Stephanie Dallam

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Stephanie Dallam

Stephanie Dallam R.N., M.S.N. is a pediatric nurse and child-protection advocate who uses science to advance a victimological point of view, sometimes also accusing scientists of supporting and aiding Child Abuse. Lacking the mainstream credibility of David Finkelhor and the right-religious, media-friendly credentials of Judith Reisman, Dallam has thus far been limited to occasional scientific advocacy, most notably her attacks on Bruce Rind.

Dallam, who is the current secretary of a victimology-oriented advocacy group known as The Leadership Council, is said to have worked as "family nurse, practitioner [and] in pediatric intensive care for ten years at the University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics [and as a] nursing instructor at the University of Missouri—Columbia. She has written numerous articles on issues related to the welfare of children".[1]

Dallam's quotes in the media suggest that she sees herself as part of a pedophilia science war:

""What the pedophiles are looking for is some group of professionals to champion their cause," said Stephanie Dallam, a Leadership Council researcher. "Then they'll come up with a derogatory term to deride anyone who disagrees with them. Their claim will be to objective science, even though their science is sloppy and terrible.""[2]
""Is it open season on our children?" [...] "That is just one hill in the battle" pedophiles are waging, she says. "Once they have the 15- to 17-year-olds, then it will be OK with the 12- and 13-year olds.""[3]
"The purpose of the present article is to examine whether Rind et al. (1998) is best characterized as unpopular science or pedophile propaganda."[4]

Rind "debunking"

She is probably best known as the author of a 2002 paper[5] that attempted to "debunk" the work of Rind et al (also see Research) and expose it as propaganda. In response, Rind has pointed to numerous misrepresentations, distortions and errors in the Dallam paper. Whilst Dallam accuses her opponent of abusing scientific principles, her own critique is for the most part reducible to a guilt by association argument.