making frivolous complaints and reports to licensing boards, law enforcement and other authorities about Wilson and others who disagree with her. Prause has also falsely claimed she has filed reports when she has not done so. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 8).
For example, Prause has repeatedly publicly claimed that she filed two FBI reports against Wilson. Wilson confirmed through a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request that the FBI had no such reports. No FBI official has ever contacted Wilson. In 2018, Prause filed a report against Wilson with the Los Angeles Police Department (which she attaches to her TRO Request). It did not allege that Wilson committed any crime. Instead, Prause seemed to object that Wilson attended a conference in Germany (which Wilson did, having registered in advance, to hear the latest research on behavioral addiction from world experts). Prause also seems to allege that Prause saw Wilson wearing a sleeping bag, armed with a long-sleeved sweater. The physical description does not match Wilson’s height, weight, age or eye-color. The police took no action and in fact never contacted Wilson. Wilson only learned of the LAPD report a year later when Prause persuaded a Wisconsin student newspaper to publish it online. (The University of Wisconsin swiftly removed it when Wilson complained.) (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 9).
Prause is currently a defendant in two defamation lawsuits entitled Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG, and Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366. Hilton is a neurosurgeon and Rhodes runs the world’s largest online English-speaking peer-support forum for those experimenting with giving up internet porn use. Both plaintiffs are pursuing claims for defamation against Prause as a result of Prause’s false claims, including stalking, sexual harassment, antisemitism, non-existent restraining orders and groundless reports to professional boards and academic journals. While Wilson is not a party to either of the above-referenced lawsuits, Wilson signed sworn affidavits in both matters. (Wilson Declaration, affidavit in the Hilton v. Prause case attached as Exhibit “1,” affidavit in the Rhodes v. Prause, et al. case, which was recently filed on January 24, 2020, attached as Exhibit “2.”) (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 10).
On February 12, 2020, Wilson received a call from a police officer with the Ashland, Oregon police department who told Wilson Prause had spoken to him in an attempt to have the police take action against Wilson. The officer told Wilson he intended to inform Prause that he could not help her, because the matter was civil as no crimes were alleged. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 11).
B. Prause Files Retaliatory Request For Restraining Orders Against Wilson
On or about February 13, 2020, Prause filed an ex parte Request for a Temporary Civil Harassment Restraining Orders against Wilson in this matter without notice to Wilson. The Court denied Prause’s ex parte request finding that the “allegations made in the Request do not support the issuance of a restraining order without a hearing.” The Court set the matter for hearing on March 5, 2020.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Prause’s Burden Of Proof
A petitioner in a civil harassment restraining order case must satisfy a high burden of proof in order to convince a judge to issue the order. A civil harassment restraining order will only be granted if there is “clear and convincing evidence” that harassment exists. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §527.6(i). The party to be enjoined has certain important due process safeguards, i.e., “a full opportunity to present his or her case, with the judge required to receive relevant testimony and to find the existence of harassment by ‘clear and convincing’ proof of a ‘course of conduct’ that actually and reasonably caused substantial emotional distress, had ‘no legitimate purpose,’ and was not a ‘constitutionally protected activity.’” Adler v. Vaicius, 21 Cal.App.4th 1770, 1775 (1993).
Here, Prause cannot meet this high burden as she has absolutely no proof of any harassment by Wilson. Moreover, she is clearly seeking to stop Wilson from engaging in conduct that serves a legitimate purpose and is constitutionally protected activity.
B. There is No Basis For Any Restraining Orders Against Wilson
1. Wilson Has Not Harassed Prause
Wilson has not harassed Prause in any way and thus there is no basis for the issuance of the Restraining Order. Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(b) defines “harassment” as “unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose and is not constitutionally protected.” To constitute harassment, the course of conduct “must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actively cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.” R.D. v. P.M., 202 Cal.App.4th 181, 188 (2011). The question is whether the evidence shows “harassment sufficient to place a reasonable person in fear of his or her own safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family.” Id. at 189.
