Category: reparative therapy

NARTH Founder Retracts Claim of Sexual Reorientation via Lexapro

While examining NARTH’s 2009 review of past studies on homosexuality  (Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol.1 – click the link for the entire issue), I ran across this citation:

Nicolosi (in press) found that while conducting reparative therapy, a 50-year-old male client reported a sudden and dramatic freedom from unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors after taking Lexapro. The client reported that he continued to be free of these unwanted symptoms more than 18 months after starting the anti-depressant medicine.

To better examine these claims, I asked one of the authors of the NARTH paper, James Phelan, for access to the source. Thanks to Dr. Phelan for supplying the paper for review.

The paper by Joseph Nicolosi was apparently submitted for publication in 2009 to a journal but there is no record of it being published anywhere. As noted, it describes the case of a 50 year old man who was diagnosed by Nicolosi with ego-dystonic homosexuality. The patient was seen for 142 sessions over “about eight years” with no progress. During therapy, the patient described “generalized hopelessness and helplessness, along with a pervasive sense of inadequacy…” He also described himself as “a non-entity.”

After the lengthy unsuccessful treatment for unwanted same-sex attraction and depression, the patient began taking “a 5 ml dosage of Lexapro,” a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. According to Nicolosi, the patient had “an almost immediate decrease in his sense of worthlessness and inadequacy, followed soon after the elimination of his homosexuality.”

The paper describes the situation:

After awhile, the patient stopped taking the drug because he was feeling so much better. However, this brief drug holiday did not work out well.

However, there is more to the story.

I wrote to Dr. Nicolosi and asked permission to post the entire paper. He wrote back quickly to clarify that the claim made in the NARTH paper is not longer valid. Nicolosi explained,

I can say that two years later now, that the use of Lexapro has not fulfilled its promise. We no longer see the use of Lexapro as a positive addition to Reparative Therapy.

So another one of the papers referred to in NARTH’s landscape review can be set aside as evidence for sexual reorientation.

Even in Nicolosi’s paper, there was evidence that the medication effect was an anomaly. Nicolosi wrote:

However, these cases were not mentioned in the NARTH review. Instead of noting that the case reported was only one success out of four tries, the authors only noted the one case which appeared to be a success at the time. Now, according to Dr. Nicolosi, Lexapro has not lived up to that claim.

This report can be added to others where significant questions have been raised  (e.g., the Bieber study, the Kaye study, the work of Masters and Johnson, the Pattison and Pattison research).

NARTH rewards what it does

During the recent NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) conference in Phoenix, organization President Julie Hamilton gave an award to Michel Lizotte, a Canadian journalist. The award was given because Lizotte has been “clearly presenting the research and providing hope and help to those who are seeking such help” in Canada.

I imagine other scientific groups give awards to non-scientists if they believe the recipient is doing a good job promoting the scientific claims and aims of the group. While it is telling that NARTH could not find a researcher to honor, I am sure there is precedent for such an action. However, what says a lot about NARTH is the type of “education” Mr. Lizotte has been presenting.

A look at Lizotte’s website (translated from the French via Google translation) indicates that he promotes the reparative drive theory of homosexuality. On this page, Lizotte posted videos of Joseph Nicolosi explaining the reparative theory. Lizotte claims research on homosexuality supports his views:

Several studies 2  have been conducted to understand the origin of homosexuality. The latest research 3  continue to accumulate supporting evidence that male homosexuality is not innate but acquired, that is to say, built during life, and most of the time – without the is the only reason – because of the failure of the process of tracing the sexual identification of the young son of his father, as a result of a dysfunctional relationship between the two, as we have described above .

Examining the footnotes tells you a lot about his efforts and NARTH’s decision to promote Lizotte’s work. Footnote 2 lists:

Stekel (1930), Rubenstein (1956), Bieber (1962), Ovesey (1969), Birk (1974), Pattison and Pattison (1980), Van Den Aardweg (1986) and others.

Stekel, Bieber, Rubenstein* and Ovesey were psychoanalysts who developed their theories about homosexuality, not from studies, but from a limited number of psychoanalytic cases. Bieber’s study has recently been compromised by revelations that one co-author, Cornelia Wilbur, conspired with a journalist to distort at least two case reports, including the famous case of Sybil. Bieber’s methods had been discredited because he relied on psychoanalysts who already believed homosexuality derived from deficient parenting. Furthermore, Bieber did not include non-patients and did not ask questions of the patients, but relied on case reports of the psychoanalysts.

Van Den Aardweg’s 1986 book reports the results of his cases treated with “Anticomplaining therapy.” He reports lots of successes but essentially these are his claims with no independent verification or peer review.  Birk’s 1974 report comes the closest to a credible report of change but adds no new information about the “origins of homosexuality.” If anything, however, behavioral psychotherapist Birk would disagree with most of what is on Lizotte’s website about causes. In 1980, Birk reported that those who wanted to gain heterosexual capacity had some success but they were not free of homosexual behavior or feelings.

