Tuesday, May 31, 2016

The FDA extends its public comment period on its proposed skin shock devices ban to July 25, 2016.

[Editorial note: This post is breaking news so I published it while still in drafting stage. May 20 was the first draft, unpublished date.]

I subscribe to email alerts from the FDA. They have just announced that they have extended the ban's public comment deadline to July 25, 2016.

As of today, Friday, May 20, 2016, the Federal Register, it seems, has not updated this information in its page where we can submit our comments. As I write this post, the Register says the comment period ends in five days. I imagine that by the end of the original five day period, the Register will have updated its page. Anyhow, here's the link, so please submit your comments here. (Scroll to the bottom for your FDA comment submission instructions.)

Here is the comment I submitted them.

The FDA reports that it has received requests to extend the deadline. I do not know who has done this. However, I speculate it was the attorneys for the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) of extremely painful electric skin shock, the institution behind all this torturous trouble with skin zolts.

Also, Pam Zich, the journalist with our newly formed ABALeaks organization, has submitted a Freedom Of Information Act request to the FDA for JRC Director Glenda Crookes' response to the FDA to her warning letter from them that her JRC was using FDA unapproved shock devices. In the document, Crookes admitted that her JRC staff attached their Graduated Electronic (behavior rate) Decelarators (GED's) to, among other places, on the buttocks.

Monday, May 9, 2016

The ARC, formerly Ass. for Retarded Citizens, promotes abusive Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) programs and barges into autism territory where it does not belong.

I worked for the ARC in two separate county chapters in New Jersey. They were actually both good places to work. And we did, thanks to some excellent management, treat the citizens of what used to be called the Association for Retarded Citizens as human beings. I was able to run a Habilitation Plan Meeting and seek the consent of one of the clients to a plan that he told me he wanted, basically. Now, however, the national ARC is barging into autism territory where it does not belong for as long as it endorses ABA for autistics. We actual autistics have made it clear to the world wide web in social media that ABA is parasitic and coercive and it must remove itself from our personal body spaces.

The ARC has decayed. Now it is putrid.

So this article really bugs me. With its publication of the website "The ARC: Autism Now" the mammoth organization shows its true colors as a primarily a bunch of advocates for parents of atypical people rather than an organization of actually atypical advocates ourselves. Parents and actual atypicals possess separate, yet often overlapping, interests, despite the image parents promote that what they do they do for their children, much more so than they do it for themselves.

Now The ARC has posted its "Parent’s Introduction to Applied Behavioral Analysis." It sugar coats ABA in typical ABA dissemination fashion and describes the therapists as looking out for the best interest of poor incompetent children who cannot decide what's good for them. It supports ABA without question, with no mention of the reports of trauma by ABA survivors. It paints an image of "variety" in ABA programs, each one supposedly unique. It fails to mention that ABA is, to its very core, throughout all levels of its so-called "profession," is an extremely controlling set of behavior modification models. It concludes with a section called "The Benefits of ABA" with no mention whatsoever about why ABA sucks.

It is the parents of autistics, in general, who order the services of this coercive, parasitic ABA which has anointed itself to be the officiously pontificating prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of any behavior it deems to be "deviant and aberrant." Actual autistics are up in arms against ABA and we demand that ABA leave our very young autistic peers alone. Some parents are hearing us, but our cries fall on deaf institutional ears of the parent representative groups such as NAMI, with its defenses of forced psychiatry so to get their schizophrenic adult children out of their hair and off their case, such as Autism Speaks, with its massive Resource Guide intensively over-populated with ABA-as-the-go-to-autism-method information, and now we have The ARC turning its back on the people it allegedly defends.

This video, which I have entitled "ABA forces a young boy to play," has been defended by ABA spokespeople in their George-Bush-II-by-any-means-necessary inhumane manner when they argue "what's wrong with making a deviant child into a normal child?" This is exactly what their "right to effective scientific treatment" argument is saying, as hashed out to its logical conclusion.

So as long as a panicky parent signs a consent to Behavior Plan agreement, then the autistic child is defenseless to tell the so-called "therapist" to stop controlling his or her every behavior down to the minutest bodily motion. Those children are told it is wrong to say no to a harsh set of domineering abusers, profiteers, and children exploiters. ABA treats autistic children's bodies as though autistic bodies were their bodies to do with whatever ABA wants by virtue of its cruel and unusual punishments and its contrived, artificial, food deprived reinforcement systems.

When will the parents learn that the experts on autism are not parents and not professionals, that the only experts on autism are we actual autistic ourselves. This is common sense wisdom. Get over it!

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Here's newspaper evidence of ABA-induced trauma: Massachusetts charges Eagleton School staff, which uses Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA), with abuse and revokes its license.

Journalist Lukas Ropek (May 4, 2016) of MassLive.com reported that Massachusetts' Department of Early Education and Care revoked the license of the Eagleton School in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, Berkshire County. So far, the Berkshire District Attorney has charged sixteen of its employees with abusing their students. The investigation is still ongoing.

This private school is known to have used Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). ABA practitioners attempt to control children and adults, often autistic, by reinforcing and punishing behaviors when they add and remove rewarding and punishing consequences soon after their "clients" "emit" what they consider to be either desirable or undesirable behaviors.

Derek Gentile (May 3, 2016), of the Berkshire Eagle reported, "A police raid on Jan. 30 triggered the investigation, which, according to state officials, revealed a school-wide pattern of abuse, reportedly over the course of several years." Charges include "assault and battery on a disabled person..., assault and battery with intent to inflict injury..., (and) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon."

So when will the authorities revoke the license of the Canton, Massachusetts Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) of extremely painful electric ABA skin shock now that freelance journalist Evan Anderson, (May 4, 2016) has just exposed 410 severe abuse charges as reported by actual JRC victims in a recent ten year period?


Related articles:

Berkshire Eagle staff (January 1, 2016): "Berkshire DA: 50 investigators descend on Eagleton School in student abuse investigation."

Phil Demers (January 31, 2016), Berkshire Eagle: "Eagleton School parents tell children's stories of alleged abuse."

Anthony Fay (April 8, 2016), 22News, WWLP.com: "Eagleton school shutting down after losing license."


Related Reward and Consent blog posts:

May 4, 2016: "Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) skin shockers sound much worse than feared."

April 13, 2016: "Applied Behavior Analysis (Analy$i$) never learns. It officially approved electroshock torture once again, internationally."

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Here's evidence from Massachusetts Disabled Persons Protection Commission of ABA-induced trauma: Canton, Massachusetts Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) skin-shockers sound much worse than feared.

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, 2012December 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."

Copyright and disclaimers

Reward and Consent , © is January 15, 2007 to the current date. All rights reserved (and stuff like that). E-mail me for permission to reproduce in part or in full. Please link to and cite passages quoted or paraphrased from here.

Reward and Con
sent is not responsible for links on the site. For example, I use keywords "Operant Conditioning" in the YouTube search field for the videos displayed below the archives on the left. Google selects the videos and the results change from time to time. Please email me if anything is not educational and germane to the subject and I will reevaluate the search.

I am an advocate for people with disabilities certified to teach special education with a Master of Arts in Teaching. I am not a Licensed Psychologist or a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. When in doubt, seek the advice of an MD, a PhD, or a BCBA. My ability to analyze the ethics of ABA stems from the fact that I am disabled and ABA interventions are often done to people like me, which I voluntarily accept, but only when I alone am the person granting consent, and not a parent, sibling, guardian, or institution.