Here, Prause fails to provide any evidence of any harassment by Wilson, much less evidence that would establish harassment as defined by the statute by clear and convincing proof. Prause’s primary allegation appears to be that Wilson posted her home address and telephone on his website. Even if this were true, it would not constitute civil harassment. In any event, it is false. Wilson does not even know Prause’s home address and telephone number, and has confirmed through his website provider that no such information is on his website. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 4, Exh. 3). Further, Prause concedes Wilson does not know her home address and admits that for years she has posted fake addresses for her and her company which remain posted on multiple sites across the Web and appear on Google. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 13, Exhs. 4, 5).
Prause’s TRO Request contains numerous other fabrications. Prause states there are currently protective or restraining orders in effect against Wilson relating to her. (TRO Request, ¶ 6b). This is false. No such orders exist, nor has Prause ever obtained such orders against Wilson. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 14). Prause also claims the police had to come because of harassment by Wilson. (TRO Request, ¶ 7a (6)). This is also false. While Prause did unilaterally file a bogus police report regarding Wilson in 2018, the police took no action and did not even contact Wilson. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 9).
Perhaps most troubling, Prause states in her TRO Request that Wilson has threatened her with a gun. (TRO Request, ¶ 7a (4)). This is another lie by Prause. Prause bases this outrageous claim on grainy copies of photographs she attaches to the TRO Request which she claims depict Wilson and his son with guns. Prause’s allegations are completely false and appear to be an effort to deliberately mislead the Court. In fact, Wilson does not appear in any photographs with a gun. Wilson does not own any guns, and has never owned a gun. (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 15). The photographs were taken years ago and depict Gary Wilson’s son Arion Sprague engaging in perfectly lawful activity. (Declaration of Arion Sprague).
In summary, the evidence clearly shows that Wilson has never met or spoken to Prause, does not live anywhere near Prause, and has not engaged in any type of civil harassment against her whatsoever. Prause’s allegations to the contrary are utterly frivolous.
2. Wilson is Engaging in Constitutionally Protected Activity Which Cannot Be Restrained
California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 cannot be used to prohibit constitutionally-protected speech. Smith v. Silvey, 149 Cal.App.3d 400, 406-407 (1983). Harassing speech must be “between purely private parties, about purely private parties, and on matters of purely private interest.” Brekke v. Willis, 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1409 (2005).
It is clear that Prause is attempting to use this TRO Request to stifle Wilson’s right to free speech. Prause’s retaliatory frivolous TRO Request is the result of the public difference of opinion online over the effects of pornography between Prause on the one hand, and Wilson and others, as well as Wilson’s efforts to defend himself and protect his rights in the face of retaliatory actions Prause has previously taken. Further, Prause is clearly using the TRO Request in an attempt to intimidate Wilson from acting as a witness in the defamation lawsuits now pending against her, and to expunge the evidence of her malicious activity (much of which is in the form of screen shots of her tweets on Wilson’s website). (Wilson Declaration, ¶ 17).
This is clearly not a dispute involving matters of purely private interests between purely private parties. Under California law, a court cannot issue a restraining order against Wilson simply for expressing his opinions and defending himself on his website.
C. Wilson Should Be Awarded His Attorney Fees
The prevailing party is entitled to an award of court costs and attorney fees, even if Plaintiff brought the action in good faith. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §527.6(s); seealsoKrug v. Maschmeier, 172 Cal.App.4th 796, 802-803 (2009).[2] As set forth above, Prause’s TRO Request not only has no merit, but is clearly brought in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Restraining Order should be denied and Wilson should be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $7850 he has incurred in defending this frivolous TRO Request.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Wilson respectfully requests that the Court deny Prause’s Request for Restraining orders against Wilson in all respects. Wilson further requests that he be awarded his attorney fees against Prause in the amount of $7850 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s).
[1] Prause did not serve the TRO Request on Wilson. However, Wilson learned the TRO Request had been filed and is filing this opposition to protect his rights and defend against the false allegations made by Prause.
[2] Prause improperly claims the right to recover fees for actions she allegedly took that had nothing to do with this TRO Request. Moreover, she is pro per and therefore cannot recover fees in any event. Thomas v. Quintero, Cal.App.4th 635, 651 (2005).
