Ex-Gay Watch

by Jack Drescher, MD

A recent article in Scientific American by Thomas Maier has cast into doubt the veracity of a study published 30 years ago that purported to demonstrate that some people can change their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one.

The study in question was carried out by the most pre-eminent American sex researchers of the last century, the husband and wife team of gynecologist William Masters and psychologist Virginia Johnson. In their own time they were as famous as Alfred Kinsey and like Kinsey, their names became synonymous with the study of human sexuality, if not with the notion of sex itself.

As with the Kinsey studies of the 1940s and 50s, Masters and Johnson’s scholarly books on human sexual responses attracted popular audiences in the 60s and 70s. Based on laboratory research with human subjects, they developed a model of sexual function and dysfunction that would eventually serve as a template for the Sexual Dysfunction section of the 1980 Third Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III) and the subsequent volumes since then.

Not as well known today is their 1979 book, Homosexuality in Perspective, in which they describe their research history and objective:

A report of the basic science investigation of heterosexual function was made to the health-care professions in 1966 with the publication of Human Sexual Response . . . the second step in the investigative process was the creation of a 10-year clinical control period for the [Masters and Johnson] Institute’s newly developed techniques for treatment of heterosexual inadequacies [reported in their second volume, Human Sexual Inadequacy, published in 1970].

The homosexual phase of the open-ended investigation of human sexual response began in 1964 with the Institute attempting to respond to the overwhelming cultural and scientific need for an objective investigation of homosexual function. The same protocol of basic science precedence to new clinical treatment constructs was employed. The research program was initiated with an evaluation of physiologic response patterns demonstrated by sexually experienced homosexual men and women responding to effective sexual stimuli in a laboratory setting. This evaluation of homosexual function was completed in 1968 after almost five years of laboratory involvement.

The 10-year period of clinical control for creating and evaluating treatment techniques for homosexual dysfunctions and dissatisfactions began in 1968 and terminated in 1977. With this textual presentation, the Institute reports to the health-care professions both the basic science investigations of homosexual function and the new clinical programs designed to treat sexual inadequacies of homosexual orientation [pp. 235-236, italics added].

They go on to describe those sexual inadequacies. They excluded difficulty with anal intercourse “since rectal [sic] intercourse is not a consistently utilized form of male homosexual interaction, facility in rectal penetration could not be considered a vital factor in arriving at a definition of homosexual impotence” (p. 237).

They further asserted that, “the homosexual male has no absolute requirement for attaining or maintaining an erection of sufficient quality for accomplishing a penetrative act (Though admittedly a penetrative act, fellatio, creates only minor nomenclature confusion because the male does not need even a partial erection for oral penetration.)” and “since it is also apparent that rectal and vaginal penetration are not regularly recurrent sexual techniques employed by lesbians, these penetrative acts have not been considered in defining lesbian anorgasmic states” (p. 237). Read more…

We would like to introduce Yuki Choe, a commenter turned writer at XGW. Some may know her already from her thoughtful comments, but for those who don’t she has written an introduction which follows. Please join us in welcoming her to the site!

Introduction

Greetings everyone! I am YukiChoe, and I am an Asian transsexual female with strong interests in ex-gay related issues. I will be living in Australia soon with my newly wedded husband. I became involved with Real Love Ministry in Malaysia back in mid 2006, and was quickly disillusioned with their camouflaged, anti-gay, anti-transgender rhetoric. I was also appalled with the way lesbians, gays and transgenders were represented by other ex-gays and felt their misinformation of LGTs needed a strong counter voice. That is when I started advocating against ex-gay efforts toward those who have no problem with their orientation.

So why is a transsexual female like me contributing to a site like XGW? I believe there is an ex-gay or ex-transsexual experience in everyone of us. Be it a gay, having to be closeted by pretending to be completely heterosexual in public due to the pressures of society, a lesbian that may be comfortable in pants being forced to wear clothes that are totally femme against her will by her family, or a transsexual female being coerced into confining herself by pretending to be a boy before the church authorities. Our differences have been exploited by people who wish to cause discrimination and marginalization among those of differing sexual orientations.

