Journalist Evan Anderson collaborates with ABA Leaks on a report about severe abuse allegations at Rotenberg.
In Spring 2016 independent journalist Evan Anderson found the Twitter profile of this Reward and Consent blogger, David Altieri, who's been blogging since 2007 about his inquiry into the thorough ties between Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) and the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) of extremely painful electric skin shock. JRC is a residential "school" located in Canton, Massachusetts. It houses its "students" in towns that surround Canton.
Anderson is an investigative journalist who specializes in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests of government entities. He asked Altieri how he could help the advocates close the Judge Rotenberg Center (#CloseTheJRC).
Altieri notified Anderson of the violation and warning letters that the USA Food and Drug Administration New England District Director Shamsi sent to Dr. Israel (May 23, 2011), JRC's founder and first director, and to Mrs. Crookes (June 29, 2012, December 6, 2012), who is JRC's second and current director, as of the date of this post, May 4, 2016. See also Donnelly (December 12, 2012), Boston Business Journal: "FDA warns Judge Rotenberg Center over shock devices."
JRC uses skin shock devices that have never been approved by the FDA which regulates what it calls these "Electrical Stimulation Devices" as "neurological medical devices." FDA New England had inspected JRC property and found they were using unapproved, adulterated GED-3A and the GED-4 ABA skin shock devices while the FDA had only previously allowed them to use the less-extremely-intense GED-1s.
So Anderson did a FOIA request to the FDA and retrieved Crookes' (December 21, 2012) response to Shamsi, which she addressed to Karen Archdeacon, FDA New England Compliance Officer.
Altieri also put Anderson in touch with a source in the Massachusetts state government. Then Anderson requested JRC information from the Massachusetts Disabled Persons Protection Commission (DPPC).
DPPC returned this spreadsheet of 410 complaints by JRC victims and survivors covering a ten year period, averaging one severe abuse or neglect report per ten days. There are sexual abuse allegations and reports of burns from JRC's skin shock devices and many other severe cases emanating from this institution.
He asked Altier(i) which of those spreadsheet items he should pursue with further requests for more thorough information. At this point Altieri founded ABA Leaks to seek assistance from a small team of #CloseTheJRC advocates regarding how to direct Anderson over his request for guidance.
As a result DPPC sent him these redacted intake forms which contain more details than the spreadsheet columns expose regarding specific JRC/ABA abuse allegations.
So Anderson (2012), who remains independent, reported the joint findings and analyzed the information in his medium.com article.
Pam Zich, of ABA Leaks, also sent the FDA a FOIA request for Crookes' (December 21, 2012) reply to Shamsi (June 29, 2016). Zich's (May 5, 2016) analysis of Crookes' letter (p. 2, par. 3) exposed for the first time on the internet the face that Crookes admitted to shocking the upper/outer portion of JRC victims' buttocks. Zich said, "Administrators at the JRC consider it more humane to attach a shock device to someone's forearm, upper arm, upper thigh, calf, torso/stomach, palms of hands, soles of feet, and buttocks than to administer medication that might alleviate the drive to harm oneself."
In FDA Neurological Devices Panel meeting of April 24, 2016 Transcript (pp. 144-45) JRC spokesman Blenkush admits to shocking out-of-seat behavior. New England's FDA leader Shamshi (May 23, 2011) had also cited Rotenberg's first director Dr. Israel with violations, among other reasons, because JRC's "Safety Assessment of the GED Device" indicated that JRC "introduced two automated features to the GED-3A and GED-4 that were not part of the cleared (GED-1) device: (a) an automated stimulus when the patient removes either hand from their hip-holsters, and (b) a seat board that initiates a stimulus if the patient stands from their chair [italics added]. So it seems that the Rotenberg Center—with an automated seat board, with no "teacher" pressing any GED remote control shock activation button—shocked some of their "students" for standing up out of their chairs without "teacher" permission. So then, in case of a potential emergency, such as a fire in the room or a shooting spree in their Canton, Massachusetts facility, what are Rotenberg's victims supposed to do? Does JRC expect these autistic and disabled people to sit in their seats during a severe emergency and in order to stand up and get away, to take a GED-4 skin shock with 45.5 milliamperes, which is more than fifteen times as powerful as the Stun Tech, "the most common stun belt used for prisoner restraint"?
JRC is an Applied Behavioral Analysis facility. ABA is not much more than training for submission. It does what it calls "obedience" training upon innocent people whose behaviors ABA typically misjudges and deems to label "deviants" in need of fixing with its so-called "effective" behavioral controls. That's what ABA is: training for submission. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.
The Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) community of so-called "professionals" does, in fact, thoroughly support and "approve" skin shock.
For an analysis of the complete ties between ABA and JRC complete, see: Altier(i) (June 28, 2016): "The 'data' is in. All ABA completely supports or is complicit to its own extremely painful electric skin shock."