I didn't acknowledge your criticism of the source because it doesn't seem to reflect a look at the paper, let alone an earnest analysis of it. The response rate for the survey was explicitly stated as 20%, well in line with expected response rates for these sort of external surveys. Your figure of 7% seems to be invented whole cloth.

That, along with your characterization of my response as a "rhetorical strategy", makes it quite clear you don't have any interest in engaging in the topic critically.

To anyone reading, I encourage you to open the study, Ctrl-F for tptacek's "7%". Confirm for yourself whether or not he's being honest, and consider what that implies about our respective positions.

You're right. I'm wrong. I had accidentally used the total number of targets from a previous study to calculate that percentage.

A total of 1345 people received emails.

The questions about ethnic differences were answered by 71 respondents.

The actual rate was 5%.

I regret the error.

The abstract itself cites the low response rate. It's a stated problem with the survey. How are you not familiar with the document you brought to the debate?

You got real quiet there. Anything else to add?