Only the gay die young? Part 4 – Brief evaluation of Cameron & Cameron (2007)

As promised, I am posting my letter of response to emails sent by Paul and Kirk Cameron. The Camerons objected to my blog comments and those of Dr. Morten Frisch about their recent poster session at the Eastern Psychological Association convention in March. Due to length (6 pages), I am posting a link to the Word document.

In general, I critique the multiple assumptions made by the Camerons in their recent study as well as the means of reporting it to the public. I am not sure what is next with this matter. I expect to get additional responses from the Camerons, and I may get another note from Dr. Frisch. If so, I will post them as Part Next.

Here are links to the previous posts in the series:

Only the gay die young? Examining claims of shorter life expectancy for homosexuals

Only the gay die young? Part 2 – Danish epidemiologist reviews the Cameron study

Only the gay die young? Part 3 – Kirk Cameron responds to Morten Frisch

6 thoughts on “Only the gay die young? Part 4 – Brief evaluation of Cameron & Cameron (2007)”

  1. “Someone in your profession Phillips could certainly find other IP addresses….

    what is the source of this quote?

  2. “Someone in your profession Phillips could certainly find other IP addresses. In your line of work, I am sure if you used the same standard for finding conclusions as you have in this discussion, you would run into serious difficulty. Science does not say, hey we only have half the data we need to make a conclusion, so let’s guess at it, and make a dogmatic conclusion via a press release. That would appear to be what FRI excells at. On the contrary, if we don’t have sufficient data, we say: we don’t know and then we look for ways to find the proper data.”

    Ha, it seems like I could – though I’m curious as to what ‘profession’ you think I am.

    Fri didn’t use “half” of any data, they used government records of the deaths of married ‘gays’. As for the variables, time will tell, just like it has ever since St. Paul’s observations, ever since FRI started research in ’83, as well as few other studies, e.g. the CDC and Hogg et. al. ones, etc.

    As of to date, there are no studies to refute the current conclusion. There isn’t even direct evidence that ‘gays’ health problems stem from “homophobia”, though the CDC says this without a single reference as to why it is the “truth”. As far as I am aware, that’s the closest thing to propoganda I think we’ve seen yet – giving even the name of Stalin a rival.

  3. This a report by Christopher Banks from the ‘University of Saskatchewan’,

    “A study by Hogg et al (1997) found that the life expectancy of 20 year old GB men in Vancouver was 34 to 46.3 more years, as compared to 54.3 more years for 20 year old non-GLB men. Therefore, GLB life expectancy is significantly lower than the heterosexual population. There is evidence that this decreased life expectancy is due to increased levels of health and social problems faced by GLB [gay, lesbian, bisexual].” (p.18) – The Co$t of Homophobia: Literature Review on the Economic Impact of Homophobia on Canada

  4. Thank you for the Word document. Your analysis of the Cameron’s methodology is clear, insightful, and pokes some rather large holes in their “research.”

    The tragic part is that a significant number of people will believe the Cameron’s “data,” regardless of its viability, because Drs. Cameron are resisting “the homosexual agenda.” After all, if it’s anti-gay, it’s got to be right, doesn’t it?

    Thank you.

  5. I think that was one splendid analysis. A great job at connecting the dots from one unsupported assumption to the next, revealing a house of cards that’s just a little too topheavy

Comments are closed.