We are all stereotyped into convenient boxes that are labeled, and then forcibly applied according to who holds the majority keys, be it the elders of the church or the laymen. I don’t believe we can change the world completely, but we can still make it a better place. This is why it gives me great pleasure to be able to contribute to this site. On a personal front, you can get to know me as I am at www.yuki-thejourney.blogspot.com. I’m glad to be of service to the lesbian, gay and transgender community. I thank Ex-Gay Watch for the opportunity to do so.

- Yuki Choe -

Dr. Chapman gives his concluding remarks in a series which began with his three part critique of Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Dr Stanton Jones and Dr Mark Yarhouse. What follows is a response to the author’s comments on the original critique. We thank all three for their participation.

I appreciate Dr Stanton Jones’ willingness to exchange comments on his recent co-authored book and for the spirit of collegiality that is represented in the exchange. Bias is an issue that all researchers are subject to and strive to overcome. It is sometimes difficult to separate one’s emotions from an objective critique of a work that hits close to home. As such, one can sometimes accidentally misrepresent aspects of a study. I appreciate the minor corrections Stanton Jones provided regarding my original critique. However, we remain in discord regarding the substantive points discussed.

In science it is important to be precise, something the Jones and Yarhouse study lacks. The focus of my original critique was the sloppy and biased scholarship, demonstrated partly by imprecision. I highlighted that Jones and Yarhouse:

• reference the entire study as prospective when it is not;
• assert participants are at the start of the change process instead of just being at the start of the Exodus program, although even this is not entirely correct;
• assert the study cannot ascertain if permanent and enduring long-term change occurs, contrasted with their conclusion that change is possible;
• portray specific results as indicating change, specifically Tables 7.4 – 7.6, when those actual results do not support the conclusion;
• employ a moving target regarding what sexual orientation change entails;
• misstate the APAs’ position on the potential harm of reparative therapy;
• and have a moving target regarding if the therapy causes harm.

I would like to further discuss each of these points, addressing the rebuttals provided by Jones in his response. Before I do so, however, I wish to show the sloppy and biased scholarship is not unique to this book; it also exists in Jones and Yarhouse’s previous work, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate.

In that book the authors discuss the relevance of twin studies to causation. They correctly present the concordance rate for female identical twins in the Bailey and Pillard study as 48%. Based on how concordance rates are calculated, in a representative sample of 30 pairs of identical twins one would expect both co-twins to be homosexual in only nine or ten cases. This means that even if the first 20 pairs in a representative sample demonstrate negative concordance, one could still obtain the target concordance rate. However, to counter the 48% concordance rate the authors reference a study with a sample size of four, in which in no cases were both co-twins homosexual. They then state: “The lack of shared homosexual preference for female homosexuals is quite striking when compared to Bailey and Pillard’s remarkably high rate of shared homosexual preference for lesbians” (2000:74; emphasis added). For PhDs in the behavioral sciences to make such a declaration using an incredibly small and non-representative sample is “quite striking” and cannot be attributed to an innocent ignorance of statistical theory. The sloppy scholarship, rooted in what I believe is a predisposed religious bias, is also a significant issue in the current study.

Prospective vs. retrospective and what do the results say?

Jones and Yarhouse claim their study is “prospective.” In my critique I argued: “technically the study is not prospective because 41 individuals were involved in the Exodus program for one to three years prior to the study.” Jones responds that my logic is not compelling and suggests: “If the reader insists on a tighter understanding of “prospective,” then you can narrow the focus to the Phase 1 results. These results were not as positive as those for the population as a whole, but were still statistically significant and meaningful.” I believe even this is not appropriate and once again misrepresents the results. Read more…

Response to Part 3 of Dr. Patrick M. Chapman’s Review of “Ex-Gays”, posted on Ex-Gay Watch, November, 2007, by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.

Response to “Part 3: A Focus on the Results — Examining if it is Harmful”

In this final response, Chapman raises a number of interesting questions, but again continues 1) applying a pattern of logic and argument that would, if applied broadly in the mental health field, establish self-defeating and unsustainable implications for the entire field and 2) on that basis then highlighting isolated findings and anecdotes as if they refute the broader pattern of empirical findings from the study.

