Talk:Hunter Avallone/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 22 September 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

White-wash edits by PrincetonNeuroscientist

• The polices of John Hopkins are not "essential".
• Information from Franks isn't controversial by any means. Nor is it libelous, nor slander, as you have averred previously.
• We don't have neutrality here. That's Wikipedia, brah. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Policies of JohnS Hopkins are essential as they greatly influence NIH policy considering NIH is extensively influenced by medical research and BioTech in the Baltimore area. I didn't refer to Franks' statements as controversial or slander - I referred to the article's calling of Avallone's view as "slanderous" towards Transgender people as being unjustified and libelous. This isn't about neutrality - this about your perpetuation of pseudoscience and your own political ideological authoritarianism on this issue through name-calling and ad hominem. You provide no Data and sources - I do. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hopkins policies are not essential, nor are the views of the NIH the only viewpoint. I don't see the relevance. Furthermore, the Hopkins report was [repackaged by McHughs to support his personal "socially conservative" viewpoints https://thinkprogress.org/about-that-not-born-this-way-study-b3e07d0354f5#.flr0ycf9g].

Also, no, that characterization isn't libelous. It does not meet the standards for libel.

So, tell me what specific pseudo-science is being attempted in this article? Explain thoroughly, please.--Castaigne2 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? The NIH is the central research arm of the United States Government. It is the largest biomedical research organization in the world. It's endowment and research capabilities are larger than that of the 4 major national medical research agencies behind it combined. You don't see the relevance of the most powerful global scientific organization in justifying Avallone's right to an opinion? I repeat and demonstrate again - you are an enemy to rationality and fact. I hope you are being facetious with the thinkprogress.org article. It is written by an LGBT activist from an organization that supports the political stance you are putting forth. The NRA produces tons of articles and press releases about how guns don't kill people, people kill people (despite the mountain of data against them) -- that doesn't make the NRA a credible source nor their argument justified. Yes, written defamation is a form of libel. You are using pseudoscience to justify your positions. In this case a very partisan form of political science to make conclusions on medical issues. Avallone points to Johns Hopkins for medical expertise - not political opinion. Your citing of thinkprogress.org is an example of conflict within your argument. You may not have a great deal of knowledge about the greater American scientific and medical institution and its global influence. Here are a view articles concerning some of the issues brought up in this discussion: 1) Rankings including JHU: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/data 2) NIH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health 3) Position of the United States in Science and Technology: http://worldknowing.com/top-10-most-advanced-technology-countries-in-the-world/ --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't see the relevance of the most powerful global scientific organization in justifying Avallone's right to an opinion?- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Everyone has a right to an opinion. Opinions, however, are like assholes - everyone has one. It also doesn't mean the opinion is right, is not abhorrent, and isn't anti-trans or anti-LGBT.

Further, this is the opinion of one man versus, well, pretty much everyone else in the field.

I hope you are being facetious with the thinkprogress.org article. It is written by an LGBT activist from an organization that supports the political stance you are putting forth.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

I am not being facetious with the article. It lays out very well how McHugh massaged the report. If you don't like what the article says, I'm interesting in hearing what parts of it are factually wrong. Please lay it out. I'm open to hear it.

Yes, written defamation is a form of libel.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

If it meets the definition of defamation as given by law. Would you care to state how it is written defamation, and since you consider it to be libel, how it financially affects Mr. Avallone?

You are using pseudoscience to justify your positions.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

You have still failed to explain WHAT pseudoscience. What am I actually stating that is pseudoscience?

Please note that I ignore all argument from authority. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You're flailing around in your own ignorance in an attempt to deny what is "obvious" reality (as RationalWiki's mission statement suggests). Having now watched Avallone's argument it is for the most part based upon the scientific evidence he personally researched - you're thus assuming his ideological and political positions based on the medical evidence he reproduced. Absolutely, he takes part in satire and caricature for comedic effect, but his argument cites evidence he has researched (though to be honest he evidently doesn't have an intellectual understanding of what the academic research actually means). I'm sorry that you "ignore all argument from authority" :'D. The NIH has a database of research and medical knowledge that makes it - relative to the misinformed (you) - an absolute authority and absolutely more credible. In regards to the "report" - there was no report from McHugh - he was merely making a statement to the news media ... As I have stated below: It is the position of Johns Hopkins as an entire medical institution that Gender dysphoria is a disorder of biobehavior hence why they banned all sexual reassignment surgery. I made very clear where your pseudoscientific positions were coming from - you support an extremely partisan form of political science and social science and think it has the authority to establish truth regarding a medical issue (gender dysphoria). You claim you reject argument from authority and yet you bolster your political beliefs as authority over objective fact - neurobiology, biochemistry, medical sciences. And then there's just the basic issue of you being a sock puppet :P --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oy, are you sure you don't want to remove what you just responded?- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Nope.

As I have stated below: It is the position of Johns Hopkins as an entire medical institution that Gender dysphoria is a disorder of biobehavior hence why they banned all sexual reassignment surgery.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Questions for you:

1. Why hasn't every other hospital in the USA - and in Western society for that matter - adopted the position of Johns Hopkins?
2. Is it not true that this policy of banning all sexual reassignment surgery was done on the sole authority of Paul McHugh in 1979 when he shut down the gender identity clinic because of his Catholic beliefs and his position that homosexuality is an “erroneous desire" to be subject to reparative therapy?

I made very clear where your pseudoscientific positions were coming from - you support an extremely partisan form of political science and social science and think it has the authority to establish truth regarding a medical issue (gender dysphoria).- PrincetonNeuroscientist

As far as I'm aware, gender dysphoria and resulting support of transsexuality and sex reassignment surgery is the current prevailing opinion of the scientific consensus of both the medical and psychiatric establishment outside of Johns Hopkins. Is this incorrect? Is the medical and psychiatric establishment outside of Johns Hopkins also practicing pseudoscience? --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual reassignment surgery is carried out predominantly by private practice cosmetic surgeons and is absolutely not the position of medical institutions in the United States or Europe certainly not major university hospitals such Mass General or Columbia Presbyterian. Hormone replacement therapy is similarly practiced at gender-reassignment clinics or clinics for various hormone or lipid related deficiencies. Sex reassignment isn't the issue at hand. Every individual has the right to cosmetic surgery. Individuals diagnosed with Body Integrity Identity Disorder (transability) have a legal right to have their arms amputated or eyes lesioned (forced blindness) because they identify as disabled. Every citizen should have the right to do these things. That's not what we're discussing, however ... --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual reassignment surgery is carried out predominantly by private practice cosmetic surgeons and is absolutely not the position of medical institutions in the United States or Europe certainly not major university hospitals such Mass General or Columbia Presbyterian.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Boston Medical Hospital, Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital (IL), Advocate Lutheran General Hospital (IL), Baptist Medical Center (OK), Yale University School of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, California Pacific Medical Center, St. Mary's Hospital (CA), Mount Sinai Hospital (NYC)...yes, I guess none of these would be considered high-brow enough for you.

That's not what we're discussing, however.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

As I stated above, none of these hospitals and their endogenous medical practitioners hold the position that gender-reassignment surgery is the treatment for gender dysphoria. The majority of the institutions you mentioned above are private and therefore are not required to provide insured treatment/take up any particular patient's case. Gender reassignment surgery isn't the consensus of any of these institutions ... you seem to be making the fairly simplistic point that the procedures are allowed to take place within the facility. The medical boards of these institutions allow private practice-cosmetic surgeons who have a variety of appointments at several hospitals to conduct sexual reassignment surgeries (phalloplasty, mastectomy, etc). This is done predominantly to lower the risk associated with in-office procedures done in unlicensed surgical facilities at a cosmetic surgeon's office (and for the obvious economic advantage for the hospital). Lastly, the large majority of sexual reassignment procedures go uninsured as do most cosmetic procedures. Obviously, gender reassignment surgery is legal ... not sure what you're trying to argue here?

As to your misguided attempt to mock my trying to get the discussion back on track ... Why? Is this how you soothe your dissonance or attempt to bridge the gap between my qualified opinion and your ignorance regarding these issues? No one here is debating whether gender reassignment surgery is legal ... It is very much legal hence why people can become transgender. The issue we are discussing pertains to whether Hunter Avallone's statements are justified by evidence and yes - the ones that pertain to the validity of transgender identity, feelings of "being in a different body" or feeling as if one is "supposed to have male genitalia, a deep voice, facial hair, are indeed correct to the extent that he can understand the evidence. It is most likely obvious to you at this point that biological sex change is indeed unattainable - even theoretically. An individual who undergoes gender reassignment surgery, let's say phalloplasty for the sake of this argument, will continue to produce the proteins and lipid membrane structures necessary for vaginal tissue hence why the artificial penile structure will never be functional (additionally because the operon specific proteins required for penile function are non-existent in a female). Another example: a female who undergoes a mastectomy to look more like a man will continue to translate RNA into proteins necessary for the development of seminal tissue used in breast feeding. One can create the appearance of a man (gender) but transsexuality can never be achieved. The binary in biological sex has been explicated quite clearly through a computational paradigm: attempts at recombinating male alpha helical structures to resemble those of females -- results in cell apoptosis (or death) due to the limiting states of gene saturation -- even in the 8 cell and blastocyst stage.PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

True enough.

So why are you stumping for Hunter Avallone? Personal connection? You don't seem to be interested in anything else here at RationalWiki. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not raising contention to these issues in order to individually justify the views of Avallone. My edits kept all of the criticisms of his views in tact lol. Many of his other views regarding the political climate and homosexuality are not justified. Homosexuality, unlike gender dysphoria, is a conserved condition, which defines the DNA of an entire organism. From what I understand, Avallone has controversial views on homosexuality. There is nothing controversial about homosexuality - it is biologically justified.

All I have done on this article is remove name-calling and baseless generalizations: "blatantly bigoted", "transphobic", "religious bigot", etc. of both Avallone and other individuals because it was obvious that simple minded users such as your self were attempting to avoid the realities of what the scientific evidence and these individuals were actually saying by masking these discomforting facts with false assumptions that achieve an abstract of your social views. For chrissake, you contended that "Johns Hopkins" was a "controversial" university - It's an equivalent to some the greatest schools in the world. Moreover, I included the fact that the alt-right was partially if not equally inspired by its opposition to Hillary and the Democratic Party and you freaked out. If you're attempting to portray me as some conservative activist - you're out of luck. I'm a registered Democrat, held fundraising events for Hillary Clinton and have already voted for her in early voting. This is not a political bone of contention - it's a scientific one because the facts are readily against you. No amount of pseudoscience (yes if you still don't understand I can't help you - I've been specific about this above) and dogma can disqualify what I'm saying because there's a canon of medical science, biochemistry and neurobiology on my side.PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not that you're wrong, but isn't it a bit early to accuse them of being a single-issue poster? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering they started editing this page as a BoN on 10-26? And that's all he's been on about for 2 days? Yeah. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

White-washing by Castaigne2

Castaigne is offering an article founded on name-calling and irrationality. He refuses to inject any rationality into the article and instead bases his opinions on pseudoscientific and authoritarian arguments originating from political ideology. I have provided sources which demonstrate that Johns Hopkins is justified and qualified to provide data that opposes liberal political views of transgenderism. Further Castaigne has argued on my talk page that "expert opinion" is not necessitated. Castaigne is an enemy of rationality and may not be suited to be commenting on these issues. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, we've got a start on a discussion. This is good. Let's go point by point on the diff

1. Adding {{sources needed}} to the article
   • So... 5 sources for a 4 paragraph article isn't bad. The sources back up the specific claims of the article pretty well. Especially those you call potentially libelous. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Changing "bigotry" to "views" regarding trans people.
   • Bigotry is pretty well supported by the reference attached to that statement. Especially the line "Yes Avellone, you are a bigot". Telling the reader what the source says isn't libelous. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
3. Adding a ref and changing what we say about John Hopkins
   • I don't have a strong opinion about this change. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
4. Dropping "the entire" for Paul McHugh's anti-trans beliefs.
   • Uh... has he ever cited anything else(that's got scientific backing)? I've seen sources making that claim other than here. It certainly could do with more evidence the way you're claiming you provide "data and sources". If that's wrong, we'll change it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
5. Removing the part where calling a minority group "sexual predators" is slanderous
   • Come the fuck on dude. It is. You know it is. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
6. Switching the alt-right explanation to being about hillary not trump
   • Another "Come the fuck on, dude" moment. You know as well as I do that a crazy fringe movement can't be attributed to the other side running a middle of the road moderate candidate. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't argued half of these points, but I can see you take enjoyment out of construing other people's points in order to alleviate your cognitive dissonance regarding actual medical data. Johns Hopkins as an entire university has stopped performing sex-reassignment surgery - Johns Hopkins as an institution supports this position. Your facile point about Avallone's statement being slanderous is incorrect because he didn't call transgender people sexual predators - he said the allowance of transgender individuals into the bathroom of the opposite sex could justify sexual predators entering. Furthermore, it isn't slanderous in it's own right. I'm sorry you're so misinformed in basic law??? I attributed the rise of the alt-right to both the rise of Donald Trump and the positions of the Democratic Party. If you don't believe that to be the truth you're are either 1) not from America and haven't been following the presidential election or 2) just really really oblivious to reality. PrincetonNeuroscientist ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your statement that "Johns Hopkins as an institution supports this position," is not supported by the evidence "Johns Hopkins has stopped performing sex-reassignment surgery." Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you argued these as points. I was saying those were descriptions of the actual physical changes you made to the page itself. If there's inaccuracies to what you've said, it's, at most, tonal. And for someone who was so gravely concerned about ad hominem attacks, you were awfully quick to assert the quality of my positions derive from my ill-informedness or dissonant mindset, and dismiss them in-kind. I'm not saying this because I'm offended by the accusation, but because I'm trying to alert you to the fact that we're just people having a discussion and you perhaps aren't taking the high road you think you are. And if it turns to a battle rather than an attempt to see where we can find common cause for making changes, I have this sneaky suspicion that the status quo will win. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't making comments about your ad hominem attacks ... I was accusing the "other" user Castaigne2 of ad hominem attacks. You know it's fascinating: you're all from the same time zone. "Hipocrite" as well ... Pretty obvious you're engaging in Sock Puppetry. Yes, you are ill-informed about the issues and as a member of the RationalWiki community you claim to be standing up for the "obvious" facts of reality. Well you've decided to reject the obvious facts of the medical science (actual reality) and are therefore the antithesis of what this site stands for. And in response to your claim about my intellectual and medical superiority - it's sort of true. I dictate medical policy at my institution and determine regulations for how to handle sensitive medical research. You don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to disorders of biobehavior. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I dictate medical policy at my institution and determine regulations for how to handle sensitive medical research. You don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to disorders of biobehavior.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Oh yay, more argument from authority.

Be obedient to PrincetonNeuroscientist! He has spoken and all must obey!

Oh wait, we don't work for him so we don't have to follow whatever bullshit he decides to throw up. Whoops. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean you sort of do. My institution along with partnered universities such as Harvard Medical School, Cambridge University, Perelman School of Medicine, etc. all determine the status quo of medical treatment in their respective states and countries. I have to brief governmental bodies on how to shape, organize and mobilize medical policy. So yes - you do. And really - this isn't bullshit - this is actually common knowledge, but you've decided to remain vastly uneducated. So yes, I will continue to dictate, defend, and influence. It may upset you, but that's solely because it doesn't fit with your comfortable fantasy of how the world should be. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean you sort of do.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

No, I really don't.

My institution along with partnered universities such as Harvard Medical School, Cambridge University, Perelman School of Medicine, etc. all determine the status quo of medical treatment in their respective states and countries. I have to brief governmental bodies on how to shape, organize and mobilize medical policy.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

So, to be clear, you have been briefing governmental bodies that:

• gender dysphoria and transsexualism is a disorder of biobehavior,
• that sexual reassignment surgery has been banned,
• and that homosexuality is an erroneous desire to be subject to reparative therapy

in accordance with Johns Hopkins policy and statements on the matter.

So noted.

I should also note that you've done a pretty shitty job of advising since Johns Hopkins seems to be an island in having these policies.

It may upset you- PrincetonNeuroscientist

You do not upset me. You amuse me. Vastly different. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are very upset. It's quite obvious. Regardless, it should upset you that you're flaunting your ignorance. Johns Hopkins doesn't practice or support reparative therapy for Homosexuals or suggest that Homosexuality is an erroneous desire. Johns Hopkins and Princeton (or Harvard, Cambridge or UPenn) do not share policy proposals to the NIH. Governmental bodies have implemented 23 of the last 24 medical device, homologous recombinant therapy, DMS policies and general policy guidelines we have put forth. You can find all that information on the Broad Institute website. I've been doing an excellent job for your information and just signed a contract extension through the year 2026. Thank you for your concern. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

NOBODY FUCKING CARES how well you're doing. We don't even know if you're who you say you are. All we care about is this article -- which you've done a fabulous job not talking about. Fix that. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are very upset. It's quite obvious.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

I am? How so? I'd be amused to know how it's "obvious".

Johns Hopkins doesn't practice or support reparative therapy for Homosexuals or suggest that Homosexuality is an erroneous desire.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

I'm surprised that you didn't know that this has been the policy of Johns Hopkins since Dr. Paul McHugh became chair of their Department of Psychiatry. One would think that being so knowledgable, you would be aware of this basic policy. Perhaps you should consult with their Psychiatry department?

Governmental bodies have implemented 23 of...blahblahblah...through the year 2026.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Yes, yes, yes - now that you have fellated your ego, perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I asked that you failed to pay attention to? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

My ego is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's your inferiority complex that forces you to try and undermine my authority. Reparative therapy is not the position of Johns Hopkins Medical School. Those are the beliefs of Dr. McHugh who no longer practices at Johns Hopkins. He holds a position of Distinguished Service and has no major influence over department decisions. All you do in your responses is pick out the quotes you think you have room to flail at with your ignorance and get away with. I've provided extensive data-based answers to all your questions. You truly do have an issue with all forms of authority. Perhaps thats why you're so blind to the facts?

My ego is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's your inferiority complex that forces you to try and undermine my authority.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Except that you have no authority here, therefore there is nothing to undermine. And you keep boasting - yes, boasting - about your accomplishments as if we're supposed to be impressed and cowed by them, which is decidedly egotistical.

Reparative therapy is not the position of Johns Hopkins Medical School. Those are the beliefs of Dr. McHugh who no longer practices at Johns Hopkins. He holds a position of Distinguished Service and has no major influence over department decisions. - PrincetonNeuroscientist

Except that he formulated the policy in 1979 and Johns Hopkins has not swerved one iota from it since. They've essentially held the same position for slightly less than I've been alive. And really, he has no major influence? When it's his hand-picked acolytes who hold reign over the Department of Psychiatry? Really! You can't possibly be that naive or never encountered that sort of departmental politics in academia.

I've provided extensive data-based answers to all your questions. - PrincetonNeuroscientist

No, you've done a lot of bloviating.

But let's test your intelligence and acumen on "data-based answers". Please tell me why these 15 studies that contradict the Johns Hopkins studies are wrong.

You truly do have an issue with all forms of authority.- PrincetonNeuroscientist

Also incorrect, since I'm a conservative authoritarian. You're not doing so well at internet diagnoses. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you make attacks on my personal record and my institution's record, I will easily correct them for you. Honey, I will brag all day long about Princeton University. Why? Because it's Princeton University and we produce groundbreaking work. I would expect the same from all comparable institutions. McHugh shut down a gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins. He at no point instituted a university wide policy or practice of reparative therapy. Reparative therapy occurs at the fringe.

Now as for your pointing to evidence (finally). Many of the studies cited in the above Huffington Post article have been disqualified/discredited for either producing an invalid p-value or producing insufficient sampling resulting in ratings below 50% by peer review journals such as the pre-eminent New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that represents liberal policies on Public Health of which I support and have written - including the legal right of individuals to pursue cosmetic surgery of any kind). Eileen Luders, Francisco J. Sánchez, Christian Gaser, Eric Vilain, Arthur W. Toga and myself have all produced studies that show transgenderism is the result of reduced cortical thickness in the prefrontal cortex - a tissue-specific disorder that's the result of demethylated gene regions responsible for active transport, glial trophic support, microglia activity and the general process of neurogenesis. The central concept to understand here is - these tissue specific disorders are demonstrated in most if not all forms of abnormalities of identity - BIID, SID, RID, Bulimia, Anorexia Nervosa, and a continuing list of rarer disorders. In other words, to make a more abstract conclusion, gender dysphoria is not related to disorders of gender, but rather a disorder of self-reflection, identity, and self-awareness that can express itself in a spectrum of identity and somatoform abnormalities. The Psychiatric symptom and expression that an individual is "supposed to be another sex or gender" is demonstrated in all of the above disorders (i.e. "I was supposed to be born disabled, african-american, skinny). The studies you mentioned regarding testosterone have been disqualified due to the mere fact that testosterone has been attributed to sexuality, genital size, and whole variety of other behavioral/physiological effects that ended up being false generalizations. All of these studies have failed to produce successful follow up data - this is a cycle of hypotheses that has been occurring for years within academia. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad

I'm glad the John Hopkins part was changed, because that looked seriously embarassing. WetPaint is some internet company, John Hopkins University has 36 Nobel laureates, and its School of Medicine is a top institute. That's the wrong place to attack some bloke on the internet. ~ Aneris ✻ 19:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dammit, why did you have to say something sensible and reasonable. I wanted to view you as the perfect icon of irrational behavior. That's mean aneris. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop talking to yourself. I have the authority to commit people to psychiatric institutions, you know ;). --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by Castaigne2, ikanreed, Aneris, and Hypocrite

Please look further into this issue. It seriously undermines the credibility of this article. All three of these individuals post in collusion with each other and revert edits that don't even remotely change the information put forth by the original article. --PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

These others are sock puppets of me? Because we're all posting?

Dude, the only thing you can surmise is that myself, ikanreed, and Hipocrite are denizens of the same timezone.

Aneris makes no secrecy about the fact that he isn't American.

Myself, I'm down in Atlanta, GA. ikanreed and Hipocrite aren't. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

None of these are socks; they hate each other as often as they like each other. Please stop -- this is not a productive way to discourse. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's just another concern troll, FCP. Let him dig a hole, then indef-ban him. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)