Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 1)

Introduction

Legal counsel advised us to create these pages, which document Nicole Prause’s extensive campaign targeting those who point out possible harms of porn use or issues in the porn industry. “Sunshine” protects the community Prause harasses by preserving facts and permitting visitors and journalists to understand the truth for themselves. Indeed, these pages have already been cited in a defamation case against Prause:

“An extremely detailed and well documented history of Defendant’s with accounts from dozens of her victims/targets dating from 2013 to present, which spans over two thousand pages of documents and evidence, is available at https://bit.ly/32KOa3q.”

Nicole Prause has engaged in a veritable avalanche of false claims, defamation, malicious reporting, targeted harassment, baseless lawsuits, and threats of lawsuits. These pages document many of her smear tactics, although some incidents are not included because the targets fear further retaliation by her (Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6).

I (Gary Wilson) am perhaps her favorite target, but she has also targeted 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, TraffickingHub, Exodus Cry, 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. These incidents are labeled “OTHERS.” The incidences documented are arranged roughly in chronological order.

With respect to me, early on she falsely claimed that I was the subject of a “no contact” order. She first falsely accused me of stalking in 2013 when she and David Ley began targeting my website with their PT blog post, “Your Brain on Porn – It’s NOT Addictive.” When I challenged some of their false claims, Prause tried to intimidate me to remove my response by accusing me of stalking.

Since then, she has routinely weaponized this accusation against multiple people, embellished with false accusations of “death threats,” apparently to suppress exposure of her bias and malicious activity. In other words, her narrative of victimhood has escalated over the years as has her harassment.

In late 2020, she suddenly began claiming that she had been sexually assaulted in 2019, and that I was mysteriously responsible. She falsely claims that I posted her address on YBOP and that it led to her being grabbed on the street by a young man with a skateboard. She has not provided any objective evidence of either my having posted her physical address or her having been grabbed.

The irony is that Prause didn’t mind disclosing her actual home address to me when she filed bankruptcy to avoid paying me some ~$40K in attorney fees after the SLAPP ruling the court awarded me (see “Legal matters” below). She was confident that I would never reveal it (and I have no interest in doing so) – which shows just how absurd are her claims that I want to put her at risk. Incidentally, in her bankruptcy filing she swore that she has lived at that same address for more than 3 years. Yet she has simultaneously repeatedly claimed (lied) that she has moved multiple times to elude her (nonexistent) stalkers. Anything to feed the myth of her fabricated persecution!

Just to clarify, I have never encouraged anyone to harass Prause. Nor have I seen any evidence that anyone I know has harassed her or placed her at risk. She has a habit of supplying fabricated “evidence” that does not, in fact, establish her claims. For example, she treats her false reports to law enforcement, her C&D letters accusing people of things they haven’t done, her irrelevant screenshots, and her confederates’ unsworn statements as proof, although none supply fact-based evidence to support her claims.

It’s worth noting that Canadian investigative journalist Diana Davison who authored The Post Millennial expose’ on Prause, talked with her on the record for almost a week. In public comments under a related video Davison commented, “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.” In a second comment Davison said, “When I said I spent two weeks researching this that means I read every court document and every related document and spent a week emailing with Prause herself who cut me off after I started asking for actual evidence of harassment.” Prause responded by threatening to sue both Davison and The Post Millennial, although she did not follow through.

Legal matters

Although Prause and her confederates work hard to paint her as the victim, she is, in fact, the aggressor, both on social media and in legal matters. In court, this hasn’t worked out well for her. This page documents various legal victories over Prause, two of which involved me. I’ll summarize them.

In early 2020, Prause tried to bolster her self-constructed victimhood campaign by filing a baseless restraining order request against me. In her lie-filled filings, Prause went so far as to defame and dox my son. The court denied her request in August, 2020. The judge also granted my SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) motion. This means he decided that Prause’s frivolous legal proceeding was an illicit attempt to suppress my free speech rights.

In short, her claims of victimhood could not be proved. In fact, at the hearing most of her evidence was tossed out as “hearsay,” “conclusory,” “irrelevant” and so forth. One week prior to the hearing, Prause went on Twitter to announce falsely that she had a “protective order” against me, inciting her enraged followers to harass me. Shortly before the hearing, her own attorney tried to resign because she had threatened him with legal action when he wouldn’t engage in unethical conduct. Press release

Next, she filed a defamation suit against me in Oregon. In January, 2021, the court found Prause had not made her case, and awarded me costs and a penalty (which Prause has refused to pay). Press release.

Incidentally, Prause has not paid either of the judgments I won. Instead, she has chosen a public campaign of defaming and threatening me – as if I am the wrongdoer instead of herself. She has also publicly denied that she lost either of the above legal proceedings. Astonishing.

As an aside, in early 2019 Prause filed a false declaration with the US Trademark authorities when she applied to grab my common law trademarks, claiming that she knew of no one who had the right to use my URL and trademarks. By this scheme, she sought to gain exclusive legal rights to my well established URL. This was a transparent effort to censor my entire site. Details. Clearly, it’s absurd to portray Prause as a victim, given a malicious campaign like this one.

After many hours of attorney time, I received my formal trademark registrations as well as the associated infringing URL, RealYourBrainOnPorn.com. The associated Twitter account @BrainOnPorn meanwhile conducted a reign of terror for 18 months. @BrainOnPorn exercised its supposed “collective” voice to tweet more than 1,000 defamatory and malicious statements (up to 170 tweets a day!) about anyone with whom Prause disagreed. Prause has denied involvement, but simple observation, correspondence from RealYBOP’s personnel, WIPO’s report, and considerable evidence point to her management of RealYBOP’s social media accounts and URL (evidence here).

Three separate parties have filed defamation suits against Prause over her untruthful, life-wrecking campaigns: 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; Alexander Rhodes v. Nicole Prause, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-01366, and Aaron M. Minc, Esq v. Melissa A. Farmer and Nicole R. Prause, Case No: CV-20-937026 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (It appears that Farmer has agreed to a settlement, which will leave Prause as the sole defendant. No doubt the settlement involved a payout from Farmer’s insurance company. In an affidavit dated April 8, 2021, Farmer admitted her wrongdoing in retweeting Prause’s lies [PDF of retraction] Prause has stated that her own insurance company has declined to cover her for Minc’s suit against her, so she may be left directly responsible for any financial repercussions in that suit too. She still owes Wilson with respect to his victory against her.)

The first 2 cases settled in early 2021. Although the terms were not disclosed, it’s reasonable to speculate that the settlements were made possible by substantial payments from Prause’s insurance carrier (court documents reveal that funds were transferred to plaintiffs). The third and most recent defamation lawsuit suit is ongoing in Ohio. In that case, a colleague of Prause who republished Prause’s defamatory tweets is a co-defendant and now sadly exposed to liability for blindly joining in the rampage.

It’s worth noting that Prause herself has a growing record as a vexatious litigant. In the last year or so, she has filed more than half a dozen small claims suits, and, before that, some 40 malicious reports against dozens of people and organizations (yet, Prause has never prevailed in any lawsuit and all her fraudulent reports were dismissed). Prause has a long, well established history of trying to silence and disparage anyone she disagrees with by fabricating claims of her victimhood.

Multiple social media suspensions

In October, 2015 Prause’s original Twitter account @NicolePrause was permanently suspended for misconduct.

In March, 2018, Prause’s Quora account was banned for posting and misrepresenting, personal information.

In October, 2020 the @BrainOnPorn Twitter account, which Prause appears to have managed, was permanently suspended for targeted harassment and abuse.

In March, 2021, her second personal Twitter account, @NicoleRPrause was temporarily suspended for making “violent threats.”

I suspect that Prause was behind two more extinct Twitter accounts: @CorrectingWils1 and her first porn industry shill account @PornHelps.

Media outlets and others have been harmed by Prause’s lies

UK media outlet Scram News went out of business after it had to pay substantial damages because it had printed Prause’s defamatory lies. I’ve heard that VICE was subjected to a similar libel claim and had to remove false information provided to it by Prause, incurring substantial legal costs. I know first-hand that MEL magazine proposed a series of stories about her purported victim-hood. Yet, after further investigation, MEL declined to print Prause’s lies – and the magazine soon suspended publication entirely. Faced with legal action, The Daily Beast retracted Prause’s unproven allegations against specific individuals. Lastly, the University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse student newspaper was forced to remove an “investigative” article featuring Dr. Prause’s lies about me (U of W general counsel was involved).

Prause’s cozy relationship with the porn industry

Let’s start with the definition of a “shill”:

A shill…is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. … Shills may be employed by salespeople and professional marketing campaigns.

Keeping in mind the above definition, consider these many examples. Prause is unswervingly pro-porn, displaying a single mindedness that is remarkable in a scientist, given that scientists usually jealously guard their impartiality.

Three Twitter accounts – her own @NicoleRPrause account as well as the suspended @BrainOnPorn and @PornHelps (the latter 2 of which Prause appeared to manage) – consistently prop, or propped, up the porn industry and attacked its critics.

Prause also appears to have created 50+ Wikipedia sockpuppets (thus far) to bolster the industry’s interests and discredit critics with misleading edits, along with dozens of other aliases she uses to post on porn recovery forums.

Only a few years ago, Prause was promoting her connections with the porn industry, including serving on the board of a porn actors’ guild (APAG) and photos of her attendance at porn industry-insider events. Now, she’s trying to intimidate others not to mention any of those inconvenient facts because she has decided they harm her image.

In short, it’s not clear why any journalist (who is not shilling for the porn industry) would regard Prause as a credible source. Journalists have an obligation to readers to respect the conclusions of judges and other legal outcomes, and not to leave readers with the mistaken impression that the truth about Prause’s accusations is up for grabs or that her defamatory claims have validity. Having lost in the courts, she often attempts to rewrite history in the press and on Wikipedia with the help of biased editors.

It can be difficult for those she recruits to sift fact from fiction because her assertions are so “juicy” and her fabricated “evidence” so abundant. However, as my results in court demonstrate, I have gathered a lot of documentation and can refute her claims, if asked.

Not everyone who claims to be a victim is a victim. Some are simply engaged in attempts to manipulate their public image or to discredit and “no platform” (silence) anyone with whom they disagree. Think Trump. Journalists will want to reflect carefully before giving Prause a platform to amplify her fabrications and defamation.

Full Table of Contents (all 6 pages)

Prause Page #1

Prause Page #2

Prause Page #3

Prause Page #4

Prause Page #5

Prause Page #6

Overview: Nicole 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 David 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.

Update – August, 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.

A big portion of Prause’s TRO fairy tale involved my trip to Germany to attend the ICBA. Prause committed perjury in her TRO declaration, falsely claiming she was a scheduled presenter for the ICBA, and that I traveled to Germany to “confront her”. I knew this was a lie, so I asked ICBA organizers to confirm that Prause was never asked to present and was never registered for the conference. Their letter confirming that Prause perjured herself:

Caught in another lie.

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.

