Wednesday, April 7, 2010

A Humorous Threat from a Fiendish Marsupial

I normally am someone who doesn't like to post email correspondence. Usually, if someone takes the time to email me, it is of a personal matter or private matter, which the individual doesn't want aired out all over the interwebz. However, when that email constitutes a legal threat, even one as laughable as this one, then it's fair game to post it on my blog. So, here it is, ladies and gentlemen; my first legal threat from someone who really has no idea what Libel is.

I have been removed as an LBRB contributor after Olmsted made a completely vacuous legal threat:“Remove accusations of hoax by aoa and apologize within 24 hours or I will pursue all available remedies.” I wish to sue Dan Olmsted for libel for said threat, on the following grounds:

1. The reference to a “hoax by AoA” is itself a false accusation. I stated my opinion that AoA was reporting a story based on a forged document. I did not allege that any member of the AoA organization was responsible for a forgery. In fact, I suggested that the document’s creator was “an English-speaking author from the UK rather than the US”, which to my knowledge was not true of any of AoA’s core members. When some misunderstood the article as a direct allegation against AoA, I promptly made revisions and comments to clarify my position.

2. My efforts included 2 comments posted at Olmsted’s own article. The first stated in part that “I do not suspect you or anyone within your organization”. The second, in response to a comment by Craig Willoughby, stated in full: “I proposed that the document was a forgery. I never speculated on the identity of the forger, beyond proposing that it was someone from the UK. To claim that I ever accused anyone within AoA of forgery is LIBEL against me.” By AoA’s stated policies, Olmsted is “moderator” of his own articles and had sole discretion to allow my comment to appear, or at least to make a statement of his own acknowledging its substance. These comments never appeared. This will serve to establish that, where Olmsted may be said to have begun with legitimate cause for complaint, he refused to acknowledge and when given the opportunity actively obstructed my efforts to resolve the issue in “good faith” and in a timely manner. (MySocratesNote: I never said it was David Brown, aka Evil Possum who made the allegation. Here is the actual comment in it's entirety, along with a link to the article:

"I think it is hysterical how some of the Oraccolytes are clinging to the idea that this is some elaborate hoax that AoA has concocted in order to discredit this poor man. I've even seen them go as far as accusing AoA of faking the original document.The pathetic! It Burns!!")

3. Olmsted made his original threat without presenting any argument against my conclusions, offering any evidence or argument for the document’s authenticity, or even stating that he sincerely believed it to be authentic. He thus offered no reasonable grounds for me or LBRB to issue a correction, let alone “remove” the article from public view. Furthermore, his failure to comment directly on the issue of authenticity raises the question whether even he had full confidence in the “source” for his story.

4. A key article, written by Katherine Burgemeister and reposted at AoA under Olmsted’s own byline, made so many allegations clearly contradicted by the disputed document and/or independent records (most notably that ““Thorsen vanished in March 2009”, where the document said only that he “resigned his faculty position at Aarhus University” at that time, and even though I and others easily located ample documentation of his activities after that time) that it could credibly be argued to be a “hoax” (by its broadest usages including unintentional deception and self-deception, as in “`War of the Worlds’ hoax”) even if the document itself is accepted at face value.

5. Olmsted’s failure to correct or qualify a single one of Burgemeister’s unsubstantiated or clearly erroneous claims proves that at best he had not studied the document in any detail, and therefore was unqualified to make any comment on its authenticity. The only alternative is that he chose to repost Burgemeister’s article uncritically, despite full knowledge that it contained many errors, and therefore is guilty (conceivably even more than Burgemeister) of knowingly promoting falsehood.
(MySoctatesNote: The previous statements are grounds for Libel? And, I do believe the story was corroberated by the CDC and several different news sources, wasn't it? Ah, but only David Brown has his story correct.)

