Saturday, January 21, 2017

Houston, we have a problem. Dick Malott, Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) "aversive therapy" guru, said he'd painfully skin shock autistics for body rocking.

*****

Please "like" our ABA Leaks Facebook page where the truth about ABA will shut them down as we teach parents of our young autistic peers about autistic-led and autistic-approved alternatives to Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) doggie-treat-bribes and facial-water-spray obedience trainings.

*****

Here Dick Malott says to his students: "Boobs are eyeball magnets for men's eyeballs, all men." This not only offends women, it's also highly homophobic. Gay men are not attracted to women's breasts. ABA has a long history of homophobia (Altieri, 2017). Does he sound like Donald Trump?

 Boobs Blog Part I from Dick Malott on Vimeo.


*****

Houston, we have a problem. Dick Malott, Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) "aversive therapy" guru, said he'd painfully skin shock autistics for body rocking.

What harm body rocking? This autistic self-stimulation physically hurts nobody. According to ABA skin shock promoter and textbook author Dick Malott, body rock is so bad it needs extreme punishment, what the United Nations calls "torture." (Méndez, 2013, p. 85) Malott is a member of the Board of Directors of the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) of ABA electroshock pain.

ABA is a so-called "science" that adds and removes appetitive and aversive stimuli and events in order to control behaviors, typically autistic behaviors that cause nobody any real physical harm. For example, they will spray water in the face to try to eliminate hand-flapping and other so-called "stereotypical autistic behaviors," which we need to do in order to soothe ourselves under the stress and trauma that ABA provokes in us with its completely-coercive control. See, for example, Wynne (2008).

Experimental and Applied Behavioral Analysis combined is not THE science of behavior as it often demands we say it is. ABA is merely a cruel, pseudo-scientific set of behavioral control models. There are non-ABA behavioral methods that are truly scientific and highly ethical alternatives to ABA. See, for example, my Reward and (dual parent AND child) Consent Cognitive Behavioral (R+C) teaching method in Altieri (March 31, 2016).

An editor of the Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis (JABA) admitted to me in email that ABA has never systematically figured out how to properly judge the behaviors it slates for "acceleration or deceleration to extinction" as good or bad or right or wrong behaviors. Yet is was autistic brilliance that created identity-first language arguing that people already know we're people, so we're not persons with autism. "We're autistics and we're damned proud of being different, so go away and leave us alone, ABA!"

ABA calls us autistic deviants, and yet they appear to have very severe control issues themselves. So who are the deviants here? I ask you.

Parents, unfortunately, typically neither observe nor videotape these trauma-provoking sessions, especially noteworthy on Day One of the power struggles between children and so-called "therapists" when training is most obviously nothing more than submission and control sessions. Children grow up resenting their parents for hiring ABA.

ABA calls its current "skin shock" device the GED, the Graduated Electronic (behavior rate) Decelerator. GED IS NOT ECT. The ECT "brain shock" of psychiatry is not supposed to hurt, but ABA says the GED would not be "effective" if it were not so terribly painful. Matthew Israel himself, JRC founder "Dr. Hurt," has called its shocks "very painful."

Malott and Altieri communicate on the telephone Christmas Eve 2016.


I, David Altier(i), the author of this Reward and Consent blog, called Dick Malott on the telephone December 24, 2016. I told him that the FDA sent our ABA Leaks team member Pam Zich (2016) a document where JRC Director Glenda Crookes (2012, p. 2, par. 3) admitted to the FDA that her multi-million dollar company puts skin shock electrodes on her victims' upper buttocks. Crookes earned $359,311 in total compensation in 2014 (IRS Form 990, p. 7). See also Altier(i) (August 10, 2016). For more on ABA Leaks, see Altier(i) (April 13, 2016).

