Now on ScienceBlogs: Where the IPCC went wrong with its climate predictions

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture

Profile

brayton_headshot_wre_1443.jpg Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll


Science Blogs Legal Blogs Political Blogs Random Smart and Interesting People Evolution Resources

Archives

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb



Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

Read the Bills Act Coalition

My Ecosystem Details



My Amazon.com Wish List

« Balko Rips Schlussel | Main | Darwin Shot the VT Students, Take 2 »

Danish Epidemiologist Blasts Cameron's "Study"

Posted on: April 20, 2007 9:27 AM, by Ed Brayton

In a follow up on Paul Cameron's absurd "study" on the lifespan of gays, Warren Throckmorton (of all people - Throckmorton himself is an advocate of gay conversion therapy) asked a Danish epidemiologist, Morten Frisch, to critique Cameron's methodology. To no one's surprise, Frisch blasted the study and its many flaws. It is blunt and to the point. I'll post Frisch's critique below the fold:

Cameron and Cameron's report on 'life expectancy' in homosexuals vs heterosexuals is severely methodologically flawed

It is no wonder why this pseudo-scientific report claiming a drastically shorter life expectancy in homosexuals compared with heterosexuals has been published on the internet without preceding scientific peer-review (http://www.earnedmedia.org/frireport.htm). The authors should know, and as PhD's they presumably do, that this report has little to do with science. It is hard to escape the idea that non-scientific motifs have driven the authors to make this report public. The methodological flaws are of such a grave nature that no decent peer-reviewed scientific journal should let it pass for publication.

As a measure of gay individuals' average 'life expectancy at birth', Cameron and Cameron gathered information about age at death from obituaries for homosexual people in the U.S., and they obtained Scandinavian data regarding the average age at death among homosexually partnered persons who died within a period of up to 14 years after the introduction of laws on homosexual partnerships.

Due in part to reports like the present homosexual persons remain subject to stigmatization. The majority of homosexual people, even in comparatively liberal countries like Denmark, are not open about their sexuality in public. Particularly older homosexuals who grew up in periods when their sexuality was either a crime or a psychiatric diagnosis tend to remain silent about their homosexuality in public. Therefore, the higher prevalence of self-reported homo/bisexual experiences and feelings in younger than older age groups most likely reflects that young gays and bisexuals are less hesitant than older ones to provide honest answers in sex surveys.

The majority of homosexual individuals in the report by Cameron and Cameron were presumably open about their same-sex preferences. The groups studied comprised homosexuals who had entered registered partnerships in Denmark or Norway, and homosexuals in the U.S. whose relatives considered homosexuality to be such an integrated part of their deceased loved ones' personalities that they felt it natural to mention in the publicly available obituary. Since, as noted, age is a strong determinant of openness about homosexuality, the study groups of deceased homosexuals in Cameron and Cameron's report were severely skewed towards younger people. Consequently, the much younger average age at death of these openly homosexual people as compared with the average age at death in the unselected general population tells nothing about possible differences between life expectancies in gays and non-gays in general. All it reflects is the skewed age distribution towards younger people among those who are openly homosexual.

To further illustrate Cameron and Cameron's methodological blunder, imagine a country that sets up a new register to record all cases of sexual harassment against women. After 14 years of operation the register is contacted by an advocacy group who gets access to the data to examine how sexual harassment influences women's life expectancy. Among those women who died during the maximum of 14 years of follow-up, few women will have died after the age of 50, simply because most sexual harassment cases occurred among young women. Using the same logic and methods as Cameron and Cameron, this advocacy group could arrive at the conclusion that sexual harassment reduces women's 'life expectancy' by 30 years or more. Needless to say, this would be as pure nonsense as the conclusion reached by Cameron and Cameron that heterosexuals outlive gays by 22-25 years.

In theory, despite their possession of academic degrees, the authors may have been unaware of the flawed methodology they used and, therefore, they may have been in good faith when writing their report. If so, they should promptly retract it to avoid further stigmatization of homosexual persons. However, expectations that this will happen are slim. Results simply fit too well with the views they have previously expressed.

Morten Frisch, MD, PhD, DSc(Med)
Senior epidemiologist
Copenhagen, Denmark

Kudos to Dr. Throckmorton, who is hardly known as someone friendly to gay causes, for soliciting and publishing Frisch's criticisms. Odds that Cameron will respond with anything like intellectual honesty? A billion to one seems about right.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

1

Equally unlikely that hate organizations like Focus, FRC, or AFA will quit citing this absurdly illegitimate "study."

Posted by: SharonB | April 20, 2007 4:56 PM

2

The sad thing about all of this is that no refutation will ever be enough. It's a study. It's published. It's a data point, even if it has been completely torn apart. If you put up a study that completely refutes it, you're playing "dueling studies" and it's clear that the experts just agree to disagree, and common sense trumps the data.

I remember a discussion on gay adoption on Talk of the Nation and I remember the anti-gay representative bringing up yet another refuted study. The opposing voice pointed out a litany of flaws and started to list study after study that contradicted it. Right on cue, the anti-gay side broke in and said, "Well, we could play dueling experts all day long. Common sense tells us..." Sadly, that sort of tactic usually works.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | April 20, 2007 8:08 PM

3

Everything about the report that people are complaining about has been noted in the document. That what science is (or rather, so it should be). Work with the data you have, while at the same time noting any possible variables.

Since this sutdy is so blantantly wrong, where are your studies to counter it? The scientific method required that studies be replicated, FRI has done this in the U.S. with numerous obituaries, and Scandinavian study, and now this. The scientific method requires that you produce your own replicable studies to prove this wrong, where are they.

Posted by: Phillips | May 26, 2007 2:20 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM