Allegations against Aubrey de Grey | Hacker News Reader

Allegations against Aubrey de Grey

celinehh.com

68 pointsallenleee32 comments

his response here https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=6528005127224941... Daria Khaltourina defends him here https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1022657680107226...

That response admits the sexual references sent to a 17-year old and just quibbles with the idea that someone could initially chalk it up as a weird mistake, then change their mind after hearing of similar experiences of others.

As to the third-party defense: it is maybe unfortunate, but sadly fact, that the existence of one bank I did not rob, or even suspiciously stalked around in, does not proof that I did not rob any bank.

edit: this comment is as quickly approaching grey, as De Grey is approaching a 17-year old, apparently. I guess multiple accusation of sexual harassment are still the easiest way to establishing a fan base on HN.

Can anyone copy and paste this?

Seems to be disabled on the mobile version. Drop the m. subdomain and you can.

Aubrey de Grey: "I have, in the past few hours, been made aware of blog posts by Laura Deming and Celine Halioua that make extremely serious accusations against both me and SENS Research Foundation. Unsurprisingly, I deny these allegations. What may be more surprising to you is this: my belief is that both Laura and Celine have been deceived into the view that I have done many things that I have in fact not done. Nonetheless, since they have chosen to go public, I am left with no choice but to do the same. In order to orient you, let me point you to what Celine and Laura do not write. They do not write that a single woman has come to them with a me-too story, and they also describe their own personal experiences in decidedly incomplete terms. Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake" and that she only resurfaced it in the past few months at the instigation of others. Celine references a dinner where she and I sat together, and accuses me of saying certain things that I utterly deny ever saying and that she implies I said when she was drunk. No one who has met Celine would believe that she would ever lose control of how much she drinks, and most of her accusations concerning that dinner appear to be of other people, not of me. It is instructive that the very next day she wrote to me without the faintest hint of ambivalence, asking for additional feedback on her presentation, and that every one of our exchanges, of which the most recent was less than a year ago, has been of similarly untarnished character. (Also, I want to make clear that I was not aware until today of Celine's prior accusations against another person associated with SRF.) Again: as to me, no other accusers. Zero. No iceberg of which Celine is claiming to be the tip. I'm putting it out there right now: if other accusers come forward with supporting evidence, I will step aside a great deal faster than Cuomo just did. But if they don't... who's the real culprit here? Hint: in my ever-so-personal view, it's not Celine or Laura. The unequivocally clear conclusion that I draw from the above is that they have been set up. Celine has, only this year, been given - in my opinion - to believe that I did things at a 2018 dinner which had incongruously little influence on her email to me the next day. Laura, in turn, has - in my opinion - been given to believe that my one (albeit, I again admit and regret, ill-advised) email to her nine years ago was an example of a pattern, which it is not. The only basis of implausibility for this scenario is: who would have done this to them, and thence to me, and why? I have been vigorously advised to keep my counsel on that question for another day or two... but, as they say, watch this space. I can assure you that I will not allow this matter to end with the court of public opinion viewing the guilt as lying either with me or with Celine/Laura while the actual guilty parties laugh all the way to the bank thinking that only we will suffer."

The whole business is bad news generally, my feeling is it seems that potentially like so many cases that have often proven groundless that the people involved only start making accusations many years after the events they allege are purported to have taken place. We only have to look at some of the cases which have collapsed in the UK e.g Operation Midland to see how horrendous this type of situation can be for the innocent individuals involved.

My primary concern is the damage to the SENS foundation and its vital work because without the crucial role of Aubrey de Grey the work will in my opinion be severely hindered. I just hope this unfortunate issue can be wrapped up and resolved at the earliest opportunity.

> No one who has met Celine would believe that she would ever lose control of how much she drinks...

This sort of thing is why you don't write your own "I've been accused of something bad" defense post. Yikes.

He’s saying that she usually drinks in moderation, isn’t he? Doesn’t seem like a “yikes” statement, unless I’m reading it incorrectly.

Yeah, he's saying she's too serious of a person to get drunk, that didn't strike me at all; that's easily corroborated by people that know her.

In his response, de Grey writes (bizarrely): “They do not write that a single woman has come to them with a ‘me too’ story. [...] Again: as to me, no other accusers, none, zero.”

What Halioua actually writes: “SENS is aware of all of this. The Board was brought testimonies from other women in the beginning of 2021. These testimonies include physical sexual abuse. SENS did not act.” (emphasis on original)

What Deming writes: “In the past few months, in part through conversations with Celine Halioua (who interned at SENS), I’ve learned it’s a serial pattern he’s enacted with women over whom he’s in a position of power.”

He’s, at best, making an intense misleading characterization of both of their claims on an easily verifiable, tangential point.

As for Khaltourina’s defense, well, in every case of serial sexual harassment that becomes public, there's always at least one woman saying “he didn't harass me, and what other people are claiming seems out of character”. (Same often with serial killers, too, though people are less likely to even paint that as a “defense”.)

Laura Deming's post (https://ldeming.posthaven.com/aubrey) has some comments that paint this as a coordinated attack on De Grey for financial objectives.

Truth be told I find it hard to believe those allegations, but I'd lie if I said I didn't enjoy the soap opera aspect of it all while reading them. I think it's very impressive and indicative of how hard-ass Deming must be that she did not have those comments deleted. It definitely speaks in her favor that she's letting the debate be open fully, even on her own site.

(Note for context: I'm just a rando on the internet who read some blog posts. I did not know who these people were until this stuff made it to HN)

It always feels a bit forced but I believe it's important to label accusations as accusations. Newspapers report these events as "so and so is accused of such and such." They do so out of an abundance of caution, to not be liable for slander and libel, and to prevent their organization from being used as a mouthpiece for malicious actors.