[Edit note: I added the bulk of this paragraph in the February 22, 2017 update of this blog post, DA.] Anyhow, Dr. Malott is one rare behavioral analyst who has the decency to take my phone calls, so he's not a bad man. The groupthink of this pseudoscience cult causes him to behave immorally along with the rest of his gang of thugs. I believe they are delusional and they really believe they are helping us, even though they clearly do not listen to the actually autistic NeuroDiversity Movement which is up in arms against ABA all throughout our blogosphere with bona fide anecdotal evidence, hard "data" that the sadistic insurance fraudsters, the profiteering pseudoscience cult completely dismisses, emancipated from ABA and parents actually autistic self-reports of ABA-induced trauma, which ABA 'dissemination" teams repeatedly deny is actually taking place, and that's precisely why ABA is nothing less than a gargantuan international criminal fraud network. (See also my Tweets @RewardConsent, our Twitter hashtag #ABALeaks, and the left-hand side archives of this blog where I also support and elaborate on the arguments in this paragraph. See also Fragt Warum in Twitter who led the successful ABA unfunding campaign in Germany under the Twitter hashtag they created, #NoABA, and see the ABA Controversy Autism Discussion UK Facebook page which only began in 2017 and has already won a major ABA unfunding victory, much to the chagrin of our opponents. Other Twitter tags with undeniable data about ABA-induced trauma are #CloseTheJRC, #ABAisAbuse, and #actuallyAutistic.)

So I asked Dick why Crookes shocks the asses. He didn't know we had discovered her admission about that. He said they do move them around.

JRC is on record more than once denying that skin shock causes burns. For example, Jacob Persico and Jay Rosenthal met Mrs. Crookes last year in a meeting Malott and I arranged. Persico showed her a photo of her "client" Andre McCollins' marked up arm, a photo his mother Cheryl McCollins has publicly shared. Crookes denied the marks came from her electrodes. Persico told me that Crooked told him and Rosenthal that her staff caused those marks with her ABA restraint devices and not by her GED devices. She is not in the slightest bit credible to me and this is one reason why.

Andre McCollins'
damaged arm. This is a result of what ABA so-called "ethics experts" call "The Right to Effective Treatment." 

I speculated with Malott that the skin is probably so marked up all over the rest of body that they need to invade private areas. He did not comment. What else could explain why they go onto the ass with extremely painful ABA skin shock electrical surges?

I asked him if he has felt shock. He said he has. I asked him if he voluntarily felt the most powerful device, the GED-4. He said he didn't know if it was the GED-4 or some other shocker, which is hard to believe.

I asked him why he promotes shock. He said, "If they're gouging out their eyes—"

I replied, "Well I agree intervention is needed then," (I didn't take the time to tell Malott that ABA gets it all wrong when it comes to solving a crisis. I would use the crisis management strategy, in the maximally non-punitive and non-reinforcing deescalated Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS) manner Lavigna and Donnellan (1986 Chap. 1, Footnote 1) described. I would never advocates ABA's punitive rat-training ways of shock "torture," that all non-PBS ABA has invented and always thoroughly supported in its complete pseudo-profession network-wide.)


That's ABA's typical and most unethical ABA marketing ploy. It profits immensely when it constantly puts the parents of us autistic people in a panic and paints itself as a life saver, allegedly the only "effective" solution to a potentially horrific self-injurious tragedy and even death. In the meanwhile seven deaths have allegedly taken place at ABA's JRC which Malott leads, including an unborn baby allegedly dead while under ABA/JRC Malott's so-called "care and effective treatment."

Malott and company rarely promote the fact that they administer skin shock because of noncompliance and classroom disruption, but they're quick to "offer" parents and unsuspecting "clients" what they their homepage lists: "1) near zero rejection policy, 2) ABA based treatment plans, 3) elimination or minimilazation of psychotropic medication, 4) state of the art educational software, and 4) powerful and varied reward program" with no mention of ABA Malott's and Crookes multi-million dollar extremely painful skin shock "torture" operation. 

