Critique attempts refutation of homosexual mortality study

Submitted by 4tis on 2011/10/30 at 8:53 am

A reader writes:

You ask for a refutation of your statistics. Let’s take the claim about life expectancy, which I assume is based on the Cameron obituary study. There are a number of critiques available that show that this study is extremely flawed, for example
Why did you choose to accept what is a quite astonishing claim?

Dear 4tis:

Thank you very much for commenting on a difficult, critical subject . . and what has become a highly contentious and depressing one, too.

The kind of refutation I’m looking for I’m not finding in the Cameron critique . This is the sole denialist argument we see in attacks on homeopathy, attacks that build a case for placebo by finding methodological criticisms of tests for verum, i.e. claiming proof that homeopathic remedies are placebo because due to local (idiosyncratic) criteria tests for verum have failed .

The proper refutation is to answer the question, independently, using global criteria, avoiding the pitfalls named in the localized dismissal.

The question here is, what are the health differences and mortality rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals?

The refutation of the conclusion that homosexuals have twice the number of suicides and live  24 years less than average is based on nothing more than armchair analysis. Too easy. It’s massaging the data, twisting the facts.

This is 100% of the skeptic argument.

A proper refutation of the numbers is to go get your own. Answer the question using facts found by an independent, non biased survey.

What a new study might find is that gays live longer, happier lives. If those facts were available, then why aren’t they being used?

The answer is that no such conclusion exists. every study comes to the same conclusion. The gay lifestyle is a debacle!

Are the studies wrong? Then instead of poisoning your own well by discrediting existing studies,  find or do research that proves otherwise, and present that instead. Don’t equivoate, illustrate. If you don’t, it suggests you can’t without confirming what is already known.

I’ve seen it happen in every argument against homeopathy. They’re all built on nothing more than accusations, theory and complaint. It’s always a negative argument, it never presents positive information to support its case. It always turns out to be nothing more than those three monkeys.

Answer the relevant question. Don’t give me a negative opinion, give me a positive fact.

What is the average life span of a homosexual?

What is the suicide, misery index, income, drug an alcohol abuse? We’ve shown you 24 studies to support our conclusions, let’s see yours.

And if it isn’t important to know what it is, then why are you picking it apart the answer to the question if it was?

You ask the question, “Why did you choose to accept what is a quite astonishing claim?”

To say that it is an “astonishing claim’ is presumptive. What may be astonishing to some who are merely opining on it, whereas it may be prosaic to others who are actually dealing with it day to day.

Perhaps the reason you frame it as “astonishing” is a putative appeal, as if everyone should know it’s false, because that’s what you want everyone to believe, that this is an extraordinary, baseless claim, giving you an excuse to raise the bar on the evidence, supported by concordance, published in a serious psychiatric journal, supported by two dozen studies: The data is the same for countries where homosexuality is the norm and others where it isn’t.

An analysis in 2008 of 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health in the UK revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population. It also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

The data is more global than the Cameron critique, which characterizes it as idiosyncratic, novel and biased. The conclusions for the high gay death and mental rates  are drawn from more than one study. The same conclusions are also suggested in a California study by Susan Cochran at the University of California, Los Angeles, also published in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry. Cochran reports that homosexuals seek treatment for mental health issues or substance abuse at a rate over two times higher than heterosexuals.

To be fair, the catch words in the Cochran study are “seek treatment” as opposed to ‘needing it but not doing something about it,” which seems typical of the usual macho approach by heterosexual men.

Cochran concludes that, “The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems.”

However, there is a point entirely missed by the narrow refutation of Cameron. Critics of the accepted secular interpretation that mental illness in homosexuals is due to discrimination say that the numbers of homosexuals seeking help for mental and physical problems in countries where homosexuality has been “normalized,” are global, virtually the same as they are where homosexuality is openly condemned.

Homosexuality bigotry blames the reporter as the cause of problem, which is what I’m encountering here. Reporting information here and suggestions that homeopathic treatment may help reverse the condition is being construed by some as being the cause of it. This is typical allopathic thinking, to see symptoms as cause instead of what they really are: Direct observation reportage.

The global data refutes Cochran’s putative matching conclusion that the pathology of homosexuality comes from it’s condemnation by heterosexual society. What it suggests instead is that the pathologizing of homosexuality comes not from homophobes, but from covert victimization by its attendants, who have spread the belief that it needs no correction, the subtext being that homosexuals are stuck that way, when in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Homosexuality is a cash cow for the allopathic psychiatry industry. The local fluoxetine pusher can always depend on gays to keep him in business. Curing homosexuality with homeopathy is as much a threat to the medical establishment as is curing any other disease.

The predators don’t want you well, they want you sick. They want you coming back for more of their junk so they can bleed you of everything you got.

Not every gay grows up gay. Some are made that way. Some women become Lesbians after their marriages to me go bad. Some men raise families, then turn . .

The occnditions assoicate with homosexulaty are curable with the individualied homeopathic remedy! Curative medicine works at the cellular level. The genesis of disease is unimportant. Symptoms are guides to the remedy.

