During his recent visit to London for a conference held by the Anglican Church, Joseph Nicolosi was interviewed on the BBC News Hour along with Professor Michael King from the University College of London Medical School. Their debate was short but, as King put it at one point, robust.
Nicolosi normally comes out of the gate strong in these settings, boldly stating things which he later has trouble supporting. Early on when he is questioned by King about randomized trials, Nicolosi begs off saying he is a clinical psychologist. Later when asked directly again by King, Nicolosi claims that other treatments exist and are used without such trials — a different response entirely. King is adamant about there not having been any such trials.
King also asks Nicolosi if it isn’t true that there is a statement on the American Psychological Association web site which warns about Nicolosi’s organization, NARTH, and the kinds of therapies they use. Nicolosi replied in the strongest terms saying that was “absolutely not true. I tell you that is absolutely not true.” He challenged King to provide it. At the end of the debate, the host reads the following from the APA site:
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’s espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
In reply, Nicolosi said simply, “you got me on that one.” It’s a quick listen at only nine minutes.
Nicolosi got pwned. LOL.
Seriously, though. If he makes claims about his most key critics that aren’t true, why should anyone believe what he says about his own “research”?
Dr Nicolosi has a bit of a habit of making claims or denying things quite hysterically and then being proven wrong.
His approach seems to be to make very firm claims in the hope that he won’t be challenged. For example, he claims there are randomized studies to back up his claims, but when challenged to name one, he more or less admits there aren’t, and instead protests that there are many therapies that haven’t been proven by randomized trials. His tack seems fundamentally dishonest.
Nicolosi is a liar and has been for years. What happened on the BBC probably represents something he has done in similar situations for years, but will become increasingly difficult (if not impossible) to do in the future. When he claimed that there was no warning on the APA about his organization, he counted on his listeners not being able to verify whether his statement was true or false. For most of the public, you would be left with a claim and a counter claim, resulting in a draw.
With current technology, it is very easy to verifty or disprove such black and white claims. The BBC was able to do it before the end of the interview. Nicolosi was caught in a bald face lie. Now the viewers aren’t left with a draw. They are left with an exposed lie and a completely discreditted “expert.” Game over.
The APA statement was given at the annual convention in 2008. I have hard copies with the APA logo. It would be wise if Nicolosi only commented to anti-gay audiences and avoided the media. He does not fare so well, much of the time when challenged.
I meant annual convention in New Orleans in 2006
“you got me on that one.” ?
:: bangs head on desk ::
At 3:44, is Nicolosi telling King to shut up? Quite irritable isn’t he?
I’ve always thought that British Journalism was better than the Americans, especially since they report more world news.
I think the danger with Nicolosi is that he is a danger to himself. He is so caught up in his own therapy that he identifies himself with it. If it is a failure then he is a failure is how I preceive the way he thinks.
He acts like a mad scientist in a bad B movie.
He is also a danger to those who seek his help because he is essentially offering something that isn’t there. It’s like he’s asking people to invest in Ocean Front Property in Phoenix, Arizona, assuring them that California will drop into the ocean with the next big quake. If he were such a salesman, he would ignore any credited geologist who contradicts what he (Nicolosi) claims, and outright tells them to shut up.
It’s a shame . . . when he could be devoting his energy to something that really gets results.
“It’s a shame . . . when he could be devoting his energy to something that really gets results”
like living his life, stopping selling snake oil, and leaving people who jhave done him no harm alone.
There’s one thing that I really would love to hear of Nicolosi and NARTH (along with FotF and all the rest of that soi-disant pro-family shower) doing, and that’s something that actually helps families. But I fear that we may have to wait till kingdom come.
Gotta love Professor King’s response: “Perhaps you ought to check it.”
Of course he’s a liar–have you ever met a snake oil salesman who wasn’t.
It’s a shame he doesn’t have a cure for his bad attitude and rudeness.
If a one-on-one, live on air would be had with Albert Mohler, Richard Land, James Dobson, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager regarding what the bible ACTUALLY says regarding the so-called “homosexual clobber passages”, they too would be forced to respond just as Nicolosi did. The facts found both within Scripture and History regarding “homosexuality” are no match for any of these people.
You have to listen to the audio to get the full impact! The intonation in his voice when he says, “That’s on the American Psychological Association website?” is a textbook example of faking innocence. He knew of the APA’s statement. When King exposes his lie, Nicolosi fails miserably to cover it up. Here’s a partial transcript.