“. . . lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

If you ever want to claim instant credibility for your opinion, all you have to do is come up with a scientific paper, written by some PhD or group of PhD’s, that seems to support it.  You’ll probably find one, too, no matter how wacky your opinion might be.  The reason?  That’s easy.  The findings of most scientific studies these days are false.  This fact isn’t very well known in the lay community, but it’s common knowledge among scientists.

John P.A. Ioannidis blew the whistle on the reasons for this in 2005 in a published paper titled “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.”  He’s far from alone in that position.  Since that article, some in the scientific community organized the World Conference on Research Integrity which is convened every three years.  The first was in Lisbon, Portugal in 2007, the second in Singapore in 2010, and the most recent was held in Montreal, Canada this past May.

After three world conferences and growing concern in the scientific community, not much has improved.  This is not an insignificant issue.  Changes instigated as a result of faulty science often have profound impact on our whole culture.  Too often these changes have pushed us in the wrong direction, to the detriment of us all.

Most of this flawed science is not the result of mere mistakes.  Instead, it is the end product of agenda driven research.  The flawed science is not confined to any specific discipline.   It spans all of them, but the social sciences are especially hard hit by the fraud, and the use of junk science to promote grand social changes is being stepped up. 

Right now all across America our educational institutions are being assailed on multiple fronts by activists intent on reducing bullying in schools, improving sex education of our youth, redefining our understanding of sexuality, broadening our acceptance of what we consider to be normal sexual expression, embracing the notion that children have a right to decide when and with whom to have sex.  Some of these sound like worthy goals, but it depends entirely on how the terms are defined.  Some of these should raise warning flags in even the most trusting among us. 

Believe it or not, there even is a movement to define pedophilia as being a sexual expression that falls within the normal continuum of human sexuality.  Simultaneously, there is a movement to legalize sexual activity between an adult and a child.  The justification for both (at least in part) is that pedophiles are “born that way,” and we should extend understanding and compassion toward them.

In a recent article in Atlantic Monthly, James Cantor, PhD, who is described as an “international expert on pedophilia” is asked “So are pedophiles ‘born that way?’”  Cantor replies “In studies, pedophiles show signs that their sexual interests are related to brain structure and that at least some differences existed in their brains before birth.”

Cantor does not directly say, “yes they are,” but he strongly implies that the research gives at least some support for that interpretation.  In reality, though, the bar for scientific proof is quite high.  So the answer Cantor should have given is an emphatic “the evidence does not support such a conclusion.”  At least he should have said that, if he wanted to be true to his professional standards. 

Of course if he had given that answer it would have damaged his agenda, which is to persuade the public that pedophilia is an “orientation.”  Instead of being oriented to the same or opposite sex, pedophiles are oriented to “age.”  It’s determined by the way a person is wired; it’s in their brain from birth, so they say.

This is a load of BS.  Very simply, the evidence does not support such conclusions.  It is wishful thinking; it is an agenda that is being marketed.

One other fact is important to know.  Eighty percent of pedophiles were, themselves, sexually molested as children.  EIGHTY PERCENT.  This figure was uncovered in the largest study of known pedophiles (involving thousands of them) that has ever been done.  Now, not all children who are molested become pedophiles, but most pedophiles were molested as children.  Because of the numbers, it is almost certain that molestation is a contributing factor in becoming a pedophile.  We don’t know all of the factors yet.  But it seems beyond question that the vast majority of pedophiles are certainly not “born that way.”

Let’s turn our attention to the homosexual issue for a moment.  For years the homosexual activists, with the support of many in the scientific community, have insisted that homosexuals are born with an orientation toward the same sex.  Unlike pedophiles, who supposedly are born with an orientation to a person of a certain age, male homosexuals are oriented toward—that is sexually attracted to—men, and women are oriented to women. 

This “born that way” assertion is now being used to justify all manner of medical and social experimentation on prepubescent and post pubescent children, everything from allowing children to decide for themselves what bathroom and locker room they will use, to hormone therapy and sexual realignment surgery for children, to prohibitions against therapy for children who have same sex attractions.   All of these issues are being promoted under the umbrellas of “anti-bullying,” “sex education,” and “sexual freedom for children.”