Prause initiated her first public “Gary Wilson is a stalker” campaign 3 months later, immediately after I published my critique of Steele et al., 2013, which suggested that she had misrepresented Steele’s actual findings. Prause created numerous aliases to defame me, including this YouTube channel, GaryWilson Stalker. A screenshot of my YouTube inbox from July 26, 2013 reveals Prause’s incessant cyberstalking (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame):

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.

Update (August, 2020): Prause filed bankruptcy to try to: 1) Get out of paying what the law said she owed me (attorney fees), for losing a SLAPP suit, and, 2) Evade 3 defamation suits filed against her (Don Hilton, Alex Rhodes, Aaron Minc). In her bankruptcy filings she states, under penalty of perjury, that she has remained in one location for that past 3 years. This debunks her often-repeated claims that she has been forced to move numerous times over the last few years because she’s being stalked.

Her carefully crafted mythology of always desperately moving around due to ‘stalking” shattered into pieces.

2) Dr. Prause requires “armed guards at talks” because Gary Wilson has threatened to attend

Reality: Prause provides no documentation for this absurd claim, which was addressed in this section: 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. While Prause might request armed guards (or ninja warriors), it’s only to preserve her carefully crafted fairy tale of victim-hood. This is empty propaganda by a serial defamer and harasser named in at least 3 lawsuits.

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).
posting screenshots of her defamatory tweets on my 2 pages chronicling her behaviors (page 1, page 2, page 3), and refusing to remove them in response to her 3 unsuccessful, fraudulent DMCA takedown attempts.

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.

Finally, starting in 2018, Prause claimed to have reported both Alex Rhodes and Gary Wilson to the FBI for unspecified misdeeds. Both Rhodes and I filed FOIA requests with the FBI to find out if Prause was telling the truth. She was not. For details see these 2 sections: (1) FBI confirmed that Prause lied about filing an FBI report on Gary Wilson, (2) FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes. The FBI encouraged me to file a report on Prause for lying about filing an FBI report: December, 2018: Gary Wilson files an FBI report on Nicole Prause. It’s conceivable that Prause filed an FBI report after October, 2018, but her 86-page rant doesn’t include an actual FBI report (just a screenshot of a CD, labeled “FBI”).

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.

The Diana Davison video provided a link to the timeline of events chronicling Prause’s nearly 7-year campaign of harassment, defamation, threats, and false accusations: VSS Academic War Timeline (Prause got the timeline removed.)

Below are very revealing comments under the Diana Davison video (in response to an obsessive commenter and Prause fan):

———————————

———————————

In the same week, another investigative reporter, Megan Fox of PJ Media, produced a similar article about Nicole Prause: “Alex Rhodes of Porn Addiction Support Group ‘NoFap’ Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation.”

4) Gary Wilson has “violated a no-contact order”

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.

As documented in the very first section of the Prause page, Prause initiated the only email contact with me that ever occurred. This sole email exchange took place in April, 2013 (screenshots of our entire email exchange). While claiming she has obtained a fictitious “no-contact order,” Prause has posted derogatory comments about me hundreds of times on Twitter, Facebook and Quora. In addition, Prause has employed over 200 aliases over the years to defame me and others (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). She has also employed alias email accounts to spread lies about me.

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.

As explained in this section, when my error occurred on December 18th, 2013 Prause had been on a cyberstalking rampage, posting her falsehoods about the shenanigans of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on forums where my name had appeared. Using fake names, Prause frequently trolls porn recovery forums citing junk science and harassing members who are attempting heal compulsive porn use and/or porn-induced ED. In her CBC comment on YourBrainRebalanced Prause (as RealScience) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?”

A screenshot of the above, along my answer where I inadvertently wrote “Miss Prause” in response to her juvenile question about my penis, comprises the “proof” Prause uses to paint me falsely as a misogynist. Here Prause tweets a hard-to-read version of her “RealScience” comment:

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.

As for the Infographic, as explained above, Prause’s only evidence of misogyny is that I accidentally once wrote “Miss Prause” in response to her childish question about my penis size. Her assertion that my wife is a misogynist is laughable. Her claim that Don Hilton MD called her a “child molester” is yet another lie, as this section fully explains.

She calls Alexander Rhodes a misogynist because he dared to say that I was not ‘physically stalking” her – yet she is the perpetrator, harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. See documentation: Gabe Deem #1, Gabe Deem #2, Alexander Rhodes #1, Alexander Rhodes #2, Alexander Rhodes #3, Noah Church, Alexander Rhodes #4, Alexander Rhodes #5, Alexander Rhodes #6, Alexander Rhodes #7, Alexander Rhodes #8, Alexander Rhodes #9, Alexander Rhodes #10, Alex Rhodes #11, Gabe Deem & Alex Rhodes together #12, Alexander Rhodes #13, Alexander Rhodes #14, Gabe Deem #4, Alexander Rhodes #15.

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).

Third key point: eight subsequent peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013 are in accord with Wilson’s analysis, and expose Prause as misrepresenting her findings to the press.

March 7, 2013

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

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

David Ley did not respond.

April 10, 2013 (PDF with screenshots of our entire email exchange):

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

Psychology Today ([email protected])
4/10/13
To: [email protected]
From: Nicole Prause <nprause@________>
Dear Mr. Wilson,
It is illegal for you to misrepresent our science having never even requested a copy of the manuscript. It will be treated as such. Our article actually is very balanced. Unlike you, I have peer-reviewed publications on both sides of this issue. You have attempted to discredit it by describing things that were not done. I am pursuing this with Psychology Today now, but I would advise you to remove the post yourself before I am forced to pursue further action.
You also do not have permission to quote any portion of this email. It is private communication.
Sell your books on your own merit. Don’t try to make money off the backs of scientists doing their jobs. I can tell this study clearly panics you because the design and data are strong, but it is egregious to have not even asked for a copy of the manuscript and just make up content. Shame on you.
Nicole Prause, PhD
Research faculty
UCLA

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

Date: April 10, 2013 5:13:30 PM EDT
Topic: Comment on the Blogs
From: Nicole Prause, PhD <nprause@_____________
To whom it may concern:
I was surprised to see an article written about a study of mine by Gary Wilson on Psychology Today.
I have no problem with him representing his own views and interpretations of studies, but he does not and could not have had access to mine. It is under review and he never requested a copy from any of the authors. I notified him that it should be removed. He has not yet done so. Of course, once it is public record, he will have access to it and be able to represent it (hopefully) more accurately.
Of course, knowingly misrepresenting a person to denigrate them is illegal. I hope Psychology Today will take this matter seriously. I will contact other board members as well, in case your cue is full and may take longer to respond.
Thank you for your help in resolving this matter.
sincerely,
Nicole Prause, PhD

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

Study not requested nor reviewed
Submitted by Nicole Prause, PhD on April 10, 2013 – 1:54pm.
Unfortunately, these authors never requested access to our manuscript, so they actually did not review it. They have made a number of egregious errors misrepresenting the science in this article. I am investigating who to contact to remove this article given the lack of due diligence by the authors.
We are now using this as our course example of the misrepresentation of science in the media now, though, so thank you for that opportunity.

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

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.
To this day Prause has yet to refute a single word in Wilson’s March, 2013 Psychology Today post, or the analysis Wilson wrote in July after her EEG study finally was published. Nor has Prause refuted a single word in 8 peer-reviewed critiques of her 2013 EEG.
Wilson makes no money off of this endeavor.
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 [as of 21 February 2023 this link is no longer available]. It was posted on a long thread about David Ley’s original blog post. Wilson’s comment was meant to explain why both Ley’s and Wilson’s Psychology Today posts had been removed by Psychology Today. This signaled Prause’s pattern of cyberstalking, as a not even a Google search could locate that post. How did Prause know about this thread on a porn recovery forum?

The Prause email:

Nicole Prause (nprause@_______)
4/12/13
Dear Mr. Wilson,
In your post: http://yourbrainrebalanced.com/index.php?topic=7522.50
You falsely claim: “I responded to her rather nasty emails with a request to see her study, and she refused.”
This is libel. Please remove this post or I will follow up with legal action.
Nicole Prause

Wilson responds:

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, gary wilson <> wrote:
Dear Nicole Prause,
Maybe you didn’t know that my wife is a graduate of Yale law school. I said nothing libelous. In fact, my statements are quite accurate.
1) You have refused to hand over your unpublished study.
2) You were nasty and threatening, as you are now.
3) In addition, you falsely stated that I make money from guys struggling to recover from porn addiction.
4) You also mischaracterized my PT post, as it was a clear response to David Ley’s description of your unpublished study. You chose not correct Ley’s description or make the full study available to me, even when I asked about it in the comment section one month ago.
You have yet to answer my original questions (posed in the comments section):
1) Why did you release your study to only David Ley? As the author of the “Myth of Sex Addiction,” and someone who claims porn addiction cannot exist, why was only he the only Chosen One?
2) Why haven’t you corrected David Ley’s interpretation of your study? It has been up for over a month, and you’ve commented twice on it in the last month.
3) You commented under Ley’s post one month ago. I immediately posted a comment under you comment, with several specific questions directed to you about your study. That was your chance to both respond and offer the study. You did neither. Why?
I’m fine with making our exchange public. Won’t it be interesting when you file a lawsuit against a couple of PT bloggers who dare to take on your research?
Best,
Gary Wilson

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

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

Dear Gary,
This is to notify both you and your wife that your (both you and your wife’s) contact is unwanted. Per stalking statutes in your home state (http://courts.oregon.gov/Lane/Restraining.page), any additional harassing contact will be interpreted as actionable harassment.
You do not have my permission to share this private communication in any forum.
Nicole Prause

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

From: [email protected]
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.

In the beginning many comments posts were written by GaryWilson Stalker, GaryWilson IsAFraud, and a few other sock puppets. An example from under Wilson’s TEDx talk:

Another example under a Wilson video:

Another Prause sockpuppet posting a comment on Psychology Today:

Another example:

Another example under an interview of Wilson:

Another example under Gary Wilson’s TEDx talk, The Great Porn Experiment:

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):

Tip of the iceberg of Prause’s obsessed cyberstalking (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).

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):

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

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

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

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

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

2) “police report filed”

It’s been 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).

To summarize July, 2013:

Dozens of comments containing false statements arrived a few days after Wilson published Nothing Correlates With Nothing In SPAN Lab’s New Porn Study.
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:

A gap in logical inference

Submitted by John A. Johnson Ph.D. on July 19, 2013 – 2:35pm
Mustanski asks, “What was the purpose of the study?” And Prause replies, “Our study tested whether people who report such problems [problems with regulating their viewing of online erotica] look like other addicts from their brain responses to sexual images.”
But the study did not compare brain recordings from persons having problems regulating their viewing of online erotica to brain recordings from drug addicts and brain recordings from a non-addict control group, which would have been the obvious way to see if brain responses from the troubled group look more like the brain responses of addicts or non-addicts.
Instead, Prause claims that their within-subject design was a better method, where research subjects serve as their own control group. With this design, they found that the EEG response of their subjects (as a group) to erotic pictures was stronger than their EEG responses to other kinds of pictures. This is shown in the inline waveform graph (although for some reason the graph differs considerably from the actual graph in the published article).
So this group who reports having trouble regulating their viewing of online erotica has a stronger EEG response to erotic pictures than other kinds of pictures. Do addicts show a similarly strong EEG response when presented with their drug of choice? We don’t know. Do normal, non-addicts show a response as strong as the troubled group to erotica? Again, we do not know. We don’t know whether this EEG pattern is more similar to the brain patterns of addicts or non-addicts.
The Prause research team claims to be able to demonstrate whether the elevated EEG response of their subjects to erotica is an addictive brain response or just a high-libido brain response by correlating a set of questionnaire scores with individual differences in EEG response. But explaining differences in EEG response is a different question from exploring whether the overall group’s response looks addictive or not. The Prause group reported that the only statistically significant correlation with the EEG response was a negative correlation (r=-.33) with desire for sex with a partner. In other words, there was a slight tendency for subjects with strong EEG responses to erotica to have lower desire for sex with a partner. How does that say anything about whether the brain responses of people who have trouble regulating their viewing of erotica are similar to addicts or non-addicts with a high libido?

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

Perhaps Prause’s preconceptions led to a conclusion opposite of the results
Submitted by John A. Johnson Ph.D. on September 22, 2013 – 9:00pm
My mind still boggles at the Prause claim that her subjects’ brains did not respond to sexual images like drug addicts’ brains respond to their drug, given that she reports higher P300 readings for the sexual images. Just like addicts who show P300 spikes when presented with their drug of choice.
How could she draw a conclusion that is the opposite of the actual results? I think it could be due to her preconceptions–what she expected to find. I wrote about this elsewhere. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cui-bono/201308/preconceptions-may-color-conclusions-about-sex-addiction

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

When I first conceived this blog post and began to compose it about a month ago, my original intention was to describe in exquisite detail the specific ways in which I saw the proponents of opposite sides of the debate exaggerating or overextending their arguments beyond the actual data in the study. I subsequently changed my mind when I observed a firestorm of emotionally-charged rhetoric erupting among the debate participants. Not arguments about what the data logically implied, but ad hominem threats, including threats of legal action. I saw a PT blog post disappear, apparently because one of the parties demanded that it be taken down. I even received a couple of angry emails myself because one of the parties had heard that I had raised questions about the proper interpretation of the research in question in a scientific forum.
So, I have decided to quietly tip-toe out of the room. I have also decided to go ahead and post here what I had already composed a month ago, simply to present an example of my empirical claim that science is not a purely objective enterprise, and that actual scientists can become very personally and emotionally involved in their work. The controversy in question is also an excellent example of a common trend among U.S. researchers to overestimate soft-science results.

This angered Prause who argued (using fake names) with Johnson in the comments section of his Psychology Today blog post about Prause’s 2013 EEG study (note that Johnson doesn’t really have an opinion on sex addiction). A few screenshots of Prause’s sockpuppet describing Wilson as she always does: fake, fraud, unemployed massage therapist:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/565636#comment-565636

——————————-

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/566638#comment-566638

——————————-

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/comment/571871#comment-571871

——————————-

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 (abandoned URL since purchased by a sextoy company!) 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 – https://pornstudycritiques.com/nicole-prause-cyberstalking-and-harassing-gary-wilson-others/.

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).

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.” Their job is to place articles in the press featuring Prause (slicker view here), and find her speaking engagements in pro-porn and mainstream venues. Odd behavior for a supposedly impartial scientist.

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:

————–

—————————————————

———————————

————————————

——————————————

—————————–

—————————–

—————————–

On Quora, using one of her many aliases. She was later permanently banned from Quora for harassing and defaming Gary Wilson: March 5, 2018 – Prause permanently banned from Quora for harassing Gary Wilson

—————————–

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.

December 2013: Prause posts on YourBrainRebalanced & asks Gary Wilson about the size of his penis (kicking off Prause’s campaign of calling Wilson and his wife misogynists)

As explained in the previous section, on December 18th, 2013 Prause went on a cyberstalking rampage, posting her falsehoods about the CBC shenanigans on forums where Gary Wilson’s name had appeared. Using fake names, Prause frequently trolls porn recovery forums citing junk science or harassing members who are attempting heal addictions or porn-induced ED. In her CBC comment on YourBrainRebalanced Prause (as RealScience) asks Wilson: “How small IS your penis Gary?”.

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

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.

As for the Infographic, Prause’s only evidence of misogyny is that Wilson accidentally once wrote “Miss Prause”. That’s it. Her assertion that Marnia Robinson is a misogynist is laughable. Her claim that Don Hilton MD called her a child molester is yet another lie, as this section fully explains. She calls Alexander Rhodes a misogynist because he dared to say that Wilson was not ‘physically stalking” her – yet she is the perpetrator, harassing and libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions.

Finally, it’s important to note that author Nicole Prause has close relationships with the porn industry and is obsessed with debunking PIED, having waged a 3-year war against this academic paper, while simultaneously harassing & libeling young men who have recovered from porn-induced sexual dysfunctions. See documentation: Gabe Deem #1, Gabe Deem #2, Alexander Rhodes #1, Alexander Rhodes #2, Alexander Rhodes #3, Noah Church, Alexander Rhodes #4, Alexander Rhodes #5, Alexander Rhodes #6, Alexander Rhodes #7, Alexander Rhodes #8, Alexander Rhodes #9, Alexander Rhodes #10, Alex Rhodes #11, Gabe Deem & Alex Rhodes together #12, Alexander Rhodes #13, Alexander Rhodes #14, Gabe Deem #4, Alexander Rhodes #15.

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:

—————-

—————–

——————

Attacks on the Gottman Institute – all because the Gottman’s published an article suggesting that “pornography can hurt a couple’s relationship.”

—————-

Falsehoods concerning the Gottman’s article:

The neuroscience was up to date.
Porn’s effects on couples are overwhelmingly negative.

Over 60 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. As far as we know all studies involving males have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction. While a few studies correlated greater porn use in females to better (or neutral) sexual satisfaction, most have not (see this list: Porn studies involving female subjects: Negative effects on arousal, sexual satisfaction, and relationships).

———————

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.

—————-

Prause cites: Kohut et al., 2017. See Critique of “Is Pornography Really about Making Hate to Women? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample” (2016), Taylor Kohut, Jodie L. Baer, Brendan Watts

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.

Reality: nearly every study published links porn use to sexist or “un-egalitarian” views of women. Check out individual studies – over 25 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views – or the summary from this 2016 meta-analysis: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

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 above lies exposed here:

—————–

Gathers allies for misogyny of accidentally using Miss, when responding to questions about penis size:

——————–

Daily Beast published a defamatory article at the behest of Prause’s expensive PR firm:

No one said Prause profits from porn industry They only person who lied was Prause.

——————–

Everyone who calls Prause out on the research is called a misogynist:

——————–

Prause claims to have graduated from top neuro program. Kinsey Institute is not a top neuro program.

UPDATE: Prause is now lying about my comments that The Kinsey Institute is not one of the top neuroscience programs. As you can see, she is claiming I said she doesn’t have a PhD and that Kinsey doesn’t issue PhD’s. Typical tactic – relying on her followers failing to read her screenshots.

NOTE: the US News & World Report doesn’t list The Kinsey Institute as a top program – Best Global Universities for Neuroscience and Behavior.

—————–

Gary Wilson is a known misogynist

—————-

Prause posts her YBR comment, asking Wilson about his penis, as proof of misogyny:

——————-

Guy asks again, Prause repeats herself:

There no warnings.

——————-

Prause harasses Staci Sprout on twitter, calls Wilson a misogynist:

Prause has repeatedly harassed Sprout and filed 3 bogus complaints (that were summarily dismissed) with governing bodies. See: Others – Prause files groundless complaints with Washington State against therapist Staci Sprout

——————-

Prause tweets about her defamatory Quora post calling Wilson and others misogynists

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

—————–

A fellow PhD, sick of Prause’s antics, asks her to please, please label him as sexist. She does.

—————–

Prause gets called out on the science, calls the person a misogynist

————–

Once again tweeting a blurry picture of her asking Wilson about his penis…. calling him a misogynists:

—————

Says “more sexist attacks”, but she never provides a documented example:

—————

Claiming victimhood, but no documentation:

———————

Now she just feels the misogyny flowing everywhere

——————

Claiming to be a victim, but she is the perpetrator:

—————–

Calls Women United sexist:

———————————-

Prause claims to be victim, but never tweeted any documentation

——————-

Nope. All fabricated victim hood, no examples:

——————

Back and forth with her porn star buddy:

—————-

Painting herself as the fearless victim, when she is the perpetrator:

——————

Painting herself as the victim, when she is the harasser

—————–

Chatting with her porn star friend, how she is the victim:

—————-

More of the same falsehoods:

——————

Says ant-porn activist are sexist, but porn viewers are not.

It’s BS. Prause cites: Kohut et al., 2017. See Critique of “Is Pornography Really about Making Hate to Women? Pornography Users Hold More Gender Egalitarian Attitudes Than Nonusers in a Representative American Sample” (2016), Taylor Kohut, Jodie L. Baer, Brendan Watts

Reality: nearly every study published links porn use to sexist or “un-egalitarian” views of women. Check out individual studies – over 40 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views – or the summary from this 2016 meta-analysis: Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. Excerpt:

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.

——————-

More misogyny claims, never an actual example.

—————–

Upset that she was called Miss one time, when she wanted was more info about Wilson’s penis.

—————-

Brings in her allies, Ley and Miller.

The perpetrators claim victim-hood.

——————-

More of same:

—————-

Appropriate phrase: “sex research & stalking” – but they don’t know that Prause is the cyber-stalker:

—————–

More claims about “porn activists”, but never an actual example:

——————-

Presenting her falsehoods about “anti-science attacks” at a conference

——————

Presenting same falsehoods at her alma mater – The Kinsey Institute

—————–

More about her Kinsey talk.

——————-

David Ley (Prause’s side-kick) supports her mythology:

——————

Opposition to her claims is motivated by misogyny:

Prause clearly states that anyone who believes that porn can be harmful or addictive is a misogynist. Every single person:

——————

Use any opportunity to claim victim-hood.

Never any example.

———————

Claims her meetings are in secret locations due to harassment:

The only example she has ever given is Gary Wilson. She had no proof, because she is lying. See – 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

——————-

Falsely claiming attacks – no documented example

——————-

Falsely states that those dissenting against “porn addiction” are neuroscientists, who are terrified of being attacked:

In reality – this list contains 25 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.