6. Olmsted had personal motive to use a heavy-handed response to this article as a means to seek to limit the circulation of other works by me, including an LBRB post in which I showed that Olmsted exaggerated a vaccine inventor’s income from a patent by 500% based mainly on documents which were clearly dated before that patent existed. Since my removal as an LBRB contributor, this work and others making well-substantiated complaints and criticisms against AoA have no longer been visible there, giving Olmsted something he had reason to desire but was in no position to achieve by honest and direct argument. (MySocratesNote: Oh, the horror!! Everyone is out to get him! Dan is teh bad ebil person who is trying to prevent the troof from coming out!!)

7. Writing is my sole source of actual and potential income. Making free contributions to others’ sites is my sole means of promoting works from which I can receive income. By causing or contributing to my removal as a contributor to Left Brain/ Right Brain, Olmsted’s substantially false complaint has significantly damaged my potential to support myself, and thus satisfies the definition of “libel”. (MySocratesNote: And yet, he offers no real evidence of how Dan's complaint is false. He has failed to really offer any valid reason for libel. And if this is his sole means of income? Well, I'm sorry, but he needs to find a real job)

8. Olmsted and other AoA staff have on many previous occasions censored my comments, referenced my work inaccurately and without “credit”, and referred to me pejoratively. I consider some of these prior instances sufficient to justify legal action in and of themselves, if the resources had been available. This will serve to establish that this complaint is only my most serious against Olmsted and his organization. Furthermore, I offer this as evidence that I cannot disregard Olmsted and his allies as a threat to my future livelihood: If I do not take action now to establish as a matter of undisputed, public record that Olmsted’s complaint against me was spurious and that what he reported was in fact false on many levels, said complaint could be reused against me at a future time. (MySocratesNote: *Sniffle Sniffle* They're making fun of poor wittle David? Waaaaaaahhh!!!! Notice how he offers no evidence of said pejorative comments.)

At the present time, I have no fiscal resources to pursue such an action. I request donations and/or other assistance that others can offer this matter. I will freely forego such an action now or in the future if Age of Autism publishes a post making the following admissions:

i. Statements by Olmsted, Craig Willoughby and others to the effect that I had accused AoA of creating a forgery were in error. (MySocratesNote: Be specific now, David....where did I accuse you of making the claim that AoA made a forgery? Lawyers and judges like specifics)

ii. As of end March 2010, representatives of Aarhus University had neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the disputed document. (MySocratesNote: In the case of a criminal investigation, that is entirely in their right and best interests)

iii. The statement that Aarhus “appears only to have been made available today to the media” was unsubstantiated, as the full contents of the document were not carried by mainstream media prior to its distribution by the anti-vaccine movement. (MySocratesNote: Except from the Copenhagen Press....which is a media outlet)

iv. Statements that Thorsen “disappeared” on March 2009 or at any other time were in error, as the document stated only that he “resigned his faculty position at Aarhus University” at that time, and his regular appearances and communications (if not his exact, current place(s) of residence) can be documented from public information up to at least March 16, 2010. (MySocratesNote:  No, they said he resigned his position at Aarhus University in March of 2009 (link here))

v. The initial identification of Thorsen as a suspect, prior to a confirming statement on March 10 from the US CDC, was based on descriptions of an unidentified suspect in the Danish media. Those who identified Thorsen on these grounds, without qualifying that the suspect was unnamed in primary sources, acted inappropriately. (MySocratesNote: How so? The statement was true, was it not?)

vi. The statement that Aarhus “`expressly prohibited' Dr Poul Thorsen from working for a second university, Emory” was unsubstantiated, as the relevant passage in the document refers to “double Full-time employment “ as the subject of a dispute. It is reasonably clear that it is not being claimed that Thorsen was forbidden from being employed at all by Emory. It was also highly improbable, given that simultaneous employment at multiple institutions as “adjunct faculty” is a pervasive practice, and Aarhus openly records current employment of others such as Albert Gjedde, Martin Kussman and Henrik J. Andersen as “adjunct faculty”. (MySocratesNote: Evidence?)