Once again, the evidence does not support such actions.  There is not one single valid and reliable study that supports the contention that homosexuals are born homosexuals, that children’s mental sexual orientation is established in the womb, or that children experiencing same sex attraction cannot benefit from therapy. 

What does cause homosexuality?  We don’t know.  What we do know is that about half of homosexual men report childhood sexual activity with a male, usually an older boy or an adult.  We also know that not all people who have such same sex encounters become homosexuals.  We have to conclude that child molestation cannot be considered the sole cause of homosexuality, but it could be a factor in many of the instances.  There certainly is more evidence to support this than supports the “born that way” theory. 

Regarding “conversion therapy,” or “reparative therapy” for children who experience same sex attraction, it is true that the American Psychological Association claims that such therapy can be harmful, as does the American Psychiatric Association.  But it is only the committee members in these two organizations that make that claim.  The general membership is divided.  Additionally, these two terms, conversion and reparative, refer to a rather limited and specific type of therapy to reduce same sex attraction. 

There are many approaches to address such unwanted attractions.  To brand all such therapy as illegal (which the laws in California and New Jersey seem to do) imposes restrictions that are not supported by the science.   There is no general agreement even among the experts on this.  The fact is that such therapy has been successful in many documented cases, just as there are cases where it has been unsuccessful. 

Transgender hormone treatments and surgery for children and adolescents who think they were born with the wrong genitals stretches the science beyond all boundaries.  Johns Hopkins Medical Center was a pioneer in this kind of treatment.  Surgeries were performed on both adults and children (surgery on children was performed only on those who were born with malformed genitals).  In 1979, the director of the program ordered a study done on the long term psychological impact on all patients.  As a result of the study, all such surgeries were stopped and have not been resumed since. 

As a conservative with some libertarian leanings, I’m open to adults engaging in all kinds of activities that I don’t necessarily condone.  And although I care about adult homosexuals, whatever they want to believe, or to do with their own bodies, well, that’s their business.  Not so when it comes to children.  I’m not willing to stand by and see them sacrificed in order to affirm the beliefs of homosexual adults who think they were “born that way.” 

Think about this for a minute.  We know that the brain is highly plastic.  It changes, grows, forms new connections.  It is flexible, resilient even in adults.  MRI studies have demonstrated that beyond any doubt.  Yet when it comes to sexual orientation, activists claim that pedophiles and homosexuals are born with their brains “hard wired” in a way that is counter to their biology.  Trying to change that is damaging, they say.

On the other hand, our anatomy is fixed.  Yet the activists contend that when it comes to carving up a child’s body to match the alleged wiring of the brain, that’s ok.

Does that make any sense at all?

The science is not even close to settling any of these contentious disputes.  There isn’t even any consensus about how to design the studies or what underlying factors to examine in order to settle the differences.  Science simply can’t give us conclusive answers yet. 

So I ask, do we go along with the activists and experiment on our children?  Do we launch a wide scale social engineering project to accommodate the agenda of a small group of zealots who use flawed, even fraudulent science as justification?

Not only is this wrong, it is evil.






7 thoughts on ““. . . lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

  1. Regarding John Hopkins Hospital. A Documentary aired about ten or fifteen years ago about twin boys from Canada. They were subjected to a new cauterizing instrument for circumcision and as a result the one boy’s penis was all but destroyed. A psychologist by the name of Dr Money from Johns Hopkins, who was considered an expert in sexual reassigment , took over the case with disasterous results.
    “Money was a prominent proponent of the ‘theory of Gender Neutrality’—that gender identity developed primarily as a result of social learning from early childhood and that it could be changed with the appropriate behavioral interventions.” The child was put on estrogen in adolescence but all to no avail. In reading the account one might question the interest and intent of the Psychologist . Both twins died in their thirties .One from an antidepressant overdose and the other one from suicide. I suspect Johns Hopkins learned a lesson from this case.

    1. Money was just one in a long list of sexually troubled scientists who have distorted our understanding of human sexuality. Money was a disciple of Kinsey and donated his papers to the Kinsey Institute. Kinsey was sexually depraved and his studies have been thoroughly exposed as fraudulent. Any disciple of his should, immediately, be considered highly suspect.