The reference to Pattison and Pattison is odd because the study had nothing to do with the origin of homosexuality and asked no questions about parents or causes. Instead the study claimed that 11 men had changed their orientation dramatically due to religious factors. However, that study has been compromised by revelations that at least two study participants recanted their stories of change within a year of the studies completion.

The reference number 3 lists the following as representing recent research:

Bene (1965), Biller (1974), Moberly (1983), Van der Aardweg (sic) (1986), Byne and Parsons (1993), Bem (1996), Whitehead and Whitehead (1999), Landolt (2004).

This is a very strange list. Bene’s very non-recent survey of gay and straight men found differences between gay and straight men on parental relationships. Biller’s book addresses much more than sexuality and proposes that paternal deprivation is behind a multitude of problems. These references, taken alone, support the reparative drive theory. However, as is typical of NARTH, studies which report contradicting findings are ignored in Lizotte’s list. For instance, when gay and straight men with low scores on a neuroticism scale were compared by Marvin Siegelman in 1974, the parental variables expected by reparative drive theory disappeared. More recently (2009), a Finnish study found that gay men rated their fathers as being warmer than straight men rated their fathers.

Continuing with the list: While Moberly theorized that same-sex parenting deficits caused homosexuality, she did no research to support her views. Van Den Aardweg is listed again (both old and recent research), Byne and Parsons reviewed the evidence for direct genetic factors in the development of sexual orientation but had nothing to say about the reparative drive theory. Bem proposed a theory that is a competitor to the reparative theory. Whitehead and Whitehead present no new research in their book on genetics. Reading Lizotte’s website, an uninformed reader might think that the reparative theory was well supported by research. An informed reader knows better.

The 2004 study by Landolt deserves mention since on the surface, it might seem to support reparative theory. The study examined attachment anxiety in gay men. According to the authors,

Several childhood factors are reported to be associated with a homosexual orientation in men, including gender nonconformity and rejection by parents and peers.

The authors then assessed these factors and found, among other things, a relationship between paternal and peer rejection and attachment anxiety. While this may seem like what reparative therapists would expect, it is also what one would expect in anyone, gay or straight. The study cannot be used as a support for reparative theory because the study did not use a comparison group of straights. I would expect that straight men who are gender non-conforming and rejected by their fathers would experience more anxiety in attachments. However, one cannot say anything about how gay men compare to straight men since the authors did not design the study to address causal factors in sexual orientation.

In short, Lizotte makes claims about homosexuality, supports the claims with old, poorly designed and/or irrelevant citations, fails to cite conflicting and/or newer research and then says that “the latest research” supports his position.

No wonder NARTH gave him an award.

*I cannot find a 1956 paper or book by an author with the last name of Rubenstein that would be relevant. There is a relevant paper by Rubenstein in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1958. Even in this paper, there is no research other than case reports.

PFOX President says Wayne Besen behind threats to his life

In an interview recently with Mark Sagraves of WDCW-TV, PFOX President and lobbyist for the New Jersey Family Policy Council, Greg Quinlan, said (at 10:32 in the interview):

Truth Wins Out if you look further, including Wayne Besen. He’s asked for people, you know, somebody needs to run Greg over. He needs to be hit with a bus. Somebody should inject him with AIDS. Those are the things that Wayne Besen and Truth Wins Out says about me. That’s pretty hateful rhetoric.

Really? Besen has said some critical and dismissive things about ex-gays but I’ve never heard anything like that. Quinlan may soon have to provide proof of that since Besen absolutely denies the charges and may sue for defamation.

There are other questionable aspects to Quinlan’s claims. In the interview, Quinlan says that both APAs say that sexuality is fluid (not really, they say identity can shift but that orientation is pretty fixed). He says he is not paid to be ex-gay (sorry, I know the history there, his reputation is founded on his status as an ex-gay). He says that is acceptable for him to refer to gays as “faggots” because it is acceptable for blacks to use the “N” word referring to themselves (I’ll let readers ponder that one).

When confronted with the fact that Richard Cohen was expelled from the American Counseling Association, Quinlan said at 11:40, “But he hasn’t lost his license.” To my knowledge, Richard never had a license and he certainly does not now. Then he told Sagraves that Richard has a 90% success rate helping people change. If Richard claims that, I have never seen it.

Quinlan misrepresents Bob Spitzer. He says Spitzer says, “people can change, if they choose to change and they are highly motivated.” This is just not right. I know Bob Spitzer and he thinks change is infrequent and that such change is not just a matter of choosing to do so.

Finally, Quinlan wants civil rights for ex-gays but not for gays. He accuses Dean Hamer of lying – probably also an actionable statement if Hamer were so inclined to follow up.

In the culture war, this may be a new low. If Quinlan cannot prove his charges against Besen and Hamer, he has disqualified himself as a spokesperson. He certainly has passed along misrepresentations on the subject he claims to know when he talked about Cohen, Spitzer and Hamer.

The culture war brings out a toxicity from some who claim to be Christian as if winning the culture war at any cost is the mission. I think this story resonates with me because I have been the target of accusations and action of late. Even my children have been the target of lies about them, because of animosity toward me.

In the past, have been attacked by both Besen and PFOX over my views, but, as far as I can recall, the only personal smears about me or my family have come from those claiming to be Christian.