——————

Same old falsehoods about ‘stalkers”

Note: Prause has stated many times that she reported Gary Wilson and Alexander Rhodes to the FBI for “stalking”. Of course, she is lying, as the FBI, LAPD, and UCLAPD exposed:

————————–

David Ley backing her up:

——————

More propaganda

——————

Getting back up from ally Josh Grubbs – Wilson is a “misogynistic stalker”

Later on she claimed 30,000 times, then 80,000 times. All are lies. See – Others – October, 2018: Prause falsely claims in a tweet that her name appears over 35,000 times on YBOP

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:

—————-

Victim of attacks on research “by activists”

It’s not just so-called activists, there have been 18 critiques of her papers in the peer-reviewed literature:

Steele et al. 2013: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Prause et al. 2015: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Prause & Pfaus, 2015: Peer-reviewed critique of Prause & Pfaus, 2015 – by Richard A. Isenberg MD.

——————

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).

ERT (deleted, screenshot in this section)
TellTheTruth
XX-XX
RealScience

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):

https://www.reddit.com/user/SexMythBusters
https://www.reddit.com/user/ReadMoreAndMore
https://www.reddit.com/user/HeartInternetPorn
https://www.reddit.com/user/FightPower
https://www.reddit.com/user/DallasLandia
https://www.reddit.com/user/CupOJoe2010
https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryWilsonPervert
https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryWilsonSteas
https://www.reddit.com/user/PenisAddict
https://www.reddit.com/user/DataScienceLA
https://www.reddit.com/user/AskingForProof
https://www.reddit.com/user/JumpinJackFlashZ0oom
https://www.reddit.com/user/fappygirlmore
https://www.reddit.com/user/locuspocuspenisless
https://www.reddit.com/user/ijdfgo
https://www.reddit.com/user/vnwpwejfb
https://www.reddit.com/user/alahewakbear
https://www.reddit.com/user/gjacwo
http://www.reddit.com/user/SearchingForTruthNot (Account now deleted)
http://www.reddit.com/user/DontDoDallas (Account now deleted)
http://www.reddit.com/user/HighHorseNotOn (Account now deleted)
http://www.reddit.com/user/SoManyMalts (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/TruthWithOut (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/sinwvon (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/RevealingAll (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/GermanExpat18 (Account now deleted)
https://www.reddit.com/user/sciencearousal
https://old.reddit.com/user/Agreeable-Plane-5361

Known YouTube aliases of Prause:

Known Twitter aliases of Prause

Prause aliases employed on other sites:

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):

The comments are very similar in content and tone, falsely claiming that:

Wilson had never taught anatomy, physiology, pathology or attended college,
Wilson stole a woman’s pictures and placed them on a porn site,
Wilson has a police report filed on him,
Wilson is an unemployed massage therapist,
Wilson is charged with stalking a poor woman,
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.

Likley aliases Prause has employed to edit Wikipedia (using more than one name is a violation of Wikipedia rules):

I am unable to link to the numerous other aliases, such as dozens on Psychology Today, and elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

Updates:

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:

———–

————-

————–

While there was no doubt that TellTheTruth was Prause (who else would be posting about Rory Reid?), absolute proof arrived 20 months later when Prause posted the exact same content and exact same documents on her AmazonAWS website using her own name. All documented in this section: September 2016: Prause attacks and libels former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. 2 years earlier “TellTheTruth” posted the exact same claims & documents on a porn recovery site frequented by Prause’s many sock puppets.

Compare the above PDF uploaded by TellTheTruth to the documents Prause uploaded to her AmazonAWS site:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190825022023/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/Reid_FoundryGroup.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414144053/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/Reid_PsychToday1.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414100431/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/NoLicenseInCalifornia.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414133722/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/PsychToday_UCLA.Address.Given_Claims.LCSW.Psychologist.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414194604/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/BevHillsClinicalPractice_ClaimsLCSW.png

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.

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

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

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

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

1) “Photos stolen”

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

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

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

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

Steele et al., 2013 – paper 1, paper 2, paper 3, paper 4, paper 5, paper 6, paper 7, paper 8
Prause et al., 2015 – paper 1, paper 2, paper 3, paper 4, paper 5, paper 6, paper 7, paper 8, paper 9
Prause & Pfaus, 2015 – paper 1

In the chapter Prause made this pronouncement:

“The research was never stopped by these attempts.”

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

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

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

Prause tweeted the Ley post:

(Update: David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.)

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

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

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

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

We did report and they refused to investigate {https://www.psychologytoday.com/comment/802499#comment-802499}
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”.

————————

More fabrications by Nikky. IITAP’s email was in reponse to Prause falsely accusing gay CSAT’s of reparative therapy (also see – Others – January, 2019: Prause falsely accuses gay IITAP therapist of practicing conversion (reparative) therapy.)

——————-

Others – March, 2015 (ongoing): Prause and her sock puppets (including “PornHelps“) go after Gabe Deem (contains numerous additional instances of defamation by Prause and her alias @BrainOnP0rn)

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:

Really don’t care if you believe me or not. You can email her yourself. http://i.imgur.com/3xjtBph.png
Of course you will probably say ‘fake is fake.’ But believe me it’s not. Out of respect I am not posting the conversation. You will have proof soon enough for the journal, trust me 🙂 And I will be quite happy to see your ‘bullet in the barrel’ critique be thrown out the window.

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

Actually, he did just write me and he is correct. We collected the full IIEF in many studies in which we do not ultimately publish the data. Sometimes we choose not to, sometimes reviewers tell us to remove them because they are not relevant.
We are publishing a follow-up letter in the journal to show all the counts remain correct. All the analyses remain correct. The conclusions stand.
I will not be responding to any follow-up posts. I posted here only out of compassion, because you are lying to this poor person. Wait for the letter. It is to appear in April and will dispel all the myths RebootNation is propagating to the poor people they are using to fund their speaking travel and fees and false “counselor” titles.

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

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

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

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

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

And I’m waiting on that evidence Gabe. ANY shred of evidence that you are not just lying. No one has seen anything validating any part of your story. Not your supposed girlfriend, no doctor, no one. You could easily provide it, but you haven’t.
You are just taking trips and money from guys you stir into a panic with your made up tales.

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

In this comment, Prause (as is really upset about Gabe Deem dismantling Prause & Pfaus, 2015 his detailed critique: Nothing Adds Up in Dubious Study: Youthful Subjects’ ED Left Unexplained – by Gabe Deem:

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 ) – 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:

———————–

———————–

More comments:

———————–

More ravings:

————————

More comments:

—————————

More comments by the Prause sockpuppet:

——————————–

Staring to get the picture?

————————————

And she just keeps going:

—————————-

More…. and more:

——————————–

Yes, there is more:

And there are several more comments, but you get the picture of how this person is the definition of obsessive and vindictive. This is not isolated, as you can see form just this section, and this separate page with hundreds of Prause comments & tweets just about Wilson. There are many more examples, including Prause using 4 fake usernames to post over 100 times in one night on YourBrainRebalanced porn recovery forum (almost all of the comments were attacking Wilson and Deem – and almost all were later deleted)

Just for fun, yet another r/pornfree thread started by another Prause sock puppet: DontDoDallas – (Deem resides in Dallas):

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

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

Look everybody! It’s Gabe Deem back again reposting anti-sex rants again and puppeting his own upvoted post! You might remember him from the Reason post where he was shredded for posting this anti-science message with links back to his own website. He has no college degree, no job, and is paid (see Time article) for speaking about his erectile problems he claims (with no doctors’ evidence) were “due” to porn.
I know I know, you are going to repost a long list of links hoping no one actually follows them and knows the truth, but this is it. And I’m not engaging further. Hopefully the folks form the previous time you did this will find your posts again Gabe Deem.

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

———————–

UPDATES: Using her @BrainOnPorn account, Prause continues to defame and harass Gabe (even though Gabe blocked her). A few examples:

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):

Note – Gabe is not a coach and has never coached anyone. RealYBOP claims about studies on porn and sexual problems are debunked here: Erectile And Other Sexual Dysfunctions Section

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.

Reality: This list contains 44 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 7 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions. The ONLY causation study one can do on porn-induced ED is elimination of porn use.

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!
Staley gets into Grubbs “perceived porn addiction” study, falsely stating that Grubbs assessed belief in addiction.
Staley says porn related problems do not constituean epidemic: nly our belief that viewing porn is a problem, is a problem.
He says porn cannot cause PIED, even though 7 peer-reviewed papers report cases of men recovering by quitting porn. And 30 more studies link porn to sexual problems/lower arousal – including his own – Steele et al., 2013 (greater cue reactivity related to less desire to have sex with a partner).
He says porn is not a problem for relationships, yet 75 studies link porn use to poorer sexual and relationship satisfaction.

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
— Gabe Deem (@gabedeem) January 30, 2020

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:

Tarek Pacha is a board-certified urologist, with several awards and a book. RealYBOP/Prause lied.
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:

In reality, it is Prause who is apparently being paid to directly promote sex toys and the highly controversial “Orgasmic Meditation,” which was under investigaion by the FBI. (see Bloomberg.com expose,) Put simply, Prause was hired to bolster the commercial interests of that heavily tainted and very controversial company. For her Orgasmic Meditation study, Prause allegedly obtained porn performers as subjects through another porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. Consider the irony of RealYBOP/Prause falsely accusing others of what she herself is doing.

Here RealYBOP trolls Gabe Deem’s Twitter thread, even though RealYBOP has blocked Gabe from replying:

Next, RealYBOP trolls my thread, where I expose her as lying about Dr. Tarek Pacha. RealYBOP blocked me before it went live. I then blocked RealYBOP to prevent her trolling me, as I cannot respond (while Prause falsely accuses us of stalking, she chronically trolls our accounts).

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.

Disgusting lies by RealYBOP. Anything for the porn industry, right RealYBOP? Reality: This list contains over 35 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 7 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions. In addition to the studies, this page contains articles and videos by over 140 experts (urology professors, urologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, MDs) who acknowledge and have successfully treated porn-induced ED and porn-induced loss of sexual desire.

———————————-

RealYBOP, and her ally SexualSocialist, going after Gabe Deem (RealYBOP monitors all of our twitter accounts):

Both RealYBOP and sexualsocialist are lying… as they always do.

———————-

RealYBOP disparages Gabe Deem, while lying about what he tweeted and lying about what the fMRI study reported, and waht the researchers concluded:

The study: Gray matter volume differences in impulse control and addictive disorders (Draps et al., 2020) What Gabe tweeted – the full conclusion of the study:

At the same times, actual sex and addiction expert, Professor Toates exposed RealYBOP, Prause, and Ley as lying (Ley blocked Toates after the fact – which is why Ley’s tweet doesn’t appear).

She is so upset at Gabe that she resorts to using her “real” account to retweet her alias account’s (@BrainOnPorn) lies. Usually she likes to hide behind her fake RealYBOP persona.

———————————-

Cyberstalking Gabe Deem and lying. The post was about young men regaining morning wood and spontaneous erection vis the elimination of porn use. RealYBOP’s criticism has nothing to do with what Gabe actual said.

————————-

Cyberstalking Gabe Deem, again, with neuro-gibberish. She also denigrates the MD in the video (Gabe’s twitter thread, which fully support his assertions).

