Paedophiles will attempt to dazzle you with words like 'censored' and 'political persecution' but the flaws in this study defy all academic integrity and intelligence. Due to the significance of this document, we will be covering it in a series. In this introduction we will provide academic background and dispell the lies paedophiles attach to the report. In upcoming posts we will cover the technical flaws in design and contstruction of this meta-analysis.
Academic Background
Meta-Analysis
A meta-analysis is a form of research whereby the researcher collects previous studies that have been performed on a particular topic to discover trends across the previous studies. A meta-analysis can add greatly to a body of knowledge assuming that it has been carefully designed so that errors in the previous studies are not carried forward and that errors are not intrinsic to the current study.
Peer Review
The peer review process is meant to assure the validity and integrity of academic publications; it is usually a good indication that the results of publication can be trusted. The process involves a group of colleagues reviewing a researcher's data and stating that the data supports the conclusion made by the author. Unfortunately, this process breaks down somewhat in a meta-analysis. As found by Whitely et al (1994), peers do not ordinarily have access to the original data contained in a meta-analysis. This means that in the case of this meta-analysis, instead of verifying the actual results, peers could only say that everything appeared to be accurate assuming that Rind et al constructed the report with integrity.
Paedophile Arguments
Paedopathetic statement #1
This is the only meta-analysis of it's kind.
Wonder what this is then.....
Jumper, S 1995 ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of CSA to Adult Psychological Adjustment’ Child Abuse & Neglect vol. 19, pp. 715-728.
Or this.....
Neumann, D, Houskamp, B, Pollock, V & Briere, J 1996 ‘The Long-Term Sequelae of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Women: A Meta-Analytic Review’ Child Maltreatment vol. 1, pp. 6-16.
Or even this.....
Oddone, E & Genuis, M (1996) A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse National Foundation for Family Research and Education, Calgary, Canada.
Rind et al dismissed the previous meta-analyses because they all showed the significant damage caused by CSA.
Paedopathetic statement #2
The report was censored by Congress
Sorry wrong again. The report has not been censored by anyone. In fact the report is freely available through a variety of sources. Congress unanimously denounced the study stating that public policy should not be formed on such flawed, biased findings (House Con. Res. 107). The APA, responsible for the publication of the report, issued a statement to Congress apologizing for the publication full text here. APA CEO Raymond Fowler wrote this in the letter addressed to Tom Delay:
Additionally, concerns have been raised that the aforementioned article and the inferences drawn from it could be viewed as support for pedophilia and used by pedophiles as a legal defense. There is no defense for pedophilia; it is always wrong.
Paedopathetic statement #3
Rind et al are the only unbiased researchers in this field and/or Rind et al are victims of political persecution.
At least one author of this study (Tromovitch) was publishing in Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia long before this study was ever conducted. The stated purpose of the journal is:
to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.
Shortly after the publication of the report, Rind, Tromovitch & Bauserman were keynote speakers at "The Other Side Of The Coin" - a paedophile activism conference in the Netherlands which was promoted this way:
expressly to throw light on the more positive side of adult-nonadult sexual contacts.
I contend that it is a self-evident truth that you cannot be an unbiased researcher and an activist in the same field.
This evidence is, on its own merits, enough to discredit anything Rind et al actually concluded. However, we will continue to bring you information on the technical aspects of the report and how the study was specifically designed to 'prove' what Rind et al were determined to conclude. In the next edition, we will cover what Rind et al chose to include/exclude in their data sample.