vii. The statement that “(t)he double role of Thorsen came to light after the university detected a shortfall in funding” was unsubstantiated and probably in error, as the document makes no statement to this effect. (MySocratesNote: So, the document was their only source of information about this? Wow)

viii. The statement that “(t)he revelation that Thorsen had a second secret job will raise fears of a hidden bias in the studies and undermine the scientific case for thiomersal" was in error. His employment at Emory was not secret, as he was openly listed among Emory faculty, and the Aarhus document makes no statement to the effect that his employment there was ever wholly unknown to the university. It did not constitute a “conflict of interest” related to vaccination, because Emory University does not manufacture vaccines. It was irrelevant to his paper on thimerosal, because that paper was published 5 years before he became an emory employee. (MySocratesNote: The Danish publication Politiken reported [in translation]: “'He is no longer employed at Emory. He was part time occupied at the department of epidemiological research from 2003 and from April 2008 to June 2009 as full time research professor' informs assistant vice director at Emory University Sarah E. Goodwin." When was the Thimerosal study done again? 2003?)

ix. The statement that Thorsen “continued to pass himself off as the head of the international project” is unsubstantiated, as the document only states that he “has continued to act in such a manner as to create the impression that he still retains a connection to Aarhus University after the termination of his employment by the university”. The document’s allegation appears to be itself in error (at least for the document’s given date), as Thorsen’s biography as of January 22, 2010 indicates that his employment at Aarhus ended in 2008.

x. The statement that Thorsen “was an author along with Kreesten Madsen of a key study that used data from Danish children to show that there was no link between mercury” was in error. This study was published in 2003, and had five additional coauthors. (MySocratesNote: Is AN AUTHOR. Doesn't that make him a co-author? So, how is this in error again?)

xi. Statements that Thorsen “absconded with $2 million” are unsubstantiated and probably in error, as the relevant document mentions only “advances” of an unspecified amount on grants for that total amount, makes no allegation that Thorsen took or spent any amount of money for his personal use, and makes no reference to a discrepancy between the money given and recorded spending on research that would justify such an allegation. (MySocratesNote: This claim by David is unsubstatiated. The CDC has confirmed the missing $2 million)

xii. The statement that data in an email by Dianne Simpson showed “a clear, linear relationship between the increase in vaccination rates (from 50.9% to 75.7%) and the number of autism cases per year (from 176 to 1182, a 6.7x increase) between 1980-1994...” These data actually show an exponential rise in autism diagnoses, compared to fluctuations and some linear increase in vaccination rates. The data also show the trend in autism diagnoses continuing if not accelerating in ca. 1990, as low-thimerosal or thimerosal-free DTaP vaccines became increasingly available. (MySocratesNote: Heh.....heh heh...BWAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!! Oh my....oh my goodness...stomach hurts!)

Now, I understand that, allegedly, David has Asperger's Syndrome (likely self diagnosed). Some of you may think that my criticism of this letter is cruel because of this. No, I am treating this letter with all of the scorn and derision it deserves because this is nothing but the petty foot stomping of a spoiled child. If he thinks that some of the things said about him by Olmsted and Handley were cruel, then he needs to pony up and offer examples.


  1. It's duly noted that you deny accusing me of claiming Age of Autism committed a forgery. Now, I would prefer that you take this down. It has been my goal to convince AoA to retract their accusation against me without litigation being necessary, and having this complaint aired publicly does not serve my interests or theirs.

  2. There's no acknowledgement or denial of anything because I haven't accused you of a damned thing. Where or when, specifically, do you think I accused you of claiming that AoA committed the forgery, David? Because, if you are going to pursue this frivolous lawsuit, your lawyers are going to want specifics. Post links here to where I have said that David Brown, Evil Possum, LRBR, or anyone specific accused AoA of forging the letter from Aarhus. If you can do so, then I will offer you a formal apology.

    Now, the question of the day; are you going to remove MY name from this nonsense?

  3. You maintain, credibly, that it was not your intent to accuse me. That does not mean someone else would not attempt to use your words to imply such a thing, which is exactly what I suspect AoA intends by allowing your comment to appear but blocking mine.

