In case anyone is interested, Paul Cameron has come up with yet more “proof” that homosexuality causes an early death.
But if the press release is correct, Cameron has merely collected data comparing death rates from AIDS among various populations: showing that AIDS is correlated with a shorter lifespan. This is tragic, of course, but no surprise to anyone.
Cameron’s proof that homosexuality itself contributes to shortened life, is that heterosexuals with AIDS, on average, died later in life than gays with AIDS:
The CDC reported that 9% of heterosexuals who died of AIDS were at least 65 years of age. But less than 4% of homosexuals and IV drug abusers who died of AIDS reached 65.
Unless I’m missing something, that fact by itself doesn’t show anything. Wouldn’t the simplest explanation be that those gays who died of AIDS in the past decade contracted the virus at a younger age than heterosexuals who also died of AIDS?
I’m not even sure how to address the implied assumption here: that all gay people will eventually die of AIDS. I’m sure Paul Cameron would deny that this is his intended message, but it’s hard to read the press release any other way.
I’ve delved very deeply into Cameron’s tactics in the past but I haven’t had a chance to look at the CDC report or this one of Cameron’s. But in just the press release alone, I noticed that he is engaging in at least one tactic that he has been so famous for. Notice the line:
“The CDC reported that 9% of heterosexuals who died of AIDS were at least 65 years of age. But less than 4% of homosexuals and IV drug abusers who died of AIDS reached 65.”
Yes, that’s right. He compared heterosexuals with gays AND IV drug users. That is just SO like him! At least he’s consistent.
“The CDC reported that 9% of heterosexuals who died of AIDS were at least 65 years of age. But less than 4% of homosexuals and IV drug abusers who died of AIDS reached 65.”
Apparantly IV drug users are not heterosexual.
Nor it seems (since it’s homosexuals “and” IV drug users) are they homosexual.
Maybe that’s what happened to all the ex-gays we keep hearing about but never seem to be able to find
(j/k)
In his press release
https://www.earnedmedia.org/fri0606.htm
Cameron asks “Are the obituaries listed in the gay press representative of gay deaths in general?” He then argues that BECAUSE THE AGES OF AIDS DEATHS ARE SIMILAR TO THE CDC STATS then it means that the average death of all gay people listed in The Washington Blade is representative of ALL gay people.
What a leap!! (and what a heap!!)
And they wonder why the professional communities have nothing but disgust for the professional anti/ex-gay movements.
Dare I even comment on more vomit from that twisted individual? Sadly, yes — because we can be rest assured that someone (Throckmorton? Satinover? Nicolosi?) will do so in an oblique piece of fluff and then the work of Cameron will go on to be quoted second-hand by others.This is the same rubbish as he “reported” 15 years ago.Firstly, if I dropped dead tomorrow I know that fact wouldn’t be appearing in any paper such as the Blade (or our local equiv). Ditto most gay men and women, whose obits will simply be placed in a mainstream daily. To get an accurate picture one would need to be able to comb these daily papers and find every applicable death (including those who’s sexuality was not mentioned); obviously a futile task and a reason nobody of repute has even bothered.Secondly, these papers are directed at, and read by, a younger than average crowd — I’m sure not many old and gay folks intend to place obits in the Blade. And since the current readers of the Blade are (I assume) not yet dead, we actually have no idea what the real age of death of the readership will be. To re-quote a comment about the first Obit. hack-job by Cameron “You’re only counting the one’s that have died”.Thirdly, 10000 obits over 15 years may seem a large number; but in fact represents only a fraction of the number of gay men and lesbians who have died over that period (for any reason).Lastly, IDU deaths are skewed toward a younger crowd — adding gay AND drug deaths together will give distoted results for either (but, I guess, Cameron already knows that…)I think the most important note is that the “20 years earlier” coincides with the same figure that gets trotted out by every anti-gay organisation (Hogg et al, IJofE 1997). Too convenient.But — leaving out the spin — what do we really find? The median, 25% percentile and the 75% percentile are the same. The few years difference for the (no doubt) smallish number of either HIV-related or IDU deaths over the age of 65 years is (no doubt) statistically insignificant. Big whoop, and nothing really to report. Who’d of thunk: HIV is a disease that shortens your life? Wow, stunning.[For those interested: I am finishing off an update for the legitimate (but speculative) work done by Hogg and his collegues using the latest CDC data and U.S. life tables. I know, I need a life; but it’s awfully quiet here after the husband goes comatose on the couch. I’ll post a link through when it’s all done.]