I am a resident of Ashland, Oregon. I make this declaration in opposition to the Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (“TRO Request”) filed against me by Nicole Prause (“Prause”). I am over the age of 18 and if called upon to testify to the matters stated herein, I could and would do so competently of my own personal knowledge.
Prause’s TRO Request is completely frivolous. I have never harassed Prause or threatened her safety. In fact, I have never met Prause, never spoken to Prause, and to my knowledge, have never even been in the same city with Prause. As set forth below, my interaction with Prause has been limited to a public difference of opinion online over the effects of pornography, and my efforts to defend myself and protect my rights in the face of the retaliatory actions Prause has taken against me.
I am a former anatomy, physiology, and pathology instructor. I taught at vocational schools in CA and OR, and also as an adjunct instructor at Southern Oregon University. I was forced to retire due to a chronic recurring illness.
Since 2010, I have maintained a website entitled www.yourbrainonporn.com that presently includes over 13,000 pages of material pertaining to research on pornography’s effects on individuals as well as other related matters of public interest. The purpose of my website is to report and archive the existing research that shows the effects of pornography, chronicle recovery stories of former pornography users, and serve as a clearinghouse for related items of public interest.
I am also the author of a book entitled Your Brain on Porn: Internet Pornography and the Emerging Science of Addiction, which tracks research developments in the field. This book was published in 2014 and updated in 2017.
My book and website are reviled by proponents of the pornography industry because of the viewpoints and opinions expressed by me and others, including critiques of questionable research and studies made by proponents of pornography.
Prause is a researcher and former academic who resides in Los Angeles. Prause’s opinions often differ from mine as she is a strong proponent of pornography. There is much evidence that she is cozy with the pornography industry – public acceptance of an offer of help from the industry online, photos of her attending industry events, backing the industry’s interests consistently on social media, and attacking and defaming on social media and in false reports those who raise awareness of the potential risks of digital pornography use.
In or around 2013, I critiqued a questionable study published by Prause, which Prause and her allies assert “debunks porn addiction.” Since then, multiple other researchers have critiqued this study in the peer-reviewed literature, questioning her interpretation of its findings. Since that time, Prause’s false accusations and defamatory attacks on her critics have escalated. In recent years, she has engaged in a repeated practice of making frivolous complaints and reports to licensing boards, law enforcement and other authorities about me and others who disagree with her. Prause has also falsely claimed she has filed reports when she has not done so.
For example, Prause has repeatedly publicly claimed that she filed two FBI reports against me. I confirmed through a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request that the FBI had no such reports. No FBI official has ever contacted me. In 2018, Prause filed a report against me with the Los Angeles Police Department (which she attaches to her TRO Request). It did not allege that I committed any crime. Instead, she seemed to object that I attended a conference in Germany (which I did, having registered in advance, to hear the latest research on behavioral addiction from world experts). She also seems to allege that she saw me wearing a sleeping bag, armed with a long-sleeved sweater. The physical description does not match my height, weight, age or eye-color. The police took no action and in fact never contacted me. I only learned of the LAPD report a year later when Prause persuaded a Wisconsin student newspaper to publish it online. (The University of Wisconsin swiftly removed it when I complained.)
Prause is currently a defendant in two defamation lawsuits entitled Donald L. Hilton, Jr. v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, Case No. 5: 19-CV-00755-OLG, and Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366. Hilton is a neurosurgeon and Rhodes runs the world’s largest online English-speaking peer-support forum for those experimenting with giving up internet porn use. Both plaintiffs are pursuing claims for defamation against Prause as a result of Prause’s false claims, including stalking, sexual harassment, antisemitism, non-existent restraining orders and groundless reports to professional boards and academic journals. While I am not a party to either of the above-referenced lawsuits, I have signed sworn affidavits in both matters. A true and correct copy of my affidavit in the Hilton v. Prause case is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” A true and correct copy of my affidavit in the Rhodes v. Prause, et al. case, which was recently filed on January 24, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit “2.”
