This is incorrect.
The article states:
"Despite Psymposia’s modest resources, its members have become feared for their ability to use social media to damage reputations and careers, according to more than four dozen academic researchers, clinicians, industry executives, mental health advocates and former Psymposia members who were interviewed for this article."
It says nothing about false claims. That appears to be your projection.
Consider the cases of Francoise Bourzat and Aharon Grossbard and CCM:
No doubt their reputations and careers were significantly damaged. But the reason is not due to false claims, it's because they engaged in the types of behaviors that result in reputation and career damage, and then those behaviors were publicized.
The same could probably be said for the various people involved in the practitioner related deaths covered in the Power Trip podcast:
From my perspective, the fact that careers and reputations are damaged when ugly truths come to light is not news, nor is it particularly surprising. People who've done dirt don't like when that dirt is exposed, but the issue isn't the exposé, it's the dirt.
It also doesn't say that 48 people experienced this, just that 48 people claimed they feel ways about other people's social media engagement. That's not investigative journalism, it's a non-randomized anonymous poll of some people's feelings (given both reporters' on record sentiments, I think we can safely assume that a statistician would likely find the sample to be biased, but that's an assumption).
Beyond this, James Kent has a Dose Nation podcast from years ago that discussed some of the other people mentioned in the article. You'll notice that with regards to those cases the NYT explicitly does not say that any of the claims made about those people were false. Again, that appears to be your projection. Given the tone of the article, it's interesting that the authors didn't allege "false claims" aside from the Veronika Gold stuff (that whole saga is extra weird in a different way, but that's probably better for a different discussion as the various events around the FDA hearing alone raised a bunch of bizarre questions about those allegations). Given the authors spelled out false claims with Gold, but nowhere else, perhaps such allegations couldn't clear editorial or legal review?
Like I said, this was all discussed pretty exhaustively across social media when it happened. There's even extensive documentation about some of the past issues (discussed on the Dose Nation podcast), which NYT conveniently seems to have ignored:
It seems to me that you recently read something about someone you had an online argument with six years ago and have let your mind run wild with projections, as evidenced by multiple posts where your claims simply lack the supporting evidence you insist exists (but haven't provided) or are fabricated (as you admit).
I realize I've said this before several times, I'm just a bit struck by the sway that this seems to have on you. I'm curious if there are things that would help you move on from this or work through it, even if you don't want to fully let it go, because it seems rather extreme to me and I imagine it's causing you a fair deal of suffering. Is there anything that would help bring resolution to this for you?
forum.dmt-nexus.me