Please see “Study: Homosexuals Twice as Likely to Seek Mental Health, Substance Abuse Treatment.”

John Benneth, Homeopath
Find your remedy. For consultation call:

503 819 7777

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter



  1. ebola virus says:

    Spot on with this write-up, I really think this website needs much more
    attention. I’ll probably be back again to read more, thanks for the information!


  2. Wanda Johnson says:

    Homosexuality is wrong and still an abomination to God according to the book of Leviticus. Just as the Bible says (doesn’t matter who believes it or not) God never changes just because a society changes its views on what God says is an abomination. God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Two men coming together in fornication can’t reproduce a child because God never intended for it to be so. According to Scripture there will be a judgment day and everyone will have to answer to God for what was done in their own bodies. So, as it is written in the book of Matthew let the wheat and the tares grow up together and when Yeshua comes He will do the separation just as He will separate the sheep from the goats. There are no gay Christians, just those who have been deceived by the enemy to believe a lie rather than the Truth…which is the only One who sets mankind free from all sins.


  3. 4tis says:

    You missed my point. It was you who repeated the claim that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 24 years shorter than heterosexuals. I’m not making any claim about the life expectancy of homosexuals. If the original study is so flawed that we cannot trust it then where does that leave your claim? If I claimed, based on an untrustworthy study, that homosexuals lived 24 years longer then you would rightfully point out that my claim could not be trusted and therefore I should withdraw it. You would not need to determine the actual life expectancy to do that.

    I hope you understand this point. Do you still stand by the claim that he life expectancy of homosexuals is 24 years less than that for heterosexuals?


    • johnbenneth says:

      Yes, I do stand by it, because you’re not offering any facts in rebuttal, just opinion.


      • 4tisblog4tis says:

        John, there are a number of reasons why we should not trust the results of Cameron’s study:

        1) It is very reasonable to assume that men who appear in the obituary column of gay community newspapers/magazines will be homosexual. What you cannot assume is that the deaths that are reported in those columns are representative of homosexuals as a whole. An obituary column is quite different to the “births, deaths, & marriages” section that you might find in a newspaper. An obituary will only be published if the newspaper has become aware of it & it is, in some sense, newsworthy. This will tend to bias the sample towards they atypical.

        2) If you restrict yourself to the obituary columns you completely ignore the class of homeosexuals that are still alive, and living long and happy lives.

        3) Tuly bizarre things come out of the data, if you believe that it is a representative sample. For example it appears to show that gay men *without* AIDS tend to die before they reach their mid-40s. Given that the average age of AIDS patients at death was ~40, this means that AIDS has very little impact (only a few years) on life expectancy. Do you really believe that AIDS has such a small effect on life expectancy?


  4. Well said, Mr O’Sullivan.

    Mr Benneth, your phrase “The predators don’t want you well, they want you sick.” is particularly ill-chosen, given that you are the one advocating treatment for gays people. To LGBT people, the predators are those who would have us believe we are ill and can therefore be cured.

    I am quite happy to believe you are not in any way homophobic, but you display a lack of understanding of what makes people tick that plays right into the hands of the homophobes and the snake oil-sellers that prey on people like me. Please listen to your colleagues, if you will not listen to the skeptics.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Thanks Jay, I’ll take your advice into consideration . . listening to my colleagues, that is. I long ago learned not to listen to skeptics. Their criticisms are always based on fallacies.


  5. Hello John. I’m pleased to see that there are those questioning if the results of the study you quoted were reliable or not. I wonder if the Catholic Medical Association, who conducted the study have a view on Homeopathy, do you know?

    Even if the conclusions of the study saw a statistical correlation between Homosexuality and reduced lifespan, that is still insufficient to lead to your conclusions that being gay is pathology. The causation, for example, may have come from having to be the subject of prejudicial conclusions, such as your own, that shortened their lifespan and not inherent in the situation of being gay.

    In Anthropology, Homosexuality is regarded as being a “cultural universal” – that is, it has been recorded in every known human culture. It is hardwired into humanity that a certain percentage of us will be gay. It is up to each individual society to respond to that in its own way.

    Unfortunately, many societies have reacted with bigotry and brutality a good example of which is the influence of the Roman Catholic Church – an organisation involved in which is the source of the study that you’ve quoted. That alone is circumstantial evidence towards publication bias.

    Whether the results of the study are reliable or not, the conclusions. to which you’ve seemed eager to jump, are 100% your own and should be in no way construed to be representative of Homeopaths. You do a disservice to the community by continuing on this tack.

    Furthermore, your suggestion in the previous post that Homeopathy be mandatory for gay people is repugnant. Why would a gay client consent to being treated by a therapist whose belief is that qualities in their nature are “wrong”? There’s no unprejudiced observer involved there. Indeed in my view, if being Hahnemann’s unprejudiced observer is a prerequisite for practising Homeopathy then you have, in this line of thought, disqualified yourself from the practice of Homeopathy.

    yours etc.

    Mark O’Sullivan Lic.I.S.H. ISHom
    twitter: @homeopath


What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s