The discredited organization, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), sent out a desperate press release unsuccessfully trying to spin Dr. Robert Spitzer’s repudiation of his own study that claimed some highly motivated gay people could change through therapy and prayer.
NARTH’s laughable message: We know better than the guy who actually conducted the research.
As Dr. Robert Spitzer made clear when he explicitly told NARTH to stop exploiting, distorting and citing his work:
“I’m curious as to whether they have said anything or how they live with the fact that the one study that they have always been citing has now been taken away from them. I would think that’s a pretty rough place to be in.”
And the press release from NARTH clearly shows what a failed organization on the ropes sounds like when they are in a “pretty rough place to be in.” Here is part of NARTH statement:
A great deal of attention is currently being given to the recent “retraction” by Robert Spitzer, M.D., of his important study of sexual-orientation change (Spitzer, 2003a). The quotation marks around “retraction” are purposeful, for what has happened should not be characterized as a retraction. While this turn of events has now become a favorite talking point for those opposed to sexual orientation-change efforts (SOCE), the language of retraction reflects politically motivated speech rather than scientific analysis. What follows is intended to help those confused by Spitzer’s actions and the subsequent media feeding frenzy to understand what has really occurred. I have outlined below some key points that seem to have been lost in the partisan utilization of this turn of events.
Here are a few points the frauds at NARTH should ponder. First, Dr. Spitzer believes they are blinded by anti-gay animus.
“The people who are pushing the ‘ex-gay’ idea are so full of hatred for homosexuality, really, that I don’t think they can respond in an ethical way.”
Second, Dr. Spitzer believes that NARTH’s co-founder Dr. Nicolosi and his organization are exaggerating their success rate. It took Spitzer two years to find a mere 200″ex-gay” study subjects — even though NARTH was begging unchanged clients to say they had converted to heterosexuality. I asked Spitzer why it was so difficult for Nicolosi to find people to participate.
“He [Nicolosi] just didn’t have many patients who could really claim that they had changed.”
Finally, Spitzer thinks his study is no longer valid and believes that reparative therapy is a waste of time and energy.
“I’ve been thinking about the study for many years. I felt that I needed to say that, the study is not valid, but I thought I should also say to the gay community, I apologize for any harm I have done to them because of the study and my initial interpretation. And I certainly apologize to any gay person who because of this study entered into reparative therapy and wasted their time and energy doing that.”
NARTH can try to lie and manipulate Dr. Spitzer’s retraction all they want. However, his words are very clear and significantly more authoritative on this topic than the unethical and unscientific NARTH would have you believe.