Posted: May 14, 2017 12:21 pm
Keep It Real wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Keep It Real wrote: Which obvious bias are you speaking of?
The fact that these people want change their sexual orientation and are thus predisposed to look for a positive effect to the treatment.Keep It Real wrote: The fact they were experiencing UHA? That's the qualifying criterion for the whole endeavour.
Making it a biased study.
That's like saying studies into the efficacy of cancer treatments are biased because the patients want to get well.
Not really, because in the case of cancer you can actually show your patients have gotten well, real physical measures. All you've got in your UHA case is self reporting, which is worth pretty much nothing when the people reporting really want you to believe they're not gay anymore.