However, when push comes to shove on the witness stand during the FDA's Neurological Devices Panel skin shock ban proposal meeting, JRC spokesman Blenkush Transcript (pp. 144-45) admits to shocking out of seat behavior. See also actually autistic advocate Michelle Dawson's (2009) blog post where she first exposed to the World Wide Web that JRC founder Matthew Israel presented a symposium to his ABA peers at Maria Malott's big fat network she calls the Ass. for Behavioral Analysis International (ABAI) which Rotenberg's Israel entitled: "The use of contingent skin shock in treating behaviors other than aggression and self-abuse." Eventually the Attorney General of Massachusetts indicted Israel on charges of concealing evidence during an investigation into JRC, he copped a plea, and resigned in disgrace only to be replace by Crookes who told me on the phone she's spent almost her entire career at JRC. When I asked her if her job was stressful, she did not deny it. In my opinion, for her own health, she should retire immediately. She could suffer a quick and sudden heart attack at her age under a lifetime of extreme stress.

[Editorial comment. A friendly, but tough note to ABA: I'm not a doctor, though, so Glenda, when you read this, and you told me you monitor my internet activity, if I were you, I would see a cardiologist. I don't hate you. I love everyone and everyone eventually loves me, in my way of life. And get some decent non-ABA therapy for God's sakes! You too, Malott! So you can understand how evil it seems you've been and save us and yourselves! Got it? Get real! Get a job! Get a life! You, too, Pritchard, Florida State University huge ABA program assistant professor, ABA/JRC skin shock advocate and U.N. stated skin shock "torture" board member! Leave us alone! DA]

Before re-joining the ABA cult, ex-ABA dissident Dusty Jones told me that Maria is Dick's divorcée. Now that is no surprise.

[Update February 22, 2017. Now there are no known ABA dissidents inside ABA. They made him conform like they do the entire cult, one can easily argue. Dusty Jones temporarily quit ABA, told me on the phone they kick out the good ones, and then returned to ABA. I knew another ABA dissident, but I lost contact with her, but she was under their thumb then. They forced her to comply with BACB professional sanctions, taking extra coursework, I believe she told me, after they punished her for adopting an autistic person, so she told me, as I recall now about five years after Facebooking with her when she told me this. She said she would sue eventually BACB, but that's all I remember now. Anyhow, Jones once privately defended me to about eight of the administrators of the Applied Behavior Analysis Facebook group who had ostracized me without ever telling me what I said that was such a big sin. Maria Malott's Ass. for Behavioral Analysis International Facebook group did exactly the same thing soon after I exposed the fact that ABAI officially "approves" skin shock after they had told me in private message that they had no position on the shock. This is a snapshot of my exposure of ABAI's own official "approval of skin shock" that led ABAI's Facebook profile to claim I was dishonest about them. And then when I asked Maria Malott and company to tell me what I actually said that was so offensive to her group, she fell forever silent with me.]

[Here's the snapshot of my post to Maria Malott's ABAI Facebook where I exposed ABAI to its own members for officially approving skin shock, what the United Nations calls "torture." The person who took up the challenge defended skin shock in a round about way by not ruling it out as one of their options. I argued that there is no good time to do it and I supported the argument with LaVigna's PBS sworn testimony in opposition opposition to JRC's skin shock. After more than 25 years of study, the consensus of opinion of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) practitioners, theoretically, but not in practice, the gentle sister profession to ABA, as reported under pain and penalty of perjury by Gary LaVigna (Affidavit, 2013, p. 3, #4), is that (coercive) punishment technique is unnecessary and therefore unethical. All she did was try to defend skin shock by not ruling it out and I easily beat them in Behavioral Ethics debate which I always do. I think she gave up because she realized I knew more about PBS than she did, since PBS is different in may ways from ABA. It's atypical of an ABA pseudo-professional if s/he can demonstrate a knowledge of the complete array of all the alternatives to punishment. Those are the same ones who claim PBS in ineffective, those who learned it, let alone tried it. For example, ABA does not teach how behavior is communication, but actually autistic advocates make this clear and so does PBS. So ABA does not try to understand what a non-verbal autistic person is communicating when it diagnoses what it calls is a so-called "challenging behavior." ABA is the self-proclaimed prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of behaviors that appear autistic and uses the popular norm of the day standard when it slates them for deceleration and elimination techniques. Note: my one opponent gave up the debate after I gave her just a few of facts and arguments why JRC is extremely unethical. I remained professional and on topic to the group. I did not spam. I was tough and gentle at the same time as readers of this image can see, I suspect. In a day or two she blocked me out of the group. Oddly, when using a friend's Facebook profile, I cannot find this group. Did she shut it down? Why?]