  4. Oh, good grief!

    Yes, David...they're all out to get you. They want nothing more than to discredit you in any way possible.

    Paranoid much?

    Now, are you going to remove my name from this nonsense or not?

  5. they should change the name of their blog to Left brain right brain no brain

  6. I'm NOT currently a contributor to Left Brain/ Right Brain. If I was, I would not be taking this matter nearly as seriously.

  7. David, you still have not answered my question.

  8. You have resolved any cause for me to name you as a "defendant". But you have no cause to object if I cite your comment as an item of evidence. If you don't like this possibility, then tell Olmsted and Jake Crosby to acknowledge that I did NOT accuse a member of AoA of creating a forgery. If Olmsted had done that three weeks ago, the document here would not exist.

  9. Yes, I do have an objection because my comment had nothing to do with you. My comment was referring to someone over at Orac's hate-site (hence, the Oraccolyte reference). Perhaps you should include Dan Weber in your frivolous lawsuit; that's one of the people I was referring to that said that AoA created the forgery. There were also several people over at RI who said the same thing. The RFK article on HuffPo also had comments that suggested that your article was accusing AoA of forging the document. Why don't you include them in this ridiculous lawsuit while you're at it.

    But since you wish to continue with this idiocy, I don't think I will honor your request to have this article removed. You want to include me in this nonsense, despite the fact that I have nothing to do with it, so I have no reason to honor your request.

  10. The problem with the reference to "Orac" is that I replied to Weber by clarifying that I did not believe AoA responsible for a forgery, and also that I didn't consider it in scholarly "good form" to speculate on a forger's identity. AoA has prevented any similar clarification from appearing at their site, which I consider to be serious misconduct.

    Also, I think you have effectively acknowledged some of my points, particularly as to the improbability of Aarhus University giving the document directly to the press.

  11. David, it must be so difficult having that much paranoia, seeing conspiracies in everything, thinking everyone is out to get you. Do you honestly think that what you're doing is having even a remote impact? So, paranoia on top of an over-inflated sense of self importance. Please get some help.

  12. I responded to Olmsted's complaint/threat as nothing more or less than a malicious act by someone who might take similar actions in the future. Judging from Crosby's post, my only error was in supposing that Olmsted would be canny enough to withdraw or at least not repeat his accusation.

  13. The title of your article was "Another hoax spread through Age of Autism."

    First of all, just reading this title alone would be enough to give many readers the impression that you are accusing them of spreading a hoax. You may not have outright said, "they forged the document," but you DID say they are spreading a hoax. This was further reinforced in the very first line of your article where you accuse them of being dishonest. Dan's request for the removal of the article, if read correctly, is due to the fact that you claimed it was a hoax, not because of the forgery claim. And, as I pointed out before, there were several people on "your side of the fence" who believed what you wrote and propagated that the AoA article was a hoax and that they forged the document.

    Dan was correct to request the removal, and he would have every right to sue you for Libel. He offered you and LBRB a way out. I suggest you take it and drop this silliness.

  14. He "offered" nothing. Libel laws in American jurisdiction require seeking a private resolution before taking a matter to court. Also, he offered no evidence that the document was not a forgery, and in any event, the story he used as a source WAS a hoax. I can prove that the same author accused Madsen first, then hid this fact by rewriting the same article to implicate Thorsen.

  15. I believe his words were something on the line of "Remove reference of this being a hoax by AoA or I will pursue all available remedies." That is an offer to seek a private resolution (remove this story) before going to court (or I will pursue all available remedies).

    ANd I doubt your story is credible, especially considering how badly you flubbed your previous attempts, which has damaged your credibility. The author of your "proof" may have been originally mistaken, which if it is from the site I think it is, she put a note in to clarify this. The point is moot, however, since Thorsen IS being implicated and IS being investigated for these crimes.