In his first paragraph, Chapman chides us for imprecision and inconsistency both in how we characterize the claims about harm made by the various professional organizations, and in how we characterize our own findings and conclusions. He provides a link to the very same American Psychological Association Public Affairs website that we site in our book that cautions about harm from attempts to change sexual orientation. This is one of the less forceful warnings about harm (we cite others in our book in many places; see for example pp. 330-331). Further, public pronouncements by key professional representatives (for instance, psychiatrist Jack Drescher’s op ed piece, titled “Conversion attempts mostly lead to harm”) have yet further heightened the perceived likelihood and severity of risk of harm. Regarding his listing of how we describe this literature in the book, we do regret using “always” harmful (p. 19) as he points out, but the other quotes are reflective of the diverse array of characterizations of the likelihood of harm.

To address his pattern of logic, let’s begin by some simple clarification of how to think about harm. I (Jones) recently had minor knee surgery, and both the surgery itself and the medication prescribed post-surgery had risks. The fact that the rare person has had serious, even devastating reactions to such surgery and medication did not and can not itself invalidate my choice to pursue this procedure or the doctor’s administration of the treatment. The risks have to be weighed against the potential gains I expected in light of my dissatisfaction with the state of my knee prior to surgery and in light of the likelihood of such risks. Read more…

Response to Part 2 of Dr. Patrick M. Chapman’s Review of “Ex-Gays”, posted on Ex-Gay Watch, November, 2007, by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.

Response to “Part 2: A Focus on the Results — Examining if Change is Possible”

Here in Part 2 Dr. Chapman’s criticisms turn more severe. First he asserts that ours is not a long term study. Again, his logic is questionable, and the problem of incomplete citation of our argument is significant. Chapman says “In the opening chapter Jones and Yarhouse honestly and correctly state this study cannot establish if long-term, permanent and enduring change occurs because that would require a long-term study (p. 17).” What we actually say on page 17 is that “this study will not establish that permanent, enduring change has occurred; only a very long-term study can demonstrate that.” Our point was not that our study was not a long-term study, nor that our study was inadequate to produce evidence suggesting that change was not impossible. Our point instead was that if you want to show that change is permanent, then logically you have to study subjects throughout their lifespans to death to insure the change was permanent. So our study cannot show that change is permanent, but even so a three to four year span of time is scientifically meaningful and qualifies as “long term.”

Chapman’s subsequent criticisms share a common characteristic that must be noted: Chapman imagines that he blunts our argument that change is possible for some by pointing out contrary pieces of isolated evidence that change did not happen for certain people or did not happen in certain ways he considers important. Science, in contrast, operates by examining all relevant data for trends, and then applies that data to the evaluation of hypotheses.

Our hypothesis regarding change was that “change is impossible.” The relevant data for falsification of that hypothesis is evidence that change is possible for some. Imagine the argument that “it is impossible to sustain life through heart transplant operations.” A scientist studies 100 heart transplants, and finds one year post-operation that 67% of transplant patients are still alive. Does the death of 33% constitute evidence in support of the argument “it is impossible to sustain life through heart transplant operations”? Of course not: If heart transplants are not supposed to help people, then the relevant data is data that falsifies the hypothesis, i.e., evidence of people surviving. Chapman’s selective citation of our data is the equivalent of focusing on the negative cases in this example. This is explicit, as Chapman argues that our conclusion that change is possible for some “is unwarranted because . . .” and then cites a series of evidences of incomplete change.

It was very surprising for Chapman to build the core of his argument around selectively citing the 3 tables (7.4 through 7.6; pp. 239-240) that show no change (which we openly admit) while completely ignoring the other tables on the related variables that show significant change (7.1 through 7.3; pp. 238-239) AND while completely ignoring all of the other variables measured (the balance of Chapter 7) on which statistically significant change and effect sizes ranging from small to large were demonstrated. It was in response to the broader pattern of evidence that we concluded that “change is possible for some” again and again through the book. Chapman says that “This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship,” but actually provides no evidence of this. Chapman and others who want to engage this work fairly need to respond to the overall pattern of our findings which, in contrast to the hypothesis that “change is impossible,” found many statistically significant changes and meaningful effect sizes on almost all of the measures of sexual orientation. How can an exclusive focus on those few instances where statistically significant change was not found be justified? Read more…

Response to Part 1 of Dr. Patrick M. Chapman’s Review of “Ex-Gays”, posted on Ex-Gay Watch, November, 2007, by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.