For those inclined, a profile of the readership we are talking about is here:https://www.rivendellmarketing.com/ngng/executive_summary/NGNG.PPTThe readership is concentrated in the 25-54 age bands (which also coincides with peak bands for HIV-related deaths); with a small number of older readers in the 65+ category.Oh, and they got less than a 10% response rate to the survey…
Ah, the danger of Paul Cameron. As stated previously, I am a professor at a university. Last year, a student wrote a rabid, nasty letter to the school newspaper about gays. The bulk of his letter was from Paul Cameron stats and studies. I wrote a rebuttal and mentioned Cameron’s history with the APA. The student called me a liar and wrote cruel, angry letters to me pubicly and privately. He considers Cameron as the most important authority on all things homosexual.
The student (as head of the College Republicans) then littered fliers all over campus with Cameron quotes and stats (such as how long gay men supposedly live). During the last year, the antigay tensions have boiled over to the point that this student is exploiting professors’ words (to get them in trouble) and disrupting classrooms that deal with homosexual issues. The student has even put out a watchlist naming professors who are teaching the “homosexual agenda”. Teachers are scared of violence and abuse because of this student. It all stems back to Cameron’s studies, and I suspect other people are motivated into action by these problematic studies.
In this press release, Paul Cameron mentions that the average age of death according to gay obituaries is now around 60 years old, but that the average age of death for the general population is 80. He’s comparing apples and oranges here. Has he tried looking at the average age of death in the obituaries in general (not just the gay papers)?
I think the most important note is that the “20 years earlier” coincides with the same figure that gets trotted out by every anti-gay organisation (Hogg et al, IJofE 1997). Too convenient.
Two things – one, the Hogg, et al study, IIRC, named the cause of the reduction in lifespan of gay men as HIV (or possibly HIV and smoking) – in other words, their data did not indicate HIV-, non-smoking gay men had any lower life expectancy than the general population.
The second is, Cameron is infamous for his “gay men die at 43” study, in which he claimed there was no real difference between the ages of death for those with and without HIV. This new “research” completely undermines this because a) the alleged difference in life expectancies is now 20 years, not 35 or so and b) he explicitly ties gay male deaths to AIDS in this research, so it tells us nothing about the age of death of gays without HIV.
I wonder if anyone has pointed that out to him?
CPT_Doom — spot on, the earlier or latest work by Cameron both say nothing about the life expectancy of gay men without HIV. However, when you’re dealing with an audience who conflate “HIV+” with “gay” that tends to get ignored. I doubt Cameron has any intention of correcting that false impression; to te contrary, he has made a 20 year career out of it. Heaven only knows how he sleeps of a night.The paper by Hogg et al was an early attempt to estimate the reduction in average life expectancy due to the spread of HIV. It used figures from the late 80′ / early 90’s Vancouver, and then some basic mathematical modeling assuming 3%, 6% or 9% of adult males were MSM. At a time and place where 95% of infections were within MSM (or thought to be) and a rapid decline expected, it was never more than an attempt to guesstimate the impact; as the title of the paper clearly shows. And it’s not applicable today.We all know things have not turned out as the worst scenarios for that period were predicting, and Hogg has since had some harsh things to say about those who continue to misuse his work. Dobson, FRC, AFA, NARTH come to mind; as do most ex-gay groups somewhere in their site (including Chad Thompson of Inqueery who presents himself as not the type to slander). They should all be shamed by their ignorance, or their deceit.Here is his later letter:https://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499And here is the original paper:https://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657%5Band HELP!!! How do I create a live link???. A HREF obviously doesn’t work…]
Is this corrected for gender? Women tend to live longer than men, so comparing the ages of gay men to other men and women would not really be clear. As everyone points out, this is garbage. It will be interesting to see how the suppossedly friendly and nonphobic evangelicals use this ‘study’.
