Throckmorton solicited 200 reparative psychologists and surveyed their 800+ patients. Shidlo and Schroeder advertised an 800 number over the internet. One study has an identified subject group and the other is statistically anecdotal. Statistical models are only valid if the outcome is subject to chance, advertising for subjects is not random sampling and open to any number of possibilities for corruption.
The fact that one says something you wish to believe?
Since you know nothing about your proffered studies, I’d say you more closely resemble that remark.
So we're talking about a "meta-analysis" -- Rind Report, anyone?
Nope! Wrong again. You should really do your homework.
Oh, and hmmm, people who answered surveys, obviously at gunpoint -- "volunteers" not allowed, dontchaknow.
So by your logic, everyone who ever tacitly participated in a survey constitutes a volunteer study? Hehehe…. You should be so embarrassed, your stupidity is breathtaking.
Oooooohhh... that's sooooo much more accurate.
I don't know what sort of work you do, but when someone asks for examples of it, do you show them your failures? Do you really think these therapists opened their filedrawers to Throckmorton, "Here... survey anyone you wish..."
Of course they didn't. They carefully selected patients that would make them look good, especially when the mainstream consensus and official position on "reparative therapy" places it somewhere akin to "bloodletting".
A quick search on Throckmorton's name alone leads me to beleive that even on the off chance said therapists did violate patient-confidentiality in such a way, HE'D choose the success stories anyway -- he doesn't strike me as an impartial observer.
Now, as far as it being a "meta-analysis" goes, you're the one who's "wrong" -- a meta-analysis is, by definition, an "... analysis of analyses...the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings."
I find it rather telling that in the aftermath of the Rind Report, NARTH and Throckmorton both avoid calling the spade a spade. When dealing with a researcher with an agenda, any meta-analyses is suspect, wouldn't you agree?
No, not every study and every survey in which someone agrees to participate a "volunteer study", but neither, as you attempt to dismissively assert, is a "volunteer study", by definition, invalid.
For example, if Shidlo and Schroeder advertised their 800 number exclusively on gay-positive venues, then yes, their claims become as suspect as the claims of those who solicit volunteers from ex-gay groups and "reparative therapists". If, however, they attempted to solicit a statistically valid sample from neutral venues, or even a decent mixture of pro- and ex-gay sites, then that is another level of validity altogether. (I disbelieve that a statistically valid sample is possible, as it's impossible to conclusively quantify the ex-gay movement's "many" and "large" as numbers or "thousands" as anything more than 2.)