[Update February 22, 2017 continued: Jones sent me a snapshot of his then-friendly appeal to the eight group admins. It's sitting in a bulk folder on my MacBook waiting to be filed, probably. As I recall now, nobody objected when he asked them to let me back in, but they never did. Jones left ABA several months ago 2016, he told me on the phone. He was thinking about becoming a carpenter. He told me on the phone last Christmas Eve 2016 he was returning to ABA in New England, I believe, from Texas, on a long drive. I told him in Facebook messenger how he hurt my feelings because he tells me he "has no interest in publicly thanking" me for reviewing his paper on "rethinking" ABA. He demanded I keep "negative posts," critique of ABA, off his Facebook timeline. I blocked him in Facebook and I blocked his phone number in my free telephone service, Google Voice over internet. ABA has plugged a potentially big leak. I asked him if he would whistleblow Xmas Eve. He said he wouldn't.]

[Here is our Facebook Messenger dialogue verbatim February 21 or 22, 2017:]

[Dave: "Dusty. You didn't acknowledge my review of your work when you published your Rethinking Autism paper. You had me review it before you published it. Why did you never thank me publicly? That hurt my feelings you know. And I do not appreciate extinction attempts. Please answer."]

[Dusty: "Dave, how is your way of doing things so much different thann thowe you condemn? They use electric shock. You use words. You both are seeking to punish something you do not like out of existence. I don't want anymore negative messages on my Facebook page. Please respect my request."]

[Dave: "I asked you first. Answer me. I'll answer you next.Why did you never thank me publicly?]

[Dusty: About publishing your review? I have no interest in thanking you publicly. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.]

[Chat Conversation End]

[(If he was truly sorry, he was have thanked me as I had asked. I blocked him on the spot. Plus, I didn't tell him I published a review of his paper. I never did and never will. He had asked me to review his paper, critique it, give him feedback before he published it. That's precisely what I did for him over the phone when we had been amicable. That's what I was asking him to do. He never acknowledged my contribution to his work. A betrayal happens when you put your trust in someone and then they turn sour on you. That's how he made me feel: betrayed by the one guy inside ABA I thought I could trust.)]


Dick Malott center. Maria Malott right. Old picture.

Anyhow, back to Dick. So I asked Malott: "What about autistic body rocking?" 


He said he would shock body rocking. I asked him why. He said, and I paraphrase, "To help them function better in society later on in life."

I replied, "Did you ever think about teaching our age peers to accept our differences rather than shocking us?" He had no answer. Then I said, "What about consent? What about dissent? Couldn't you even ask these adults and children if they want to receive your shock abuse?"

Then I hung up on him without saying good bye.

*****

Old Dick Malott, BCBA used to carry the title Board Certified Behavioral Analyst (BCBA), but he's currently listed here as just Dick Malott without it. (Retrieved January 21, 2017). I'll ask him why he's listed without his old title the next time we chat, if he'll ever take my call again. Lol.

*****


ABA "food-deprives" this rat in an Experimental Behavioral Analysis (EBA) Skinner Box. Otherwise, when "satiated" it will not press the lever for the morsels of food it continually doles out, as in Discrete Trial Training (DTT) for autistics. It also awaits its extremely painful electric skin shock. This is why ABA wants children underfed when they "treat" them and this is how ABA "learned" how to shock gays in the 1960s and 1970s and still us autistics



*****

Afterthought. Denouement.

ABA gives its opponents the label "counter-controllers." Then it says we're bad people because we oppose them. Nope! That's the pot calling the kettle black. ABA is bad. Not us, as so we assert and document.



No comments :

Post a Comment

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.