On February 12, 2020, I received a call from a police officer with the Ashland, Oregon police department who told me Prause had spoken to him in an attempt to have the police take action against me. After our discussion, the officer told me he intended to inform Prause that he could not help her, because the matter was civil as no crimes were alleged. The next day, February 13, 2020, Prause filed the TRO Request against me. While Prause has never served me with the TRO Request, I learned that it had been filed. I have reviewed the TRO Request. The allegations Prause makes in support of the TRO Request are not true.
Prause claims I have posted her home address and telephone number on my website. This is not true. I have never posted Prause’s home address or phone number on my website, Twitter, or anywhere else. I do not know Prause’s home address or phone number. The company that hosts my website, Linode, has confirmed that they can find no such information on my website. A true and correct copy of Linode’s response to me dated January 31, 2020 confirming that Prause’s home address and telephone number are not on my website is attached hereto as Exhibit “3.”
Prause concedes I could not know her home address and admits that she has, for years, posted nothing but false addresses, whenever she posts her address (such as on her failed application to grab the trademarks for my well established website and its URL). A true and correct copy of Prause’s February 10, 2020 Twitter posts admitting she posts only fake addresses is attached hereto as Exhibit “4.”Fake addresses for her and for her company Liberos are still posted on multiple sites across the web and appear on Google. A true and correct copy of the results of a Google search for Prause that I performed on February 10, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit “5.”
Prause alleges she has other protective or restraining orders against me. This is false. No such orders exist, nor has Prause ever obtained such orders against me.
Prause attaches photographs to her Request she claims depict me and my son holding guns. This is also false. I am not depicted in the photographs that show guns. I do not own any guns, and have never owned one.
I have never used any violence against Prause or threatened to use any violence against her. I have not made any threats against Prause whatsoever nor urged anyone else to do so. I have never harassed her in any way. All of Prause’s allegations claiming that I have threatened or harassed her are completely false.
I firmly believe Prause has filed this TRO Request in an effort to stifle my right to free speech, to intimidate me from acting as a witness in the defamation lawsuits now pending against her, and to attempt to expunge the evidence of her malicious activity (much of which is in the form of screenshots of her tweets on my website). Prause has also threatened other witnesses in the defamation lawsuits with groundless, costly legal proceedings.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and of my own personal knowledge. Executed this 28th day of February 2020 at Ashland, Oregon.
Others – January-March, 2020: Prause incites defamatory UK article in an effort to have Alex Rhodes’s “Donor Box” fundraising campaign removed
However, her target, news outlet SCRAM Media, removed its defamatory article, having realized its egregious error in reprinting material supplied to it by Prause.
David Ley and RealYBOP team up to spread the factually-innacurate hit-piece, with RealYBOP tagging DonorBox and its CEO (unconcerned about adding to Rhodes’s concurrent defamation suit against her):
In a legally perilous move RealYBOP retweets the defamatory SCRAM article:
Prause persuaded the outlet to print the falsehood that she had received death threats from members of the far-right after Rhodes’s crowdfunding campaign began. Hilariously, Prause began posting tweets making this phony claim 22 minutes before the campaign itself commenced. Its commencement was slightly delayed, and she impulsively jumped in based on the projected start time Rhodes had announced online.
So it was that Prause claimed the first death threats at 7:50 am, and yet another death threat a few minutes later (all before NoFap commenced its crowdfund):
Also notice that Prause never provides screenshots of her claimed death threats. (She’s a serial fabricator.)
The SCRAM article contained other blatant, defamatory misinformation supplied by Prause as well. For example, it claimed Rhodes sued her because her “research was tantamount to defamation.” That’s absurd. Rhodes sued her because of her ongoing campaign of defamation and harassment of him and NoFap. None of his claims challenge her research (although many peer-reviewed papers have implied that she misinterpreted the significance of her research, and that her findings are consistent with the presence of addiction among her subjects).
She also claimed Rhodes engaged in “misogyny” and that Rhodes’s fans have tried to hack her Facebook and email, all with no support whatsoever. The SCRAM article stated that she “believes she is being stalked and that her [home] address has been posted online.”