  16. I find your argument akin to saying a lynching is OK if the victim is actually guilty. Reporting a story while key details are unverified, without acknowledging where there is uncertainty, is irresponsible regardless of what further developments reveal. Furthermore, if Thorsen actually did commit the forgery, the outcry generated by AoA is only going to hinder his arrest and prosecution.
    The only thing I have to add is that Olmsted has been too cowardly to say or do anything against me openly, himself. He made his false accusation against me on a blog post he was trying to have removed. It appears that when he decided to make an issue of it again, for no reason better than a malicious cheap shot against people he had already bullied into giving him what he wanted, he had Jake Crosby do it for him. He did this despite being fully informed of my intentions if he so much as failed to acknowledge my position. Suggested lesson: AoA is abusive and exploitative even to their own people.

  17. Yes, David. Dan Olmsted is teh eebil and is out to get the great David Brown and prevent him from his grand and heroic quest to get the troof out about Age of Autism. He's going out of his way to accuse you and discredit you, gathering his vast army of conspirators to chase you around the interwebz and speak out against you. Yes, Jake and I are at Dan's beck and call, 24-7, to attack you for no reason. Poor David Brown, so persecuted. Poor Evil Possum; so maligned.

    Doesn't matter that your story was wrong, but you reported on it anyway, thereby discrediting yourself. Hey...wasn't that what you accused AoA of?

    Your delusional paranoia is reaching new heights. Get some help.

  18. I have said nothing about "conspiracies". I don't believe in organized conspiracies being effective except for very limited ends.

    As for my "story", I openly reported what I did as part of an ongoing project, and I don't see AoA updating their initial story the way I have. I don't see that my original arguments regarding the document have been wholly disproven. Aarhus still isn't taking responsibility for writing it, whatever one chooses to make of that. More importantly, my model of its composition, as the work of multiple authors, could still be true if the document is authentic.

  19. Ok, so let's see...

    You don't believe in conspiracies, yet you accuse Dan of secretly using members of AoA to attack you because you are trying to bring out the troof (tm) about AoA. Then, you accuse AoA of posting a story about Thorsen that is incorrect (which turns out was quite correct), repeatedly going on, ad nauseum, about how terrible they are for doing so, yet your story about Thorsen was riddled with errors that have been pointed out to you repeatedly, even by people on your side of the fence, and which many people used to accuse AoA of creating a hoax about Thorsen. Oh, but only your story is the correct story, despite the fact that AoA's story has been corroberated from multiple sources.

    Yep...that about sums it up. Paranoia mixed with self delusion.

  20. "I find your argument akin to saying a lynching is OK if the victim is actually guilty"

    You mean like how you and the rest of the Oraccolytes accused Dr. Wakefield of being guilty before he was "proven" guilty?

    Ah, the irony...

  21. Here;s the score sheet:
    I was wrong about Thorsen not being a suspect, and I now have information sufficient to convince me that I was wrong about the document being a forgery. I have made a post acknowledging these facts.

    AoA was wrong when they said Thorsen was "missing" as of March 2009, wrong when they said he had worked at Emory secretly, wrong when they said Aarhus had prohibited him from working at Emory, and wrong when they said I accused THEM of forging a document. They also have no evidence to substantiate their claims that Thorsen was actually paid $2M, or that he "absconded" with that or any other amount in his personal possession. They refuse to acknowledge any of these facts.

    Also, there was only one instance where I saw my work explicitly "used to accuse AoA of creating a hoax about Thorsen". I was unable to post a correction there, but I was satisfied my actual position was clear from other comments in the same context. The commenter at Orac, while causing me enough concern to make clarification, did not go so far.

  22. David,

    You are wrong. We never alleged the time of Thorsen's disappearance was in March 2009, or anything beyond what was verifiable in official documentation. You're confusing his disappearance with his resignation from Aarhus.

    We also never said he was "paid" $2 million, but was in fact supplied with a grant of $2 million that is missing along with him. Apparently, he turned it into a payment. Plus, he was discovered by Aarhus to have held a position at Emory that Aarhus expressly prohibited him from holding.

    This is all verifiable in the document you now admit is real:

    "and wrong when they said I accused THEM of forging a document."

    That is also wrong, David. On another thread I saw you allege our GMC correspondent, Martin Walker, of forging the document.

    Take some responsibility for your words, man, and get something right for a change before you go impulsively accusing others of spreading hoaxes like your own Leftbrain/Rightbrain post.

  23. These were the exact words of Jane Burgemeister, Olmsted's source: “Thorsen vanished in March 2009. He is believed to be living and working in Atlanta.” These were repeated verbatim in one of the AoA posts. AoA also headlined the claim that Thorsen "abscond(ed) with $2M", which fairly explicitly means that he a) was paid that full amount and b) took all of it for his personal use. Finally, I have been saying all along that claims that Thorsen was “prohibited” from holding ANY job at Emory represent a misunderstanding of Aarhus’s complaint.

    As for Martin Walker, mentioning him was a mistake, but I did not intend it as an accusation. At the time, he seemed worth mentioning simply as an example of a British “anti-vaxxer” accused of fraud on unrelated grounds. I would not consider him an AoA “member”, and as far as I know the standing accusations and criticisms against him (including a rebuke from Andrew Wakefield) go back to well before his contributions to AoA. I gave far more serious consideration to another, more notorious UK conspiracy theorist, but I never saw fit to name this person publicly.

  24. David,

    You're attributing Burgemeister's quote to Olmstead? I don't get it.

    Plus, you're actually trying to defend your broad based generalization and stereotype as valid journalism?

    Conspiracy Theorist, Anti-vaxx? The only I see spouting conspiracy is you so far.

    Good grief.

  25. I am saying that Burgemeister was the source for Olmsted's initial post, and for subsequent AoA posts and crossposts. You said yourself that her words are clearly "confusing his disappearance with his resignation from Aarhus", but this is the source and original form of all reports of his "disappearance". By all indications, that whole aspect of the story is nothing more than an "urban legend".

  26. Attributing another person's quote, which we never cited specifically, much less repeated "verbatim" as you claim, to us? You truly have gone off the deep end. For that matter, she was not even our original source. In fact, her sources were exactly the same as ours: Aarhus University and The Copenhagen Post.

    You also don't understand the difference between a payment and a grant, the latter of which Thorsen received for specific research purposes. With both disappeared while Thorsen is under criminal investigation, it's a wrap that he absconded with the money.

    To allege that a regular contributor forged a document posted on AoA which we used as a primary source is to allege that AoA was involved in the forging. And for a person who did not intend to accuse Martin Walker of falsifying a document that is actually real, you sure worded it that way, without any prior reason other than your conspiracy-mindset, as Walker has never been accused of fraud. He wrote an article about the GMC chairman's conflict of interest in GSK stock holdings which was published on the CryShame website. The GMC went ape-shit, the chairman refused to disclose his earnings and the defense council quickly rebuked Walker to avoid pissing off the panel. It had nothing to do with the accuracy of the piece.

  27. Well, this has certainly been an interesting discussion. I appreciate all of you (yes, even you, David) for taking the time to comment here and discuss this.

    Sadly, though, I don't think that any of us will be able to persuade David to drop this nonsense. You see, he is a true believer, and nothing will change his mind that he is incorrect about Thorsen, and that AoA is teh eebil and is out to tarnish and destroy one little college kid's reputation.

    Just remember, David, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.

  28. Jake (Crosby?),
    I stand corrected. Apparently, the line about him vanishing in March 2009 was only repeated at "Put Children First", which was linked to in Handley's March 6 post. Thus, AoA clearly acted to promote this claim.

    As for Martin Walker, my admittedly unscholarly and unsporting mention of him was separate from my original article, and had nothing to do with the complaint/threat by Olmsted. The argument by which you are trying to turn a passing mention of him into an accusation against AoA is simply ludicrous. As I made perfectly clear, the methods by which I argued a forgery are not considered useful for tracing a document to a specific forger. Without that ability, the chances of implicating (or ruling out!) AoA were absolutely nill. Furthermore, since Walker was publicly described as a "liar for hire" well before he started contributing to AoA, it can be presumed that AoA knew and accepted that he would continue to attract criticism.