In addition to whatever truth comes out, I also hope that a result is reflection which will lead to a decline in personal vilification.

 

 

First study to refer to ex-gays discredited

In 2000, I presented a paper at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association outlining studies which referred to ex-gays, i.e., people who rejected gay as an identity for religious reasons. That presentation was part of a larger symposium organized by Mark Yarhouse and Doug Haldeman on religious and GLB issues. In 2002, that paper was published in the APA journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.* That was the same year I was given the Freud Award at the NARTH conference.
In that paper, I summarized a study by psychiatrist E. Mansell Pattison and his wife Myrna Loy Pattison, titled “‘Ex-gays’: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals.” The Pattisons interviewed 11 men in the Melodyland church in Anaheim, CA who claimed to have changed from gay to straight. One of those men was frequent commenter here Michael Bussee. Another was Gary Cooper, the man who left that ministry and Exodus with Bussee when they both acknowledged that they had not changed their orientation. In other words, two of the 11 had not changed at all.
Today, on the Religion Dispatches website, I describe that study in more detail and interview Michael Bussee about his participation. I encourage you to go read it and comment here or there.
The study continues to be used by NARTH as well as other groups to claim sexual reorientation works. The problems with the study provide more evidence that NARTH’s use of old data (125 year landscape review) is flawed.
*Throckmorton, W. (2002). Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 242-248.

NARTH says Francis Collins is mistaken about his own work

Let’s start at the beginning of this story.
On April 4, 2007, Dean Byrd posted an article on the NARTH website titled, “‘Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,’ Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project” In this article, Byrd quotes from Collins book, The Language of God, citing Collins views of the genetics and homosexuality. In it, Byrd wrote:

As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.
Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”
Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it’s critical that such data be used to illuminate, not provide support to idealogues.

On May 17, 2007, the editor of Ex-gay Watch, David Roberts, wrote an email to Collins asking him if Byrd’s article accurately represented Collins’ views. (The entire correspondence can be reviewed at this link.)
On May 20, 2007, Collins wrote back to Roberts saying about the Byrd article:

The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

On September 15, 2008, Greg Quinlan of PFOX told OneNewsNow that the human genome had been mapped and there was no genetic cause for homosexuality. Quinlan attributed this information to Francis Collins, seeming to paraphrase the NARTH article.
On September 19, 2008, Roberts again wrote to Collins to ask him to verify that the prior statement about Byrd’s misleading use of his views was indeed given by Collins.
On September 20, 2008, Collins wrote back to Roberts saying

Thanks for the heads up. I am truly sorry to hear that there is a continuing effort by Mr. Quinlan and others to distort this information about genetic factors in homosexuality. The facts have not changed since the e-mail message I sent you on May 20, 2007.
Regards, Francis Collins

On September 21, 2008, Roberts wrote back to Collins and asked him to copy me in the email exchange. Roberts did this because Quinlan accused Roberts of making fraudulent claims about Collins. Feeling I could be objective, Roberts wanted Collins to include me in the email loop given that I am not associated with any gay advocacy groups. I had also written Collins to verify the statements made on Roberts’ blog.
On September 21, 2008, Collins wrote back with the following message:

Hello David and Warren,
I am happy to confirm that these e-mail communications from May 2007 and yesterday are indeed authentic, and represent my best effort at summarzing what we know and what we don’t know about genetic factors in male homosexuality. I appreciate your continuing efforts to correct misstatements that seem to be circulating on the internet.
Regards, Francis Collins

This background is important in order to put NARTH’s response to Collins into context. Earlier this year, NARTH posted an article attacking David Roberts with the charge that Roberts misled Collins. NARTH did not like Collins response to Roberts and NARTH blamed Roberts for Collins’ response.
After the NARTH article came out, Roberts conducted a Freedom of Information Act request to find correspondence between the NARTH and Collins. As the result of his request, he received an undated letter sent from NARTH’s President Julie Hamilton to Collins. The letter is here and is summarized at XGW.
In this letter, Hamilton blames Roberts and me for Collins response to Byrd’s article. Is it really possible that Roberts and I persuaded the Director of the National Institutes of Health and one of the premiere scientists of our time to misread Byrd’s article? About NARTH’s letter, Roberts says,

In it, Collins is treated more like a doddering old man than the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  Even though we sent a link to the original article with our email to Collins, and it is clear from his reply that he read it, Hamilton encloses a copy noting “Although Warren Throckmorton [see this post to see where he comes in] and David Roberts led you to believe otherwise, your statements were not misrepresented by NARTH.”  No, Dr. Collins, regardless of what you think, you do agree with us — sheer arrogance.

What is NARTH saying about Dr. Collins when they tell him that he was persuaded to misunderstand his own book? It appears that NARTH will not accept that Collins means what he says. Counting his response to the American College of Pediatricians (several NARTH board members are affiliated with this group), he has spoken out three times about the way NARTH has characterized his views. NARTH’s response is to his continue to blame the messengers.
For more, see

Francis Collins rebukes the American College of Pediatricians: A closer look

Skip Narth, read Collins – UPDATED with NARTH statement