While it does not conform to existing policy here as I understand it I would advocate for modifying this title to reflect that this is an accusation.

Given the content of this accusation I also want to advocate that readers believe the victims. Even if you're disinclined to believe, I hope it can be recognized that the historical precedent was to disbelieve and that might be a personally addressable root cause for our failure to make more progress on these matters.

This is the title of a personal article. It may be an accusation, but if the victim is writing it they don't see the need to state that. That would be like a cop arresting you for being the attacker and you saying... You can't arrest me cause it is merely an accusation at this point. Yeah that isn't how Rs work.

Fun fact: in the UK the title of this post is a probable libel. HN repeating it is also a probable libel. Maybe the word "allegedly" should go in there? Just a thought.

Edit: OK, some people clearly didn't like the tone I struck, so I'll be much clearer and make no attempt at humour. The subjects of this case are all in the UK. If the allegations can't be proven to be true on the balance of probabilities, and a case for libel against these women is brought by de Grey, their lives will be wrecked in proportion to the spread of this article. HN is technically repeating that libel but the main concern I have here is that some people have miscalculated and their lives, careers and credibility would be wrecked by a case against them.

The damage in a case like this would be calculated on how many peoples opinions of de Grey were lowered. By not presenting a balanced view in the link title, HN would make life much worse for the people making these allegations than if the word "allegedly" were being used. I'll be interested to learn whether we value a concerned FYI about the law more or less than speculating.

The UK's libel laws are bad, and thankfully don't apply outside their borders.

For an example of why, it took multiple years, millions of dollars, and a 349 page judicial decision to uphold calling someone a holocaust denier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

What? If someone published a blog post titled "ceejayoz is a <SERIOUS ACCUSATION>", you would be well within your rights to sue for libel if the claim was not true. There is nothing "bad" about that law, it's the best way to defend yourself against sensationalism and fake news.

In the US, there is an assumption of innocence; the person asserting libel must prove it.

In the UK, the burden of proof is switched; the accused must prove their statement was truthful, which means an expensive legal battle. If you're a well-off asshole, you can leverage this in very nasty ways.

No doubt they're bad. But the case appears to involve multiple people in the UK.

One of the claims in the parent comment was "HN repeating it is also a probable libel", which... no.

Ycombinator is not in the UK.

The parties to this exchange are all subject to UK law, as I understand it. The title here has legal implications for them if that's the case: the reach of a libel is factored into damages calculations. That means this post is likely to cause someone a real headache if the title is not changed.

> Fun fact: in the UK the title of this post is a probable libel

Even in the UK, true allegations aren't libel, though in the UK I believe truth is a defense rather than falsity being an element of the prima facie case.

> The damage in a case like this would be calculated on how many peoples opinions of de Grey were lowered.

If you didn't have a prior opinion of the guy because you'd never heard of him before -- like me (unless I'd heard of him but forgot) -- your (my) opinion of him technically can't be "lowered". But getting to hear of him for the first time in a context like this certainly gives one a bad first impression of him...

So, does that count? Because in that case I suppose there could be quite a lot of opinions like mine, not lowered but set initially low, out there affected by this.

De Grey has always seemed overly eccentric to me. But maybe that is to be expected of someone that works on something as contrarian as anti-aging research.

Sexual harassment is not okay.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was some kind of lack of social skill on De Greys side rather than actual sexual predatoriness? Am curious what that legal investigation will find out

> To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was some kind of lack of social skill on De Greys side rather than actual sexual predatoriness? Am curious what that legal investigation will find out

This isn’t the benefit of the doubt. You don’t get a pass on bad behavior by reason of actual mental illness. If in the grips of psychosis you slander or assault someone you did a bad thing. You do not get off because you have BPD or are schizophrenic or whatever. There are consequences. And even if de Grey is autistic as fuck he’s intelligent enough to emulate allistic people’s basic social sense and something approaching consensus morality. If I can do it he can.

This is not a commentary or prejudgment on whether he did or did not do anything. It could be a giant nothingburger like with rms. He could be a monster. Wait and find out.

Conflating lack of social skills with evidence of sexual predation does seem like a very effective attack vector against many of the best academics in the world. I'm inclined to reserve judgement until the facts are in, I don't know any of the players even as celebrities I follow.

> To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was some kind of lack of social skill on De Greys side rather than actual sexual predatoriness?

I really take issue with this defense. Just because someone has NPD for example, doesn't mean that they are free of the consequences of their shitty behavior toward others. Why should autism (or any other socially inhibiting condition) be given special treatment over other disorders?

So the only proof is an e-mail where this guy propositioned a co-worker who reached the age of consent? You can consider that morally wrong but it's not sexual abuse or anything even close to it.

It’s interesting that nobody mentions Aubrey’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein. Aubrey was the chief scientific advisor to Epstein’s “Transhuman” project, now called “Humanity +” and Epstein was an investor in SENS.

Discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28143315 as well

What is he admitting to with a 17 year old and why does he work so hard to gaslight everyone, even saying... Everyone she knows won't believe that she was drunk.

For God's sake, if someone accuses you keep it short and simple...

"I didn't do it and if you have further questions talk to my lawyer"

Don't write a gaslighting novel about how it couldn't have possibly been you, all it does is make you look more guilty

Read it again. He doesn't claim she was drunk. He says that she herself implies she was drunk when he said certain things he says he did not say. He further states that people that know her know she doesn't drink that much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com