The later is especially difficult to take seriously, as she has publicly stated that she never posts her home address online. Prause herself has posted various fake addresses online, including an address she used for the malicious trademark application she filed in an illicit effort to grab the URL for this website! These addresses can readily be found. Save yourself a stamp, however, as any correspondence will be returned as undeliverable (as was YBOP’s attorney’s cease & desist letter for Prause’s trademark infringement).
SCRAM quotes Prause’s dismissive remarks about Rhodes’s suit, but did not ask Rhodes for his side of the story. Finally, SCRAM made the very dubious argument that because Prause claims she has no ties to the porn industry (despite images and other extensive evidence to the contrary), Rhodes’s Donor Box campaign to fund his lawsuit against Prause is fraudulent. Really?
On top of this blatant misuse of their journalistic pen, the SCRAM team deleted comments under the article when readers attempted to counter Prause’s/SCRAM’s untruthful and misleading statements with actual evidence.
So much for responsible journalism.
Shortly after the publication of the now deleted SCRAM article, and RealYBOP tweeting it, Alex Rhodes filed his amended complaint against Nicole Prause. In his new complaint the ScramNews article was added as a new incident of defamation:
March 3, 2020: Even though her RealYBOP twitter account is now named in the Rhodes’s defamation suit, she trolls “The Doctors” to tweet Scram’s defamatory hit-piece under a picture of Alex Rhodes.
Once again, revealing she is the perpetrator, not the victim.
Ongoing – The Numerous Victims of Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process.
Nicole Prause has shown a consistent and troubling pattern of (1) filing groundless, malicious complaints and lawsuits, and (2) threatening such actions, or publicly claiming that she has filed them, when she has not done so. (Three main pages documenting Prause’s behaviors: 1, 2, 3.)
Below is a partial list of such complaints and false claims. (Out of fear of reprisal we have been asked to omit additional individuals and organizations.) Also, Prause regularly claims “whistleblower status” to keep her activities under the radar. So, there are likely other, non-public complaints in addition to those listed here.
The baseless administrative complaints Prause actually lodged were generally dismissed as nuisance filings. However, a few led to time-consuming investigations that were ultimately dismissed or produced little in the way of substantive results. (see: PDF Documenting Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process).
Fight the New Drug – Reported to Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services on the theory that sharing first-hand stories of porn recovery constituted the abuse of minors. DCFS took no action.
Rory Reid PhD – Prause’s former colleague at UCLA. Appears to have been reported to UCLA (and perhaps to the California Psychology Board). Prause’s attacks on him began concurrently with UCLA’s decision not to renew her contract, bringing her academic career to an end.
Five documents currently on Prause’s AmazonAWS website urging readers to report Rory Reid to the state of California: page1, page2, page3, page4, page5.
Prause reported Rhodes to the Pennsylvania Board of Psychology for practicing psychology without a license because CNN filmed him in a group with other young men, all talking about porn’s effects. No therapy was offered or provided. (Investigation in progress). RealYBOP tweet asking followers to report Rhodes to psych Board.
Don Hilton, MD – Reported to the university where he mentors neurosurgery students, the Texas Medical Board, and academic journals with unfounded claims that he faked his credentials (No action)
Keren Landman, MD – Prause asked VICE magazine to terminate expert Dr. Landman for writing an article recommending use of condoms in porn in support of Proposition 60. Unbelievable.
(Apparently) reported Wilson to the ISSM (International Society for Sexual Medicine) for heaven knows what, which canceled his keynote address scheduled for March, 2018 in Lisbon without giving a reason. Then Prause began a social media campaign saying someone had been “removed for an actual good reason from a conference,” and claimed (again) that Gary had misrepresented his credentials (he hadn’t). Gary soon received his Oregon Psychology Board exoneration (see above), so she may also have told the ISSM earlier that he had been “reported for practicing psychology without a license” among other misleading information – in order to persuade the ISSM to cancel him.
February, 2020: When the above C&D failed, Prause called Wilson’s local Ashland Police, attempting to file a false police report, lying that her home address was on YBOP. Officer Jason St. John determined Prause’s claims did not allege a crime and that this was a civil matter.