The greatest compliment that be paid to any work of scholarship is for it to receive serious consideration and generate discussion. Thus, we are pleased to see the review by Dr. Chapman of our book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Chapman raises important issues, but in the end, we must conclude that his review fails to establish the serious flaws he claims in our study.

Response to “Part 1: Introduction and Methods”

We applaud Chapman for correctly summarizing the main questions we examined in the study, for a reasonable brief summary of the study’s methodology, and particularly for granting us some credulity in saying that “They claim the ex-gay organization [Exodus] did not exert any control or power over their results and conclusions (p. 127), and there is currently no reason to believe otherwise.” Minor points of disagreement with his summary and commentary include the following:

• Our interest was not triggered by “the conflicting views of science [versus the claims of our] conservative Christian acquaintances;” but rather by the conflict between a) the prevailing and hardening consensus of mental health opinion that change is utterly impossible, based on a very mixed scientific record, versus b) the actual scientific record and the anecdotal claims of people we know. Regarding the actual scientific record, note for instance the recent publication by a respected scholar of a report of some notable plasticity in “female same-sex sexuality” in a minority of women followed in a longitudinal study (Lisa Diamond, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(#2), 142-161. Diamond rightly concludes “the more we learn, the more we do not understand,” p. 142. She also, it must be said, would not regard her findings as providing support for change as understood in this study, but on the other hand, her results do challenge a simple “sexual orientation is utterly and always unchangeable” stance). And Chapman in his review gives weight to the anecdotes of people he knows, and his own story, so once again we raise the question why only certain anecdotes are privileged as worthy of consideration in this debate.
• Chapman implicitly dismisses “behavior modification” as trivial, but we see insufficient justification to take this step. Some of our subjects experienced more than mere behavior modification, and even behavior modification can be very meaningful if it empowers a person to live in closer accord with her freely chosen core values.

The core of Chapman’s criticism of the study in Part 1 is that our study is somehow not truly prospective. We would agree that if our study is not prospective then it is disingenuous to claim that it is, and the scientific value of the study is considerably weakened. This charge, in other words, is truly significant. Let’s look carefully, then, at the basis for Chapman’s claims. Read more…

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
Continued from Part 2

A Focus on the Results — Examining if it is Harmful

The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association regard attempts to change sexual orientation as “potentially” harmful or risky. However, Jones and Yarhouse misrepresent the American Psychological Association as saying that such involvement “would be” harmful (p. 353) or “is highly likely” to be harmful (p. 365). Likewise, the authors state they are examining whether the change process is “always” harmful (p. 19), “potentially” harmful (p. 77), or “likely to be harmful” (p. 77). They conclude there is “no evidence” such attempts are harmful (pp. 296, 332), it is not harmful “in and of itself” (p. 359), there is “no meaningful” evidence for it being harmful (p. 363), there is “little evidence” for harm (p. 365), and it is “not harmful on average” (p. 367), the latter being a far cry from there being no evidence it is harmful!

The participants themselves refute the authors’ assertion that change therapy is not harmful. One participant says these groups are not “healthy or necessarily beneficial” (p. 301), another reports his faith is “taking a beating” (p. 313), a third feels “hopeless”, “helpless”, “empty”, “frustrated”, “hurt”, and “very alone” (p. 314, all after 3 years in the Exodus program), a fourth bemoans he spent so many years trying to change that he has missed out on other goals in his life (p. 316), and a fifth claims involvement in the therapy made life “more difficult” (p. 317). One wonders what would have to be the reports of the participants for Jones and Yarhouse to declare the ministry harmful? However, they do recognize that the 23 participants (of an original 98) who dropped out of the program may have been harmed, but they cannot be sure of such a conclusion (p. 354). Nonetheless, dismissing this possibility and ignoring the statements of the participants that remained in the program, Jones and Yarhouse confidently declare the change process is not harmful. Once again, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: those who declare they are hurt by the process are evidence of harm.