RealYBOP never takes on the substance. Here, she’s ignorantly claiming that dopamine has nothing do with sexual arousal or addiction. She’s been pushing her non-scientific drivel for so long this article published in 2017 to expose her & Ley as neuroscience shysters: Correcting Misunderstandings About Neuroscience and Problematic Sexual Behaviors (2017) by Don Hilton, MD.

———————–

In the most disgusting vile tweet yet, RealYBOP suggests that many people have killed themselves because of Gabe’s forum. In another lie, RealYBOP falsely claims that Gabe is a coach. He has never charged a dime for advice – having given away countless hours to those in need. Contrary to Prause’s lie, many young men say that Gabe saved their lives.

———————–

More cyberstalking. RealYBOP claiming that running a porn recovery fourm is harming young men.

——————-

RealYBOP continues her cyberstalking and lies.

Notice how RealYBOP accuses, yet never provides examples (e.g. “medically inaccurate claims”).

—————————

Gabe critiqued Kelsy Burke’s biased, factually inaccurate hit-piece, that read as if she had interviewed embers of NoFap. In fact, none of Burke’s subjects were from Nofap. This is how propaganda is generated.

Gabes thread:

A recent piece in @Slate:
1) interviewed church groups and then lumped in NoFap without mentioning they’re secular and not anti-masturbation (or porn). Why?
2) claimed “Most mainstream scientists do not liken it to drug and alcohol addiction.” False.https://t.co/0tHz6DSFcu
— Gabe Deem (@gabedeem) May 20, 2020

————————-

Ley disparages paper he doesn’t like, RealYBOP joins in, targeting Gabe Deem with her lies:

————————–

June 16, 2020: Two full of lies tweets by cyberstalker RealYBOP. The 2 tweets contain screenshots of several presentations at NCOSE conference (Alex Rhodes, Gary Wilson, Gabe Deem, Gail Dines). No one was paid for their presentation, and these 4 individuals do not receive money from religious organizations (3 of the 4 are atheists).

————————

Prause upset that I caught her in a lie.

Also see this for a debunking of @BrainOnPorn – Critique of claims surrounding “Sexual Responsivity and the Effects of Negative Mood on Sexual Arousal in Hypersexual Men Who Have Sex With Men” (2020).

More of the same

——————–

Cyberstalking. Paper doesn’t say what she claims

———————–

Blame anything but porn:

Supporting Gabe:

Porn/sex addiction? This page lists 55 neuroscience-based studies (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal). All but one provide support for the addiction model as their findings mirror the neurological findings reported in substance addiction studies.
The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 32 recent neuroscience-based literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.
Signs of addiction and escalation to more extreme material? Over 60 studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and even withdrawal symptoms (all signs and symptoms associated with addiction). Additional page with 14 studies reporting withdrawal symptoms in porn users.
Porn and sexual problems? This list contains over 40 studies linking porn use/porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. The first 7 studies in the list demonstrate causation, as participants eliminated porn use and healed chronic sexual dysfunctions.
Porn’s effects on relationships? Over 80 studies link porn use to less sexual and relationship satisfaction. As far as we know all studies involving males have reported more porn use linked to poorer sexual or relationship satisfaction.

——————————

Cyberstalker:

————————————-

UPDATE – JUST THE TIP OF THE CYBERSTALKING-DEFAMATION ICEBERG. SEVERAL MORE SECTIONS INVOLVING GABE:

Others – September, October 2015: Nicole Prause’s original Twitter account (@NicolePrause) permanently suspended for harassment

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

Immediately after Prause’s Twitter account was suspended, this defamatory post appeared on reddit/pornfree, 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):

Reddit/Pornfree mods recognize the troll (Prause is regular on reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap):

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:

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

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

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

Updates:

July, 2019: John Adler, MD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.
David J. Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths

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

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

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

The Intro to the email:

The last of many questions in the email:

——-

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

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

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

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

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

For example, the lead author is Dr. Mateusz Gola, who is visiting scholar at UC San Diego, and has 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).

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Prause did not name Wilson, so she may be off the hook, legally speaking. All claims are false as Wilson has 1) never been contacted by the police, 2) never threatened her lab, 3) is not under any “no-contact order” except threats from Prause herself after Prause harassed him. This tweet once again incriminates Prause as the individual responsible for the many defamatory comments described in the first section. Prause ended it all as she usually does: citing no evidence and tweeting Rhodes “I sent you documentation. Do not contact me again.”

That’s Nicole Prause’s MO: Initiate a personal attack, follow it up with lies, then end it all by playing the victim. By the way, Prause sent no such documentation. Yet another lie. Others were watching the Twitter storm, which led to an article detailing it, and more Prause tweets attacking yet another person (below). Meanwhile, consider the fact that it is a violation of APA (American Psychological Association) principles for psychologists to attack those trying to recover.

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:

As explained here, Prause was eventually banned from Quora for harassment of Gary Wilson.

——————————-

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”.

Updates:

NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos
David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.)

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 and porn related sexual injury

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

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

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

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

Alex Rhodes reponds to @pornhelps:

It continues, with PornHelps asking about Alex Rhodes penis and falsely accusing Alex of lying:

Continuation:

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

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

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

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

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

Update: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos

**Others – July, 2016: Nicole Prause & “PornHelps” falsely accuse TIME editor Belinda Luscombe of lying and misquoting**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——

—-

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:

Pascal Gobry quote-tweets Belinda:

Update: David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See: David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

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

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

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

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

23:53, 5 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Pornography addiction ‎ (→‎Diagnostic status)
23:22, 9 September 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+115)‎ . . Effects of pornography ‎ (Largest neuro study mysteriously left off previous edits)
23:21, 9 September 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-1,177)‎ . . Effects of pornography ‎ (Removing pseudoscience by Gary Wilson)
03:47, 1 April 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+206)‎ . . Belinda Luscombe ‎ (inaccuracies in writing)

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.”
“inaccuracies in writing”: This is Prause lashing out in impulsive frustration at the TIME article, as she did months later as both @PornHelps and @NicoleRPrause.

This vicious failed attack on veteran TIME editor Belinda Luscombe for doing her job well (and giving short shrift to Prause’s “alternative facts”) is classic Prause vindictiveness. (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame).

Likely aliases Prause has employed to edit Wikipedia (using more than one name is a violation of Wikipedia rules):

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 (in 2020 Prause deleted these links):

https://web.archive.org/web/20190825022023/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/Reid_FoundryGroup.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414144053/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/Reid_PsychToday1.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414100431/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/NoLicenseInCalifornia.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414133722/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/PsychToday_UCLA.Address.Given_Claims.LCSW.Psychologist.png
https://web.archive.org/web/20200414194604/https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/BevHillsClinicalPractice_ClaimsLCSW.png

Here we examine her comments about UCLA researcher and former colleague Rory Reid PhD. Excerpt from Prause’s rant:

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

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

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

But there’s more to the story. 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://web.archive.org/web/20200414100431/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://web.archive.org/web/20200414194604/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:

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

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

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

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

Prause 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.

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

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

Prause 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).

Prause plays the misogyny card

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

As for the Infographic, Prause’s only evidence of misogyny is that Wilson supposedly once wrote “Miss Prause” in reponse to her asking him about the size of his penis, and once incorrectly spelled her first name as “nicki.” That’s it. Misspellings/autocorrects occur in the digital age, especially when a troll is inquirng about your genitalia

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)

For more details about Kinsey’s documented activities see this PDF.

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?

Someone’s lying.

——————-

Prause and David Ley on Facebook:

———–

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

In reality, Prause’s 240-word opinion piece failed to address Hilton’s paper or even mention Prause’s own 2013 paper (Steele et al., 2013). In fact, Prause’s commentary also failed to address the content of the original commentary by Marc Potenza: Is excessive sexual behaviour an addictive disorder? (Potenza et al., 2017). YBOP completely debunks everything in Prause’s opinion piece here: Analysis of “Data do not support sex as addictive” (Prause et al., 2017).

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

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

—————————

Prause created over 25 usernames to post on reddit/pornfree and reddit/nofap (PDF of Nicole Prause aliases she used to harass & defame). Here’s one of her many sockpuppets attacking Dr. Hilton:

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:

As for Steele et al., 2013, Prause misrepresented its actual findings in press – as 8 peer-reviewed papers on this page reveal: Peer-reviewed critiques of Steele et al., 2013

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.
Third, Prause turned on Rory Reid, right about the time UCLA chose to not renew her contract: Others – September 2016: Prause attacks and libels former UCLA colleague Rory C. Reid PhD. 2 years earlier “TellTheTruth” posted the exact same claims & documents on a porn recovery site frequented by Prause’s many sock puppets
Fourth, the Hilton claims concerning porn and sex addiction have since been substantiated (and Reid’s assertions have been falsified). See Relevant Research and Articles About the Studies.

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: Out of nowhere, RealYBOP misrepresents a 10-year old commentary by Don Hilton. Hilton & Watts commentary: Pornography addiction: A neuroscience perspective

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

————————-

Updates:

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

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

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

——————————-

2020 – Using her RealYBOP twitter account she attacks 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:

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

@JamesTherapy So you did not read all that we have documented here: yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses… Provide documentation for your defamatory claim.

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

@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:

Tweet #1 documenting of Prause’s perjury:

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

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

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

Libel, perjury, and harassment – all documented. Prause responded with this tweet and her ”misogyny infographic”, which she has tweeted about 30 times and posted all over Quora:

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.

Update: NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos.

**2015 – 2016: Quid Pro Quo? The lobbying arm of the porn industry, the Free Speech Coalition offers Prause assistance, she accepts and immediately attacks California’s prop 60 (condoms in porn).**

California Proposition 60 (2016 election) 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 has now deleted all of these tweets).

On October 1, 2015 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 here was Prause, who had her first Twitter account permanently banned for harassment and cyber-stalking. (In violation of its own rules, Twitter allowed her to create a second Twitter account.) 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 her eviction from Twitter. Lies upon lies (John Adler affidavit in Hilton defamation suit).

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 protection in porn):

——————-

Here she retweets FSC propaganda. (Again, 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:

Another Prop 60 tweet:

———————-

Yet another tweet in which Prause promotes AVN’s position on Prop 60:

————————-

Prause retweets XBIZ propaganda, attacks AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which supports condom protection in porn (Prop 60): https://twitter.com/AIDSHealthcare

In support of the porn industry, Prause retweets porn-producer propaganda. Prause attacks AIDS Healthcare Foundation (which supports Prop 60):

—————–

Tagging FSC, retweeting porn industry propaganda about prop 60:

—————–

Tagging FSC while attacking a UCLA medical doctor who supported condom protection for porn performers (Prop 60):

———————–

More about Prause’s pro-FSC actions in this section: November, 2016: Prause asks VICE magazine to fire infectious disease specialist Keren Landman, MD for supporting Prop 60 (condoms in porn).