On February 12 or thereabouts, Prause sought a temporary restraining order against Wilson, based in part on pictures of people (quite obviously not Wilson) holding guns. The judge denied the TRO, but set a hearing for a permanent restraining order on March 6, 2020. Prause did not serve Wilson, but Wilson’s counsel appeared as if she had, thus waiving service. The judge continued the matter until March 25, 2020, stating that he intends to force the parties to attend mediation before ruling.
Prause has also repeatedly, publicly urged members of the public, via social media, to report professionals and professional organizations to psychology boards, to the FTC, and to the Attorney General. Sections of Prause page with documentation:
After years of malicious administrative reporting, spurious cease & desist letters, and misuse of law enforcement personnel, Prause, in 2019, began abusing the court system (and the targets of her wrath) with malicious legal proceedings (and continued threats of legal proceedings) in order to silence anyone who calls attention to her bias or activity.
As recounted above, she filed an invalid small claims court suit against therapist Sprout, and a baseless restraining order against Wilson.
Freed from any oversight and now self-employed, Prause added two media managers/promoters from Media 2×3 to her company’s tiny stable of “Collaborators.” (erstwhile Media 2×3 president Jess Ponce describes himself as a Hollywood media coach and personal branding expert.) Their job is to place articles in the press featuring Prause, and find her speaking engagements in pro-porn and mainstream venues. Odd tactics for a supposedly impartial scientist.
And I will be quite happy to see your ‘bullet in the barrel’ critique be thrown out the window.
\
In apparent retaliation for Wilson’s February Twitter comments Betzler & Stroozas created a section about Wilson, which featured a baseless April 25, 2018 (i.e., a year earlier) Los Angeles police report filed, and supplied to The Racquet, by 
Clerk endorsed – Please confirm & check for sleepers. The behavioral evidence (fixation on 
Confirmed to each other and 
Unrelated to NeuroSex:
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):
A few comments on Ley’s lies and spin.
Behavioral Sciences is PubMed indexed, unlike the journals that have accepted Ley’s 2 opinion pieces (e.g. Porn Studies Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports).
Typical Ley. Among the eight authors were seven physicians with the following expertise: two urologists, a neuroscientist, and two psychiatrists, and a general medical physician.” One author, Dr. Klam, is Director of Mental Health at the Naval Medical Center – San Diego. As for the ophthalmologist, Dr. 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. In addition to the papers on internet pornography, Doan has authored multiple papers on behavioral addiction/pathologies relating to technologies, (he published peer-reviewed studies before he evengraduating from high school).
Ley thinks it was egregious for the doctors to suggest giving up the sex toy and porn (even though the sailor was severely distress about his toy/porn induced sexual problems). An excerpt from the case-report exposing Ley’s advice as malpractice:
More evidence that Ley should handing out sexual advice.
A comment by a Prause alias (she dares not comment as herself as she is involved in 2 lawsuits as of August, 2016):
An idiotic comment as Park et al., 2016 was not a study, but a review. As exposed on the current page, Prause is lying about ethics problems and the case reports. But what do you expect from MDPI’s cyberstalker?
Another comment by a Prause alias:
As above, Park was a review, so it did not present experimental data. However, it contained massive data throughout and 200 references.
——————
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:
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:
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 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”:
And,
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). It also appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through another porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. The FSC-obtained subjects were allegedly used in her hired-gun study on the heavily tainted and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme (which is now being investigated by the FBI).
Others – April, 2017: Prause insults Professor Gail Dines, PhD, perhaps for joining the Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (plus updates)
Prause, who has not been affiliated with any academic institution since early 2015, 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 (later deleted by Prause).
Another tweet calling both Gail Dines and Fight The New Drug (FTND) liars and “anti-LGBT” and “anti-woman”:
——————-
The @BrainOnPorn twitter is believed to be Prause. who uses it to disparage the same people Prause does, while promoting the porn industry’s agenda. Here, RealYBOP trolls an account that quotes Gail Dines (April 22, 2019).