One might be inclined to forgive Jones and Yarhouse for their optimism if they had not presented anecdotal stories of individuals not related to the current study who committed suicide because they were unable to change. The authors plead: “should such anecdotes foreclose the option of the individual choosing to attempt orientation change?” (pp. 359-360). Jones and Yarhouse do not indicate how many deaths and testimonies of harm they consider permissible in order to allow other individuals the opportunity for a change that, by all evidence, is unlikely to ever happen.

Jones and Yarhouse recognize that individuals who enter ex-gay ministries are vulnerable (p. 64). Thus, it is disappointing to have the authors draw unwarranted conclusions that are in direct opposition to their own decree as to what the study can and cannot indicate. While their book will be likely and erringly used to convince some homosexual Christians or their families that change is possible, the results demonstrate nothing of the kind. How many lives must be broken before the authors realize the actual damage caused by these ministries outweighs any potential good?

It is clear to me why the participants in this study retain homosexual desires, attractions and arousal: they were born that way. While Exodus and many conservative Christian leaders argue that postnatal causes lead to homosexual orientation (p. 69), to this day no scientific study has successfully identified any postnatal causal factor or factors. Meanwhile, scientific organizations, supported by considerable research summarized in Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman’s Born Gay, recognize the importance of prenatal factors in determining sexual orientation, specifically prenatal hormones and genetics, and believe that a homosexual orientation is immutable.

The evidence indicates that while a person can change his or her behavior, sexual orientation cannot be changed. Homosexuality is not a disorder or illness that requires healing. Contrary to the conclusions of Jones and Yarhouse, the data from the current study adds additional support to this conclusion.

–
This is the final part of Dr. Chapman’s critique. One of the subject book authors, Dr. Stanton Jones, will be providing a response here within the next few days — check back.

Patrick M. Chapman has a PhD in biological anthropology and is author of “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: in press).

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
Continued from Part 1

A Focus on the Results — Examining if Change is Possible

In the opening chapter Jones and Yarhouse honestly and correctly state this study cannot establish if long-term, permanent and enduring change occurs because that would require a long-term study (p. 17). Contrarily, they later suggest the results demonstrate sexual orientation is changeable (pp. 42, 325), evidenced by 11 “Success: Conversion” cases out of the original 98. The conclusion is unwarranted because: 1) they acknowledge multiple anecdotal cases from previous “ex-gay” success stories who later recanted their “conversion” to heterosexuality (pp. 63-64, 72); 2) they freely acknowledge that people in ex-gay programs declare they are heterosexual even if they experience exclusive and powerful homosexual attractions (p. 220); 3) they admit that one of their 11 “Success: Conversion” cases recanted his claim of change, confessing his homosexual attraction was unchanged after the book manuscript neared completion (p. 285; Jones and Yarhouse did not remove his “success” from their data); and 4) the only way to determine if change actually occurred is through a long-term study, which this is not.

This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship. The authors suggest the results presented in Tables 7.4 through 7.6 (pp. 239-240) present a “modest portrait of positive progress” in the change process (p. 246). Yet, there is no change based on the data presented in Table 7.4: at both the start and end of the study nine participants declare themselves heterosexual while 51 declare themselves homosexual. Jones and Yarhouse state there is “no indication of significant change” based on the data presented in Table 7.5 (p. 248) and no statistically significant change in Table 7.6 (p. 249). Nonetheless Jones and Yarhouse declare the results represented in these three tables to be “positive progress.” Simply put, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: progress requires positive change.

When one examines the statements of the “Success: Conversion” participants it is once again clear that Jones and Yarhouse’s claim of change is unfounded. In addition to the “Success: Conversion” male who recanted his success, another male admits to still having “unwanted sexual attraction to men” (p. 297), while a third admits to continuing homoerotic dreams (p. 298). Read more…

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD

Introduction and Methods

As an academic with a PhD in biological anthropology, and as someone who tried for over a decade to change my sexual orientation, I approached with interest and skepticism the new Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. By studying participants in the Exodus International ex-gay ministries the authors intended to answer two questions: 1) can a homosexual orientation be “healed,” specifically can a person change their orientation using religious-based therapy, and 2) are attempts at change harmful (p. 15). Jones and Yarhouse indicate their interest in these questions stems from the conflicting views of science, which suggests change is impossible and attempts thereof are possibly harmful, and of their conservative Christian acquaintances who claim to have been “healed” from “homosexual orientation in favor of heterosexual experience” (p. 73).

