I actually looked at the stuff you linked, but No, I didn't read it closely. I've read much similar stuff in the past. They're not "facts," by the way. I love the internet, really, but what I hate about it is, people like you read something that doesn't have all that many misspellings and think, it must be a scientific tract. I can't rely on "personal testimony" about "conversions" as "fact." Scientists have strict standards for this stuff. Even the much maligned field of journalism asks for a "second source"--corroboration. I mean, real corroboration. Just my opinion: I feel you're out of your league.
So Dr. Spitzer's an idiot like me?