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 http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
Why did you choose to accept what is a quite astonishing claim?
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.
John Benneth, Homeopath
Find your remedy. For consultation call:
503 819 7777