  29. "As for Martin Walker, my admittedly unscholarly and unsporting mention of him was separate from my original article, and had nothing to do with the complaint/threat by Olmsted."

    Then why did you post it? You claim to be a journalist. Journalists with a reputation worth saving don't do the things you've done. You seem to be well on your way to becoming the next Geraldo. I hope you can live with that.

    "The argument by which you are trying to turn a passing mention of him into an accusation against AoA is simply ludicrous."

    I missed where he did that. Can you highlight the pertinant passages?

    "As I made perfectly clear, the methods by which I argued a forgery are not considered useful for tracing a document to a specific forger."

    Was the original as clear and well phrased at the one above? Because, well, I've seen better phrasing before.

    "Without that ability, the chances of implicating (or ruling out!) AoA were absolutely nill."

    I see what you did there. Not very sneaky, really.

    "Furthermore, since Walker was publicly described as a "liar for hire" well before he started contributing to AoA, it can be presumed that AoA knew and accepted that he would continue to attract criticism."

    You can presume until you're blue in the face. A presumption, however, does not equate to a truth. Where, exactly, was Walker described thusly? On websites that are provaccination or on nuetral sites? Second, you're making unfounded and unprovable accusations again. You're basically accusing AoA of hiring a shock jock for webhits. If you can prove it, great. If you can't... well. In the immortal words of the intarwebz, 'Pics or it didn't happen' and 'STFU, GTFO'.

  30. "The argument by which you are trying to turn a passing mention of him into an accusation against AoA is simply ludicrous."

    But, David, that is precicely what you have done to me. You have turned a passing mention of someone claiming that AoA forged the documents into an accusation against me. Seriously, if you're going to engage in such hypocrisy, then you should wallow with the rest of the scum at RI unless you want such blatant mistakes and misrepresentations of the truth to be pointed out to you.

  31. Something that I think will not be controversial: Aarhus should have been far more forthcoming with their information about the forgery. I am satisfied that the document posted at AoA was only intended to circulate within the staff of other institutions. I regard this as nothing more or less than an example of a pattern of medical institutions not reporting employee misconduct out of fear or litigation.

  32. Not controversial, and also irrelevant.

  33. My point is, by waiting almost two months to acknowledge the document as authentic, Aarhus has done all of us a diservice. This represents a pattern far beyond this case or issue. So why not move on to the bigger picture?

  34. So, now you're blaiming Aarhus? WTF?

    Look, Thorsen lied. He faked documents. He stole money. That's really the only issue here. The fact that you're getting bent out of shape about an inaccurate article that YOU wrote and that some people on all sides of the argument took the article to mean that you were accusing AoA of forging the document is secondary. The truth is that the language of your article and the tone certainly gave many readers the impression that this was the case, though I will acknowledge and concede that you never actually said it. You only implied.

    I personally don't blame Mr. Olmsted for his response, and neither should you. You must take responsibility for what you wrote and the tone it was given in. Yes, it certainly seemed that you were accusing them of forging the document, and even the title of your article gave that impression. He dropped it when your article was removed, and he has moved on. You, apparently, have not.

  35. I see plenty to blame Aarhus for: They created a document which could easily have triggered a lawsuit and compromised an ongoing police investigation, then were sloppy enough to let the document enter public circulation, and then delayed taking responsibility for it.

    With regard to Thorsen, I disagree very much with what you are saying. At this point, what evidence there is against him and even the specifics of what he is accused of is, for purposes of public discussion, unknown. I think it is most likely that direct responsibility lies with other parties, though, as I have said elsewhere, it is hard to imagine a scenario where Thorsen could be judged blameless.

    As for Olmsted, he has done nothing to convince me that he has "moved on", and the antics of Jake Crosby could easily be considered evidence to the contrary.