I’m a bit inclined to credit Cepek for not going down the “this doesn’t work for anyone” route. Instead he credited 8 of the 202 who reported success without “slips”.

But I can see how his language surrounding the S&S study was slanted in an anti-reorientation direction.

It would be akin to the correct objections to the use of Spitzer to say “the practice” is uniformly helpful. If Cepek had said, good for this guy but I want to caution readers that for some it can be harmful, then fine. As I have been calling social conservatives to be more complete and tentative in their statements I would call PFLAG to the same position.

I can see how Salzer misused Shidlo and Schroeder.

But did Cepak misquote or misstate the study?

I am aware of some of its flaws, particularly that it isn’t representative – though considering that Spitzer had such a hard time finding participants, finding 26 successes may not have been that underrepresentative. I tend not to rely too heavily on S&S.

…

It does look like some of our buddies commented there. I think Swissalps was there calling himself “Critic of PFLAG”, unless there’s someone else out there who uses the term “H&L”.

And can Viva – who calls for quarantine – be Phillips, I wonder?