I am suspicious when people claim to be no longer homosexual because they have “heterosexual experience”: the latter implies behavioral modification, not orientation change. Thus, in studies examining change of orientation it is important to explicitly define terms and concepts. Jones and Yarhouse define “sexual orientation” by the object of one’s attraction, desire or arousal (p. 209).

Every study involving homosexuality has flaws and the current one is no exception. Jones and Yarhouse attempt to limit the inherent problems with mixed results. To their credit they honestly acknowledge Exodus as a primary funding source for the project. They claim the ex-gay organization did not exert any control or power over their results and conclusions (p. 127), and there is currently no reason to believe otherwise.

To be included in the study participants had to be at least 18 years old, involved with Exodus due to same-sex attractions, and “involved in the change process for less than three years” at the start of the study (p. 126). Jones and Yarhouse claim this is a prospective study, involving 98 participants at the start of the change process (pp. 39, 366). One must be careful of this assertion for two reasons.

First, technically the study is not prospective because 41 individuals were involved in the Exodus program for one to three years prior to the study (p. 121). This is important in that the authors claim these participants demonstrated higher levels of change than those who were in the change process for less than one year (p.276). In other words, the participants that relied on recollection for their original condition (a retrospective appraisal) reported the most change. The difference in change may have been influenced by the prospective or retrospective component, not whether change actually occurred.

Second, the claim that participants were at the start of their change process is misleading. Jones and Yarhouse report 54 of the participants had previously taken “concrete steps” to change their orientation through non-Exodus programs: 21 for three to five years, 18 for 5.5 to 12 years, and 15 individuals for 13 years or more (p. 150). To be clear, on page 126 the authors assert that to be included in the study participants had to be “involved in the change process for less than three years” but on page 150 they indicate 54 individuals, more than 50 percent, did not meet this criteria. Additionally, 49 of the 98 participants previously attempted to change their sexual orientation through other religious-ministry organizations (p. 151), while 56 previously used professional therapy in an effort to achieve the goal (p. 150). Suggesting the individuals in this study are “starting the change process” is incorrect. Perhaps this was their first attempt with Exodus ministries but that is not the same as “starting the change process.” Nonetheless, when reporting the results the authors frequently, incorrectly, and misleadingly portray the individuals as being in the “change process” for either less than one year or three to four years at most (see pp. 232, 276, 353 for examples).

–
Part 2 will focus on the results examining if change is possible.

Patrick M. Chapman has a PhD in biological anthropology and is author of “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: in press).

Dr. Warren Throckmorton is alleging that the ties between Richard Cohen’s organization, International Healing Foundation (IHF), and the Unification Church may be alive and well, despite Cohen’s statements to the contrary.

A brief review [of the IHF website] finds professionals operating from within Latter Day Saint, Jewish, Christian and Unification Church traditions. The latter group, followers of Sun Myung Moon, is surprising since Cohen said he left that church behind in 1995. Curious, I asked Cohen recently by email if there were any UC connections to his organization, and he told me, to his knowledge, there were none. To the contrary, it appears that there has been for quite some time.

As Ex-Gay Watch recently reported, there is also some question about why a previously respected Christian publisher, InterVarsity Press, would publish Cohen’s latest edition of Gay Children, Straight Parents. Cohen’s unorthodox approach and bizarre public displays aside, Christians looking to IVP for reading material would not normally expect to find something written by an author allegedly close to the Unification Church — considered a cult by many Evangelicals and mainline Christians alike.

And for those who do not appreciate the issues of faith involved here, what does it say about Cohen if he is indeed misleading those who come to him for help in this way?

Update 10/4: Dr. Throckmorton has added to his original post, relaying that someone from IHF has disputed his allegations.  We encourage readers to review all of his post on this and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence.

Source: wthrockmorton.com