JW, as is his wont, has taken up the torch of yet another popular issue.
In his blog post he used a very flawed 'study' to make some points about the absolute superiority of lesbiam moms over the rest of the possible pairings.
The main point of the study was that, in their study cohort, no adolescent children (out of a group of 74) had responded and named their parents as abusers.
You can read the thread and find the responses that mentioned the inadequacy - and probably complete wrongness - of the way the data was collected.
JW made a couple of responses to defends his claims, one of which was that a psychologist friend had said that the children probably were afraid of their bio-dads.
I replied that this was bullshit and extraneous to the study, that there was no evidence at all that the children even knew who their bio-dads were and that I doubted the convenient existence of the psychologist who would say, having read the study, that.
JW feigned being insulted, that his integrity had been impugned and deleted my responses, leaving the impression that I had made some terrible insulting comments (the operative words that offended JW were 'bullshit' and 'mythical'.)
SBA also called into doubt my credentials for making these comments and when I posted my creentials, he deleted them also.
Finally, I rewrote the comments, leaving out any hint of how I felt about JW's comments. JW was still insulted and deleted even this.
So I post my deleted responses here for you to read.
Since JW deleted my last two posts because he felt that I had impugned his integrity, I shall repost without making any implications. Since I didn't copy these, they are not exact but to the point.
My comments were, in response to SBA, that I wasn't saying that anyone had lied, but that getting this kind of information out of children who might be afraid that anything negative would have repercussions in their own life would have to be done gently. An online questionnaire (questions unknown) would, imo, be the least likely way to get good information.
There wasn't even a control group to see how children from hetero couples would respond.
to JW, who said his psychologist friend had said something about being more afraid of fathers I wrote (approximately) that his remark was not applicable to justify the response. There is no reason to bring in the idea of the children being more frightened of their bio dads since they were offspring of a sperm bank and there was not even an inkling that these children knew their bio-dads. The only way to judge the worth of the study was to deal with the information as given - and it was unreliable and certainly not the kind of thing that would justify the sweeping generalizations made both in the paper and in JW's blog.
In response to SBA's query about my credentials I wrote the following (and sent it in a PM
I have two earned doctorates, the first from U of Pennsylvania, the second from IUPUI. My thesis was on the rheology of small amounts of tissue cements. I have about 110 papers published in peer reviewed journals, about half as the principal author and the rest as the statistical adviser to the group.
I have written and had two books published (the last by the American Medical Association) and several book chapters. I taught biomedical statistics and research design for about 8 years to residents in various healthcare disciplines while, at the same time, running a laboratory doing work in materials science. I was then the head of the data analysis division (3 or 4 PhD statisticians and numerous data techs) of a medical foundation that supported all HIV research in the military. Then I was the VP in charge of the section of a statistical consulting company that provided analytical support in medical services to a group in the Department of Health and Human Services.
At various times, I was a reviewer for different medical and research journals; my personal area interest was the use of non-parametric statistics in clinical research.
I do know that peer reviewed means different things. In some narrow fields of endeavor, if a paper is written by a 'name' in the field, the peer reviewers are loathe to bring up any questions for fear of making an enemy of a prominent researcher.
I have no idea what went on in the review of this paper but the obvious weaknesses in the data acquisition mean that any results are questionable and the conclusions unjustified."
This last is a pretty exact quote and yet, although not inflammatory, was deleted - perhaps because it lent some credence to my opinion on the report.
I have no need to impugn JWs integrity his behavior when confronted with information he doesn't like has done that.