  2. In the Reimer Documentary, when the boy’s mother was interviewed , tearfully she made the point clear that as parents the biggest regret they had was NOT being in the room during the Therapy sessions between Dr Money and their children .
    A red flag should appear in the mind of every parent when a Therapist or Physician does not allow them to be present when their child is being “treated”. If the doctor feels their presence will hinder the child’s freedom of expression , a one way mirror in an adjacent room should be provided as an option.
    Personally, I am disgusted with a society wherein, the parents continually give up their natural moral rights and responsibilities to the state which has enacted laws based on the minority of the few exceptions to the norm that push their stories in the media.
    Examples of the inequity abound fueled by the story of a homosexual in college who was secretly filmed by his stupid roomate who posted the video online ,after which he committed suicide . How many in Hollywood will come forward for the the high school girl who was raped by her teacher and then committed suicide? He just was sentenced to thirty days in jail!
    In Chile , fifty Legion of Christ priests came to support the priest accused of molesting two little girls. Interestingly the priest was one of the disgraced pedophile Founder’s first seminarians many of whom were abused as boy’s by him..

  3. I stand corrected .Not all of the Legion supporters were priests. However they ALL were part of the Legion of Christ in some way.


    “About 50 members of the Legion of Christ and people connected to Colegio Cumbres arrived at court yesterday to show their support for Fr O’Reilly. ”

    At the same time in reporting the ‘facts” we note that lies are committed by reframing adjectives to describe the personality and activities of the Legion’s Founder. Here on a Legion Regnum Christi site we have Maciel desribed as a “broken” man.
    “Broken” because he was exposed as a fraudulant cleric who sodomized boys in his seminary from the very beginning?
    “Broken” because he was a ,morphine addict who controlled members of the Hierarchy with expensive gifts and money?
    “Broken”because even his own illigitimate children from his mistresses came forward to say he victimized them through pedophilia?

    Indeed it is a “MYSTERY” how an Order and it’s Apostolate founded by a liar and hypocrit can remake their story to be one of continued holiness despite the continued scandals of abuse involving their own!

  4. Way to go, Tom! Your blog is articulate and boldly expresses what our society needs to hear. Thanks for being the voice of truth! One comment, though,
    Could you document your research about 80% of pedifiles having been
    molested as youth? Otherwise, readers may just chalk that up to another study
    that says what an agenda wants it to say?!

    1. The question about pedophiles is not as easy to explain as it may seem. This is one of the problems with the whole research field. First, I am using pedophile in the generic sense. That is to include all child molesters whose victims are up to age 17. Second, there is no single study that addresses this specific issue covering the full age range. This necessitates extrapolation and analysis.

      An in depth study by Abel and Harlow in 2001 (revised in 2002) revealed that 47% of pedophiles who abused young children (age 12 and below) were themselves abused as children in that age range. That means 53% were not abused under the age of 12, at least as far as they remembered and were willing to report. We know that children as young as 2 months old are sexually abused. We also know that very few people remember events before age 3 and we know that traumatic amnesia causes children to forget some abusive experiences. We also know that people frequently lie about their own abuse, The assumption is that 47% under reports the real number.

      We also know that if you expand the age to include older children, the number who were abused increases, but we do know know by how much since Abel and Harlow ignored abuse in the age range 13 to 18. We just know that it is greater than 47%. Extrapolating to include the older children, I estimate the number would be between 60 and 70%.

      A recent DOJ study showed that between 40 and 80 percent of juvenile sex offenders had, themselves, been sexually abused. And a study by David Finkelhor in the late 80’s reported that between 30 and 70 percent of adult sex offenders had been victims of child sexual abuse. Both of these studies depended on self reports. Again such self reports are notoriously underestimated.

      There is one other report that is significant. Earlier this year a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that 30% of of victims of child sexual abuse become abusers themselves. That is a huge number, much larger than expected and so high that I don’t believe it. The study has to be defective in some way, especially since there are more women who were abused as children than men and there are far fewer women predators than men. And there is no possible way that a number approaching 58% of the men who were abused become abusers themselves. In any event, we have to concede the number is large.

      All of these studies show that between 30% and 80% of child sexual predators were abused as children. Because of the problem of under reporting and because of the high number of abuse victims who become abusers, it is logical to select the higher number in the range to represent the real number. Despite the deficiencies this is the best number currently available.

      So that’s the explanation. I wish it could be cleaner. Someday it will, but not until the researchers return to the practice of seeking the truth rather than the practice of advancing an agenda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s