Aaron, could you post more about this situation? DKos might be a good place for a diary on the YR disruptions. Or here, for that matter.
Cameron’s “studies” show an amazing “fact”:
In just 15 years, the average death age of a gay man has increased from 43 to 60. That obviously shows that we are God’s favorite people. Why, at this rate by 2035 our average life expectancy will be 94.
🙂
Grantdale,
I, for one, will be very interested in seeing what you come up with. I read Hogg’s study, along with his letter decrying the misuse of his study be the wingnuts. I’ve also been following Cameron’s output for close to a year now — I’ve even considered doing a CameronWatch, or something like that. 😉
And since the current readers of the Blade are (I assume) not yet dead, we actually have no idea what the real age of death of the readership will be.
Just to point out, I have yet to discover a dead person who could read. Read the WashBlade, or anything else.
I’m kidding, of course.
Point: Cameron is a horse’s nether region. He has apparently tried to gather statistics to show a world view, and he did so in a manner to show that world view. That’s the long and short of it. I could expound at length, and I have previously.
Oh, one more point about Cameron. I wonder who is supporting him financially.
Follow the money. Who is paying this guy? Who is he duping to get paid?
raj…
Re: I wonder who is supporting him financially.
I’ve been wondering the same thing. He’s doing pretty well supporting himself and paying to get his articles published in the pay-to-publish Psychological Reports. For someone who the entire radical right wing claims to hold at arm’s length, he sure seems to be doing okay, and garnering the requisite publicity whenever it suits him.
I wish I knew how to follow that money trail.
Paul Cameron’s study sounds similar to the bogus studies done in the past that linked black people to having inferior intelligence. It’s absolutely bigoted and bogus. I long for the future when the kinds of loony studies like the ones Paul Cameron espouses will be exposed for what they really are (bigotry and lies) and thrown into the dust bin of the past.
Thank you Regan for this. You always seem to touch the exact right spot. (Plus I find your posts very easy to read. What I see is not writing but spoken verse. So the format doesn’t bother me.)
Cameron is a loon. He also is located within 10 miles of the FOTF Vatican. Which tells me, at least, the source of his funding is not that hard to determine.
Just like Fred Phelps. Someone somewhere is underwriting all this anti-gay agitation. It is not spontaneous. It is a produced artefact. Like Raj keeps saying, follow the money.
Regan DuCasse at June 7, 2005 11:25 PM
As a hetero woman, and a black one at that. I will say again, I have absolutely no clue what it’s like to be gay.
Regan, I like your posts. I really do. And I seriously do not want you to take what I am about to relate taken the wrong way.
When I was in my first year of law school, in 1971, I was residing in a boarding house down the street from the law school. I had a surrepticious boy friend. We had discovered each other (or seduced each other) the year before. The boarding house was owned by a black Christian woman whom I loved to talk to. For some reason, which I couldn’t figure out, she made it known to me that her son had had a child out of wedlock, and she figured that that was good, because it showed that he wasn’t homosexual. That’s what she said. Wasn’t true, of course, (that he wasn’t homosexual) but, regardless–if she wanted to believe the fiction, who was I to tell her otherwise?
My then boyfriend would visit me quite often (yes, we had sex in my room). She noticed the rather excessive attention that we paid to each other, confronted me with it, and concluded (correctly) that we were having a homo relationship, and kicked me out of the rooming house. I slept on the floor of my boyfriend’s apartment for the rest of the school year. (The student apartment he was residing in was rather full at the time)
I have remembered this for over 30 years. Not because she was black–although that was an interesting aspect. But because it showed the hypocrisy that some Christians can exhibit. Excusing her son for having had a child out of wedlock because she believed that it showed the son wasn’t gay, but villifying a gay person for merely having had sex with someone he loved. I’m sorry but there was something seriously wrong with that mentality.
I’ll continue with the “interesting aspect” part. My boyfriend now (who is not black) was particular friends with black guys. When he was “catting about” the black gay guys that he was involved with were among the most friendly that he met. I noticed that, too, by the way, although, unlike him, I didn’t go out of my way to court black guys. Cute comment from one of his paramours, when another of them was about to be wed to a woman: “He’ll be surprised when he discovers she has no dick” This was from the late 1970s.