Here’s what is most egregious: Prause tells VICE magazine to fire expert Dr. Landman for writing an article supporting Prop 60:

Prause tells the world how she voted:

Prause enters a thread where Gary Wilson had already tweeted, bragging about her role in defeating Prop 60 (Prause and her presumed alias RealYBOP often troll Wilson’s Twitter threads – even though Wilson has blocked both accounts):

For much more documentation, see: Is Nicole Prause Influenced by the Porn Industry?

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

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

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

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

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Janey Wilson <[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update 2: As of early 2019, Park et al., 2016 has been cited by over 60 other peer-reviewed papers, and is the most viewed paper in the history of the journal Behavioral Sciences.

Update 3: 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)

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.

Update (August, 2020): Court rulings fully exposed Nicole Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim.

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 4 dozen neurological papers that support the porn addiction model, and 120 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).

Update (August, 2020): Court rulings fully exposed Nicole Prause as the perpetrator, not the victim.

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.

————————————–

————————————————

Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S

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

————————————————

Marnia Robinson, JD

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

————————————————

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

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

In addition, Prause falsely claimed to have sent cease & desist letters to the 4 panelists on the Mormon Matters podcast. Prause has a long history of bogus C&D’s and maliciously reporting organizations and individuals to governing bodies.

Update: On October 23, 2019 Alexander Rhodes (founder of reddit/nofap and NoFap.com) filed a defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause. One reason for Rhodes’s lawsuit is that Prause falsely claimed to have a restraining order against him.

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:

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-believe-in-the-answers-given-on-Quora-What-is-its-authenticity/answer/Nicole-Prause
https://www.quora.com/My-friend-is-addicted-to-porn-How-can-I-help-him/answer/Nicole-Prause
https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-stop-my-porn-addiction-once-and-for-good-I-am-a-female-and-not-lesbian/answers/32510476
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-ill-effects-of-porn/answer/Nicole-Prause

One of the above Quora posts, as an example:

We move from Quora to twitter. Many of her infographic tweets involve additional misinformation and defamation:

—————

She tweets her 2016 op-ed. 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).

—————

—————

Ley’s paper wasn’t a review. Shoddy, inaccurate, pro-porn propaganda piece that reads like one of Ley’s Psychology Today blog posts (and about the same length). YBOP felt no need to address Ley’s stream of consciousness musings published in the highly dubious Porn Studies Journal. For a complete debunking of every Ley talking point, YBOP suggests this article – Dismantling David Ley’s response to Philip Zimbardo: “We must rely on good science in porn debate” (March, 2016), or this extensive dismantling of Ley’s most infamous propaganda piece – Critique of “The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Review of the ‘Pornography Addiction’ Model” (2014), David Ley, Nicole Prause & Peter Finn.

—————–

—————-

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

—————–

She calls Alexander Rhodes (@NoFap) a misogynist, yet never provides documentation of misogyny (no surprise as Prause has obsessively defamed and harassed Rhodes for 4 years running, as documented on these pages). Prause even falsely tweeted that she had reported “serial misogynist” Alexander Rhodes to the FBI. She lied. See – December, 2018: FBI confirms that Nicole Prause lied about filing a report on Alexander Rhodes.

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:

This PDF contains 19 Prause Quora comments disparaging and defaming me (including 10 comments in a 24-hr period, which led to Quora banning Prause). PDF also contains comments by 5 Prause aliases used to harass and stalk me.

—————–

**Others – October, 2016: Prause states falsely that SASH and IITAP “board members and practitioners are openly sexist and assaultive to scientists” (Jim Pfaus joins in with added defamation)**

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.”

Pfaus is not telling the truth: 50 neurological studies & 25 reviews of the literature support the porn addiction model, and 120 studies link porn use to sexual dysfunctions and lower sexual & relationship satisfaction. Not a single neurological study falsifies the porn addiction model, including this one. There are codes in both the ICD and DSM that allow reimbursable diagnoses of the disorders, and “compulsive sexual behavior disorder” is proposed for inclusion in the ICD-11. Note: Like Prause, Jim Pfaus has a history of misrepresenting the research, and even making false statements – as he did here about Prause & Pfaus 2015.

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. See these separate pages exposing Prause as the perpertaror, not the victim:

A few examples Prause harassing SASH on twitter:

Her silly little inforgraphic, which includes the entirety of her evidence:

Her only evidence of “misogyny” is Gary Wilson accidentally typing “Miss” – after Prause inquired about the size of Wilson’s penis.

—————–

More falsehoods, and no examples:

———————

Prause has targeted IITAP and Stefanie Carnes in about 100 tweets (whichwould fill up this page). A few examples:

—————-

On an IITAP thread, accusing IITAP of “causal language”:

I guess she thinks no one will read, as it says correlation, not causation. Second, Prause doesn’t have any Grad students. Third, the study – Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated With Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn (Kuhn & Gallinat, 2014).

—————–

Afraid not – Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Watching Porn?“, by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause (2018)

—————–

No IITAP does not:

—————–

Harasses Rob Weiss, who often presents at IITAP:

—————–

One of 5 tweets about IITAP on May 9… all now deleted:

Not what we heard.

Quora deleted the above Prause “answer”, warned her, and ultimately banned her.

—————-

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:

In the same journal as the paper: Letter to the editor by Richard A. Isenberg MD (2015)
Very extensive lay critique: Nothing Adds Up in Dubious Study: Youthful Subjects’ ED Left Unexplained (2015)

—————–

Unintelligible, random:

——————

Goes after Patrick Carnes, founder of IITAP:

——————

Goes after Stefanie Carnes, head of IITAP:

——————

Goes after Patrick Carnes, founder of IITAP, again:

Under the same Carnes’s thread, citing her 240-word letter:

Problem: Everything in Prause’s 240-word letter to Lancet is completely debunked in this extensive critique: Analysis of “Data do not support sex as addictive” (Prause et al., 2017). Also – The real experts’ opinions on porn/sex addiction? This list contains 25 recent literature reviews & commentaries by some of the top neuroscientists in the world. All support the addiction model.

——————–

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)

Update: RealYBOP twitter (@BrainOnPorn) and realyourbrainonporn.com were developed as a tool by Nicole Prause and Daniel Burgess to attack Your Brain on Porn, Gary Wilson, and anyone else who critiques the porn industry or points out the negative effects of porn use. See these 2 pages containing numerous additional tweets by Prause attacking and disparaging IITAP and SASH:

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:

Who’s the cyber-stalker when Prause and her alias RealYBOP tweet over 1oo times about IITAP or Carnes, while IITAP & Carnes never tweet about Prause or her porn-industry shill account?

**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 all of these tweets). One such example of Prause supporting the porn industry:

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

Prause lets us know how she voted:

———-

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

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

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

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

Updates:

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

Within a few days of the above Psychology Today comment the PornHelps website and @pornhelps twitter account vanished without a trace (80-page PDF of numerous aliases Prause used to defame and harass Gary Wilson). All that remains of PornHelps are a smattering of comments on various sites and this abandoned disqus account (listing 87 comments).

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.

The latest coordinated attack by Prause, Stambaugh, and 3 other members of Prause’s harassment brigade is documented in this section: May 30, 2018 – Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary Wilson to the FBI twice. (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)

———————————-

Much of this Prause/PornHelps coordinated attack on researchers is chronicled here: June, 2016: Prause and her sock puppet PornHelps claim that respected neuroscientists are members of “anti-porn groups” and “their science is bad”. But let us re-examine the evidence that Prause is “PornHelps.”

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

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:

Nearly identical in this article quoting Prause – with her usual spin:

———————————-

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):

———————————-

Here PornHelps is disscussing Prause’s EEG study – Modulation of Late Positive Potentials by Sexual Images in Problem Users and Controls Inconsistent with “Porn Addiction” (Prause et al., 2015)

Pornhelps knows an awful lot for a porn industry hack!

———————————-

This comment about Wilson can be found under Prause’s 2016 op-ed – Op-ed: Anti-porn school program misrepresents science.

Again, Prause is the only commentor who calls Wilson a cyberstalker and massage therapist (other chum David Ley). The truth of Prause’s op-ed – Op-ed: Who exactly is misrepresenting the science on pornography? (2016)

———————————-

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 her porn-industry shill account as RealYourBrainOnPorn.

Others – December 12, 2016: Prause falsely claims that @Nofap drove gay teen to suicidal feelings (also calls Alexander Rhodes an “anti-porn profiteer”).

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

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

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

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?

Updates:

NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos
David J Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths.

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.

Ongoing – The Free Speech Coalition allegedly provided subjects for a Nicole Prause study that she claims will “debunk” porn addiction

Does Prause’s relentless support for the porn industry arise from a quid pro quo, or more than one? Certainly, a public exchange of favors occurred in 2015 when the Free Speech Coalition (porn industry lobby) offered Prause assistance and she accepted. Immediately she attacked Prop 60 (condoms in porn, which the industry didn’t want).

A second possible quid pro quo occurred in 2016. Prause was given a bucket-load of money to produce a hired-gun study on the heavily tainted and very commercial “Orgasmic Meditation” scheme (now apparently under investigation by the FBI). Orgasmic Meditation, an pseudo-cult that charges big bucks to teach men how to stroke a partner’s clitoris. Prause pictured here monitoring a couple engaging in OM:

We are not sure, but the clitoris diddling study (OM) may have hit a predictable snag: the challenge of finding female subjects who want their genitals rubbed while being hooked up to machines and monitored by researchers. To reach her target of 250 OM couples, it appears that Prause may have obtained porn performers as subjects through porn industry interest group, the Free Speech Coalition. The favor to the FSC? Then, almost two years later, Prause publicly began exclaiming that her upcoming OM study (which previously had nothing to do with porn) would debunk porn addiction. As of this writing (June, 2020) the OM study has yet to appear.

Articles paint OneTaste not only as a sexual cult, but as employing less than savory business practices:

Details and documentation:

Adult performer Ruby the Big Rubousky, vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild, stated that Prause obtained porn performers as study subjects through the most prominent porn industry interest group/lobby, the Free Speech Coalition. (Prause has since deleted this Twitter thread).

The study (or studies) in question was originally said to be funded by OneTaste, a for-profit company that charged $4,300.00 for a 3-day workshop to learn clitoral manipulation. As described in this Bloomberg.com expose, OneTaste offered 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 the OM study and the funder, from page 3 of Nicole Prause’s 20-page CV (notice that Prause lists herself as “principal investigator”):

In court documents, tweets, and a lie-filled letter threatening me, Prause is now bizarrely stating that I defamed her by stating that her first Orgasmic Meditation study was funded by the OneTaste Foundation. Perhaps she is currently being funded by the newly created “Institute of OM Foundation” OM FREE”, or another of the many OM entities, but her CV doesn’t lie – even though Prause does. And we have Co-investigator Greg Siegle’s CV listing OneTaste as funding Prause & Siegle’s Orgasmic Meditation research:

Then there’s this – a 2018 article revealed that “OneTaste” appears to have created numerous shell companies: A cult worse than NXIVM? — a mother’s plea to rescue her daughter from ‘OneTaste!’. Relevant excerpt:

There is a strong financial component. According to one source, there are numerous shell companies. These may be such as:

One Taste
OneTaste Incorporated
OneTaste Lineage, LLC
OneTaste Cooperative, Inc
OneTaste Media, LLC
Ehrlich Photography & Shutterbug Studio
Shutterbug Shop
Ehrlich Photography
Del Monte Realty, Inc.
Caravan, Inc
Caravan Incorporated
Caravan Retreats Incorporated
Mirror Clan, Inc
Insight Institute, LLC
DBDD, LLC

Why would OM create shell companies? Anyhow, a 2017 Yoga Journal article also names OneTaste as the funder for the OM study:

Additional articles describing Prause as the principal investigator for the OneTaste (Orgasmic Meditation) study:

More on the Prause & Siegle study(s), now publicized on the newly formed Institute of OM Foundation website (with not a word on the site about the discredited “OneTaste”):

In the 2018 Bloomberg article Chief Executive Officer Joanna Van Vleck pretty much says that OneTaste was now dependent on Prause’s upcoming EEG studies about OM:

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 later this year. “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.

