Stephanie Dallam: Difference between revisions
m can't hate on Reisman enough |
cat |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
She is probably best known as the author of a 2002 [http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/5.html paper] that attempted to frame the work of [[Rind et al]] (also see [[Research]]) as advocacy propaganda. What - apart from the numerous misrepresentations - is most surprising about this paper, is that the author felt that she could base a large portion of her critique around what appeared to be a guilt-by-association argument, and then accuse the other of abusing protocols of science for the purpose of non-existent advocacy. | She is probably best known as the author of a 2002 [http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/5.html paper] that attempted to frame the work of [[Rind et al]] (also see [[Research]]) as advocacy propaganda. What - apart from the numerous misrepresentations - is most surprising about this paper, is that the author felt that she could base a large portion of her critique around what appeared to be a guilt-by-association argument, and then accuse the other of abusing protocols of science for the purpose of non-existent advocacy. | ||
[[Category:Anti-paedophile activists]] | |||
[[Category:Academics]] | |||
Revision as of 23:19, 21 May 2008
Stephanie Dallam R.N., M.S.N. (picture) is a child-protection zealot who attempts to foist herself off as a clinical author on child trauma. The end result of most of her writings can be said to represent a shade of pseudoscience falling somewhere in between that of David Finkelhor and Judith Reisman - a sex-fascist homophobe and pedophile-obsessed revisionist of Alfred Kinsey.
Dallam, who is allied to a pseudomedical, victimology-oriented advocacy group known as The Leadership Council, is also 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]
Rind "Debunking"
She is probably best known as the author of a 2002 paper that attempted to frame the work of Rind et al (also see Research) as advocacy propaganda. What - apart from the numerous misrepresentations - is most surprising about this paper, is that the author felt that she could base a large portion of her critique around what appeared to be a guilt-by-association argument, and then accuse the other of abusing protocols of science for the purpose of non-existent advocacy.