I don’t know what it means to be gay. Because I’ve been nothing else during my entire lifetime.
By the standards of this study, being African is also correlated with early death and must be stamped out.
Dalea, you’re right. Reading Regan’s post as verse works wonders!
And Regan, your post is very moving. Thank you.
The professor who wrote the reply about the student who has been causing problems in his university with respect to gay people and Paul Cameron’s studies should call the Log Cabin Republicans and see what they might recommend in this student’s case. lol They might have some good Ideas. This student needs to not only be severely reprimanded he should be dismissed from college. That’s unacceptable behavior in any college setting. The more we tolerate this kind of bigotry the more often it will cause suffering and chaos.
Nice, ReganPerhaps in your next unanswered email to Throckmorton you may wish to ask him to pen some music to accompany your verse?You too can appear on his next release:”I Do Exist, But Then Again I Have Changed My Mind Before. More Than Once.”
ReganDuCasse at June 8, 2005 10:22 PM
And you learned too, didn’t ya raj?
Yup. I’ve learned, too.
It’s been a long journey for me between then (1971) and now. People develop, but they don’t really forget.
I’ll leave it at that.
Mmmm, thanks for image that Regan. Tiny testicals, great… (different to tinny testicals, which is all too Wizard of Oz for me)Burned in my blinkin’ mind that is. Urghh,. shudder. bleah. Yeah, thanks.What I would really be interested to know about Throckmorton is “How many of your ‘homosexual clients’ are kids who are compelled to attend your magnificent self under threat of being exposed and expelled from Grove City unless they agree to conform???” That role — Cancelor (sic) of gay students — is his other job.Ya see, I have read their student manual… and guess what happens to the gay ones…. yep, a Throckmortoning. Maybe he sub-contracts these days, but same difference.Abuse of Power. That’s what that is. And I don’t care what his/their religious beliefs are — abuse in the name of anything is still… ABUSE.Well, thankful we all should be that there are decent straight girls like you out there to pick them up and dust them off after they’ve been through the mill. They won’t need gay bars, or drag queens or pride parades at that time — they just need an honest soul who quietly says “Forget all that. It’s not important. I like you, just the way you are. I APPRECIATE being your friend.”
Oh, but I do have to disagree with the T-shirt. Maybe it’s the society and cirlces we’ve moved in but I would have sent you a:”Educated, strong black woman = well loser, sorry. I’m not about your lowered expectations…”:)
Oh good greaf, I cannot even spell “testicle”. Or “grief”. I’m giving up…
you may like or hate her politics…
but i’m loving that currently probably the most powerful and influential person in our country outside the prez and vice-prez is an educated, strong black woman.
the day has been too long in coming
but i’m loving that currently probably the most powerful and influential person in our country outside the prez and vice-prez is an educated, strong black woman.
Slight OT question – are you talking about Condi Rice or Oprah Winfrey?
CPT,
lol… was talking about Condi.. but you raise a good point
Perhaps both politically and culturally one of the most powerful people in the world is an educated, strong black woman
even better
Regan,
“Maybe if some folks just got outta the way…”
I have to disagree with you on that one. I don’t think a black woman (or man) needs anyone to “get out of the way” any more than any other ethnicity does. I put no belief in the idea that black people need any more special treatment to succeed cuz they can’t do it on their own.
I know that isn’t what you meant. But I hate to hear anything that suggests that Condi, Opray, or anyone else made it because someone else stood aside. They made it because they proved themselves, worked harder, and simply were better at what they did.
It may sound a bit odd to say, but I’m glad that the first black man and first black woman as Secretary of State came during Republican administrations. No one can say that it’s because of quotas or preferences that way. It’s obvious that Condi is where she is because her advice and decision making has made her a greater asset to the President on foreign affairs than anyone else. Whether or not you like Bush or Condi or their politics, it still takes away the whole idea of “token” that can be such an easy way to diminish the accomplishment of any minority person.
And, I also love the fact that Condi is considered as a possibility for a presidential run. – I know this is a bit off topic, but we’ve all seen that the same people who have fought against equality for black people in this country seem to be the same ones fighting against equality for gay people. (the Southern Baptist Church comes to mind)