Put simply, Prause was hired to bolster the commercial interests of the heavily tainted and very controversial company (another article: The ‘fingering’ cult: A reader’s experience of OneTaste – is not very tasteful at all).

Again, to conduct the OM study Prause needed willing participants comfortable with being hooked up to machines, and having their genitals exposed and masturbated by a man as researchers observe their responses. It’s not hard to imagine it’s challenging to locate females willing to act as sexual guinea pigs in Prause’s 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 Prause was publicly offered (and apparently accepted) assistance from the deep-pocketed FSC. This was immediately followed by Prause throwing her scientific weight behind some the FSC’s major agendas (Proposition 60, ‘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, the study was funded to explore only the benefits of “Orgasmic Meditation” – but it then mysteriously transformed into a study to debunk porn addiction (which would certainly serve the FSC’s interests)!

Although the study is still not out as of June, 2020, in 2017 Prause began crowing that her yet to be published Orgasmic Meditation study “falsified” porn and sex addiction. Yet the study appeared to have had nothing to do with porn use and likely did not involve any actual porn addicts.

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. In short, Prause’s OM study has apparently magically morphed from a “partnered sex” investigation into an anti-porn addiction, pro-porn industry paper. Below are a few examples of Prause claiming her upcoming “partnered sex” (OM) study debunks porn addiction.

Background: In spring of 2019, the World Health Organization released a new edition of its diagnostic manual, the ICD-11, with a diagnosis called “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.)

Astonishingly, Prause posted more comments in the beta-draft comment section than every other commenter combined. In the comments section under this new proposal, Prause posted three times about her OM study (partnered sex, N=250). Here are her comments asserting that her OM study found no evidence of sexual compulsivity (she never does, even when neuroscientists say she has):

Another ICD-11 comment:

Another ICD-11 comment:

She tries again, in 2018:

Her attempt failed, and the new ICD-11 contains a new diagnosis suitable for those suffering from porn addiction: “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”

But she tried her hardest to head off the ICD-11’s CSBD diagnosis. In July, 2018, Prause let WHO, the APA, and AASECT know that her lone Orgasmic Meditation study had “falsified” the porn/sex addiction model:

What legitimate researcher would ever claim to have debunked an entire field of research and to have “falsified” all previous studies with a single study that did not recruit porn addicts and wasn’t designed to assess the signs, symptoms and behaviors of an addiction? Prause had trumpeted similar claims of “falsification” in 2015 based on her own dubious work, and was ultimately greeted with 10 peer-reviewed analyses saying she misinterpreted her findings.

In this tweet Prause says her upcoming OM study will correct all the “lies” by sex addiction therapists:

In this 2018 SLATE article, “Why Are We Still So Worried About Watching Porn?” by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause, we were even told that the World Health Organization should wait for Prause’s OM study:

More importantly, we have no laboratory studies about actual sexual behaviors in those who report this difficulty. The first study of partnered sexual behaviors in the laboratory, which tests the compulsivity model, is currently under peer review at a scientific journal. (Disclosure: One of this article’s co-authors, Nicole Prause, is the lead author of that study.) The World Health Organization should wait to see if any science supports their novel diagnosis before risking pathologizing millions of healthy people.

There several more examples of Prause telling the world that her upcoming “partnered sex” study will debunk porn and sex addiction…for all time.

After all her crowing that her upcoming Orgasmic Meditation study would debunk porn addiction, Prause pre-registers the OM study on March 27, 2018 as now assessing “addiction models of sex film viewing.” Most irregular.

Contrary to what Prause did here, pre-registration means that prior to collecting actual data, you share the introduction and methods section of your paper with others. Prause is pre-registering her OM study 2 years after collecting data, and a year after boasting that her “findings’ debunked porn addiction. The journal that eventually publishes Prause’s OM study needs to look very closely into the unprofessional behavior surrounding this paper. So do ethics organizations.

What Prause is not telling anyone is that she may have used porn performers supplied by the lobbying arm of porn industry, the FSC. The same FSC that offered her help 3 years earlier when her Twitter account was permanently banned for harassment. (The victim of Prause’s Twitter-based harassment? The lead author of one of the most cited reviews of the literature on the porn addiction model: Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (2015).)

Bottom line: Prause was offered, and appears to have accepted help from the FSC. Immediately, Prause used social media (and emails) to promote porn-industry interests, while simultaneously attacking research that reflected poorly on porn. Since then, she has waged an extensive war on individuals and organizations she labels as “anti-porn activists.”

Question: Does the University of Pittsburgh know how Prause has turned its study into a propaganda tool for the porn industry? The OM study apparently received its IRB approval through Pittsburgh and co-researcher Dr. Greg J. Siegle. Does the University know that Prause allegedly obtained subjects via the Free Speech Coalition? Does the University of Pittsburgh know about Prause’s close ties to the porn industry? Is the University of Pittsburgh aware of Prause’s long history of unethical, and sometimes illegal, behaviors (false police reports, defamation, false reports to governing boards) in support of the porn-industry agenda?

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.

———————

——————–

Prause “science” may have been approved by a review board, but she regularly mischaracterized her actual findings in the press. As for her studies, it 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). See this Twitter exchange between Prause and adult performer, Ruby the Big Rubousky, who is vice president of the Adult Performers Actors Guild (Prause has since deleted this thread).

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).

———————

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. Many more tweets can be found in thsi section: Others – October, 2018: Prause claims that Fight The New Drug told its “followers” that Dr. Prause should be raped.

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

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

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

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

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

recovered from porn addiction and porn-induced ED
written a book on porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems
appeared on radio and TV discussing PIED and porn addiction
an active website offering numerous resources for those recovering from porn-induced sexual problem and porn addiction
produced multiple videos on various subjects surrounding porn addiction and recovery from porn addiction
presented at various conferences
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.

Frederick M. Toates ResearchGate page with about 100 publications
Frederick M. Toates Amazon book list. About 20 books
Frederick M. Toates University page (which hasn’t been updated since 2005)

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.

Update: David J. Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths

**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:

Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update (Love et al., 2015)
Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports (Park et al., 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MDPI responds:

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

MDPI responds to Prause:

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

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

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

Second tweet:

Third tweet:

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

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

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

———-

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

——

———-

——–

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

More false accusations of misogyny:

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

The Twitter conversation continues:

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

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

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.

Tweet in response to two lists of studies from YBOP. Neither list contained Park et al., 2016.

January 29, 2019:

All falsehoods by the cyberstalker.

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.

Josh Grubbs often supports ally Prause in her cyber-attacks and misrepresentations of the science (or his own studies). Notice that in all of Prause & Ley’s tweets and rants they never provide single example of the paper’s “fraud” or “false claims”. Since Prause was one of the six reviewers of Park et al., you would think she could excerpt a section and explain how it constitutes “fraud”. Never happens…. and never will.

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”:

Proof that Prause is lying is in this section: 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.

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).

The first section of this extensive critique expose Prause’s falsehoods surrounding the ICD-11: Debunking “Why Are We Still So Worried About Watching Porn?”, by Marty Klein, Taylor Kohut, and Nicole Prause (2018). For an accurate account of the ICD-11’s new diagnosis, see this recent article by The Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health (SASH): “Compulsive Sexual Behaviour” has been classified by World Health Organization as Mental Health Disorder.

More trolling of the 2019 ESSM talk citing Park et al., 2016:

Prause and Ley – as always, loudly defending porn and the porn industry.

For no particular reason, Prause tweets the bogus RetractionWatch article again (3-1-19):

Prause continues, defaming the journal Behavioral Sciences:

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

Prause knows the truth as several of her fake aliases have edited the MDPI Wikipedia page, inserting her usual set of lies.

A link to the corrected version showing that MDPI was not downgraded. That’s why Prause did not link to the page in her tweet. Screenshot below:

Two days later Prause trolls an old twitter thread were Gary Wilson was correcting Josh Grubbs spin. She tweets the same debunked screenshot:

This marks 4 years of obsessive cyber-harassment and defamation.

April, 2019, David Ley joins Nikky in disparaging Park et al., 2016:

Ley never responds with substance to back up his falsehoods. Update: David J. Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths

April 27, 2019. Trolling a random thread for an excuse to spread usual falsehoods:

As stated, there was only one “scientist”: Prause. And no, there are not 8 dis-confirming studies.

UPDATE: As of early 2019, Park et al., 2016 has been cited by over 50 other peer-reviewed papers, and is the most viewed paper in the history of the journal Behavioral Sciences.

————

July, 2019 – She tunes up again tweeting, as a Wikipedia likely Prause sockpuppet inserts this same information into the MDPI Wikipedia.

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:

Concurrently with Prause’s deceptive tweet a “new” Wikipedia alias inserts the 2020 rating into the Wikipedia page.

Franck Vazquez, Ph.D. (Chief Scientific Officer of MDPI) calls Prause out for lying:

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:

Gary Wilson corrects Ley’s falshoods:

Nicole Prause tweets her falsehoods , claiming the 8 authors were “paid to call it an addiction”.

Here she goes again, under the same tweet:

As the CEO of MDPI explained, the actual ratings occur in 2020.

UPDATE (2020): as you can see, MDPI has always been rated as #1 – (and Prause has always been lying about the MDPI rating):

———————————————————————————————

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 studies.

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 even graduating 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And,

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

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

185.51.228.243 – all contributions

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 her clitoris. A 3-day workshop OM workshop costs $3,999.00 per person (if paid in full). As of May 2020 the site onetaste.us advertises Orgasmic Meditation, but no longer displays prices. 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).

Aliases Prause has employed to edit Wikipedia (using more than one name is a violation of Wikipedia rules):

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).

————————

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.

Tweet #1 to SASH (later deleted by Prause):

Tweet #2 to SASH (later deleted by 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to twitter thread (which Prause later deleted)

Others – January 24, 2018: Prause files groundless complaints against therapist Staci Sprout (section contains numerous other incidents of defamation & harassment)

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 24^th, and the case was opened on January 30^th. Two days later (February 1^st) 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.

Prause fails to mention her connections to, and support of, the porn industry.

——————

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.

A January, 2019 WHO paper also discusses CSBD (Innovations and changes in the ICD‐11 classification of mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders):

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.

Sprout’s tweet is completely accurate, says nothing about “sex addiction”, and links to yet another 2019 paper by WHO in World Psychiatry:

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).

Note: More on Prause alias accounts:

———————

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!):

A few more, calling RealYBOP out:

RealYBOP exposed.

———————–

November, 2019: Staci Sprout made a video supporting a fund raiser fro NoFap founder Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause / Liberos. In retaliation RealYBOP (an alias account of Nicole Prause) disparages Staci Sprout:

While RealYBOP did not name Sprout, it tweeted a screenshot of her article.

————————-

Updates:

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.

Prause keeps her promise by filing spurious state board complaints against Staci Sprout LCSW, D.J. Burr LMHC, Linda Hatch PhD, Donald Hilton MD, US Navy doctors and even Gary Wilson. All complaints were dismissed as being without merit.

Updates:

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

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

Not so, but before we get to the truth it’s worth noting that her claim is very bold indeed, as 3 Prause studies on porn users failed to control for much of anything, including screening to establish that they were addicted to porn (Prause et al., 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):

Update: David J. Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See – Ongoing – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths

Prause tweeted several times to promote her libel, linking to her Quora article.

Another tweet, full of lies. See – Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials

More libelous tweets by Prause & Ley, linking to Nikky’s quora post with Wilson’s SOU employment records:

FYI – Prause harassed TED for 5 straight years… and they gave in. But everything in the TEDX talk is fully supported. See –

—————————

May, 2018: Several allies have joined Prause & Ley in their defamatory claims that Wilson was fired from SOU. For example, Tammy Ellis posting the following during her and Prause’s coordinated cyber-attack on the Fight The New Drug Facebook page (documented here: May 30, 2018: Prause falsely accuses FTND of science fraud, and implies that she has reported Gary to the FBI twice):

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.

Tweet #1 – 2-25-19:

She strikes again…. on a Sunday. Prause lies: Wilson was not terminated, nor was he a TA (as documented in this section). Wilson never misrepresented his credential, and Prause has never cited any evidence for this: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials. Prause’s name is not on YBOP 82,0oo times: October, 2018: Prause falsely claims that her name appears over 35,000 (or 82,000; or 103,000; or 108,000) times on YourBrainOnPorn.com

COPE never asked for a retraction. Everything Prause said about the MDPI paper is a lie – as documented on these pages and here: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted

—————————-

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?)

Update: Gary Wilson includes these incidents in a sworn affidavit filed in the Alexander Rhodes defamation lawsuit against Nicole Prause: Exhibit #11: Gary Wilson affidavit (123 pages)

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

On March 3^rd 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:

This PDF contains all 19 Prause Quora comments disparaging and defaming Gary Wilson (including 10 comments in a 24-hr period, which led to Quora banning Prause)

Banning didn’t stop Prause. The following fake Quora accounts used to defame Wilson are likley Prause sockpuppet accounts:

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

Gary Wilson reported Prause’s violation. Twitter’s reply:

Prause’s twitter account was suspended for a day.

Note: in October of 2015: Prause’s original Twitter account is permanently suspended for harassment. She violated Twitter’s rules by (twice) posting the personal information of one of the authors of this paper “Neuroscience of Internet Pornography Addiction: A Review and Update” (2015), which had critiqued her two dubious EGG studies.

Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Gary Wilson has misrepresented his credentials (she does this hundreds of times)

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:

No, the “ant-porn world” is not populated with such people. Speaking of snake oil, David Ley is now being paid by the porn industry to promote their websites, while he fervently denies the harms of porn. See: Ongoing – David J. Ley is now being compensated by porn industry giant Xhamster to promote its websites and to convince users that porn addiction and sex addiction are myths

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 is in this section: 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.

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.

Tweet #1 – 2-25-19:

Obsessed stalker strikes again…. on a Sunday. Prause lies: I was not terminated, nor was I a TA (as documented in this section). I have never misrepresented his credential, and Prause has never cited any evidence for this: Ongoing – Prause falsely claims that Wilson has misrepresented his credentials

COPE never asked for a retraction. Everything Prause said about the MDPI paper is a lie – as documented on these pages and here: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted

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:

For more see:

Another Prause tweet alludes to having me removed (no-platformed”) from the ISSM conference for supposedly presenting fake credentials. As documented in this section (with emails between the ISSM & Wilson) Prause is lying about me misrepresenting my credentials: 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.

This brings us to 2019 and the 4-year saga of Prause trying every tactic possible to have the following paper retracted: “Is Internet Pornography Causing Sexual Dysfunctions? A Review with Clinical Reports” (Park et al., 2016). Prause is oddly obsessed with the paper and with attacking any evidence of porn-induced sexual problems. Her numerous exploits are chronicled on this extensive page: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted.

————————————————-

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.)

[Link to the 2016 TIME cover story on YBOP: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/about/your-brain-on-porn-in-the-news/porn-and-the-threat-to-virility-time-2/. The same article on the TIME website: https://time.com/4277510/porn-and-the-threat-to-virility/]

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 biology professorat 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:

As documented here, Prause and Ley are engaged in defamation (page includes letters from SOU lawyers exposing Prause & Ley as lying): Nicole Prause & David Ley libelous claim that Gary Wilson was fired from Southern Oregon University.

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:

This is on the heels of RealYBOP tweeting about Gary Wilson over 100 times over a 3-day period: Realyourbrainonporn (Daniel Burgess) defamation/harassment of Gary Wilson: Fake porn URLs “found” in the Internet Wayback Archive (August, 2019).

————————-

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
No one appears to be stalking Prause. It is she who stalks and harasses others. Most of my site’s references to Prause are on this very long page that chronicles 5 years of Prause harassing and libeling me and others.
As for other places where Prause name appears, YBOP contains about 10,000 pages, and it’s a clearinghouse for nearly everything associated with Internet porn use and its effects on the user. Nicole Prause has published multiple studies about porn use and hypersexuality, and by her own admission, is a professional “debunker” of porn addiction and porn-induced sexual problems.
A Google search for “Nicole Prause” + pornography” returns about 11,000 pages. She’s quoted in hundreds of journalistic articles about porn use and porn addiction, in addition to her research related to pornography use. She’s on TV, radio, podcasts, and YouTube channels claiming to have debunked porn addiction with a single (heavily criticized) study. So Prause’s name is inevitable on a site like mine, which functions as a clearinghouse for research and news associated with Internet porn’s effects. YBOP also critiques other questionable research on porn and related subjects. These critiques are not personal, but rather substantive.
This DMCA take-down request is just the latest in a long string of harassment incidents by Prause. Dr. Prause has tweeted about me nearly 100 times, while I never tweet about her (other than correcting a few of her lies). Prause has used dozens of fake usernames to post comments about me on porn recovery forums https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/). 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
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#july2013
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others/
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website#cbc
Prause has created (and linked to) an Amazon AWS page to libel and harass me and various others: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/weilerdefamation/PressRelease_DefamationBySenatorWeiler.txt. Prause has an additional 10 Amazon pages about me – all contain false allegations and faked ‘evidence.’
Just prior to Prause‘s first DMCA takedown attempt, she placed my employment records from Southern Oregon University on several venues, including Twitter, Quora, and an adult industry website. Prause falsely claimed that I was fired (I wasn’t), and that I had never before taught at SOU (I had). All explained here:
The outcome was that Prause was permanently banned from Quora, was temporarily banned from Twitter. In response to my request, the adult industry website (http://mikesouth.com/scumbags/dr-nicole-prause-destroys-yourbrainonporn-dont-fall-22064/) subsequently deleted Prause’s libelous “article.” This incident apparently spurred Prause to attempt to her two specious DMCA takedown requests.
Again, I regret that she is wasting your time in this way.
Gary Wilson

In the end Wilson’s website host closed both cases, finding no merit in Prause’s DMCA take-down requests. Note: At the same time Prause was attempting her bogus DMCA takedowns, she also deleted hundreds of the tweets were she harassed, libeled, or bullied many individuals and organizations named on this page.

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

Dear ________
All the URL’s listed are screenshots of Nicole Prause tweets, and can be found on this page that was created to counter the ongoing harassment and false claims made by Nicole Prause: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/nicole-prauses-pdf-her-span-lab-website
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

Relevant Material

Article: “When Scientists Lie.”

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

Often individuals who engage in scientific fraud are high achievers. They are prominent in their disciplines but seek to be even more recognised for the pre-eminence of their scholarly contributions. Along with their drive for recognition can come charisma and grandiosity, as well as a craving for the limelight. Their productivity can border on the manic. Their narcissism will often result in a refusal to accept the manifest dishonesty and culpability of their conduct. The rationalising and self-justifying books of Stapel and Obokata are examples of this phenomenon.
When criticism is made or doubts are expressed about their work, these scientists often react aggressively. They may threaten whistleblowers or attempt to displace responsibility for their conduct onto others. Such cases can generate persistent challenges in the courts, as the scientists in question deny any form of impropriety.
These fraudulent scientists often use the collaboration of others, including across institutions, to blur the lines of responsibility and make it difficult to identify who has generated particular components of research and whether there has been proper authorisation by relevant ethics committees….
Research misconduct often has multiple elements: data fraud, plagiarism and the exploitation of the work of others. People rarely engage in such conduct as a one-off and frequently engage in multiple forms of such dishonesty, until finally they are exposed.
This intellectual dishonesty damages colleagues, institutions, patients who receive suspect treatments, trajectories of research and confidence in scholarship.
It challenges institutions because those responsible for scientific fraud are often stars in the scholarly firmament and high earners of research funding. They put institutions, be they university departments or research laboratories, on the scholarly map and keep them there.
Exposing their misconduct risks the status of the whole institution and its commercial viability. It’s hardly surprising then that accusations and revelations of such misconduct are often unwelcome, and that too many times the blowtorch of scrutiny is turned on the whistleblower rather than the perpetrator.
Research misconduct generally matters most when it reaches the point of publication. Multiple instances of research fraud have been revealed in recent years, resulting in an unparalleled number of retractions in high profile and reputable journals.
The unpalatable truth is that the check and balance of peer review has repeatedly been shown to be ineffectual, and has been subverted and circumvented. We need to do better if we are to reduce the extent of the phenomenon of fraudulent research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 thoughts on “Nicole Prause’s Unethical Harassment and Defamation of Gary Wilson & Others (Page 1)”

Pingback: Prominent Pornography Researcher Frames Defamation Claims As Sexual Harassment, Prompting a Defamation Suit by Her Target [UPDATED] – Grossly Offensive
Pingback: Alex Rhodes of Porn Addiction Support Group 'No Fap' Sues Obsessed Pro-Porn Sexologist for Defamation | News and Politics

Comments are closed.

- “Real Scientist” posting on or around December 18th 2013 (CBC)