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
Not sure I get the video, but I like the song. The Dosage CD is worn out from play.
In an email received Friday, Paul Cameron’s son, Kirk, responded to the post here on this blog from Danish epidemiologist Morten Frisch. It is a 4 page response in a Word document which is why I will link to it instead of reproduce it in this post. Thanks to Dr. Cameron for permission to post.
Read the response here: Kirk Cameron’s letter of response.
I probably won’t have much to say about this until next week but I hope to comment in more depth then.
The American Academy of Physician Assistants’ House of Delegates will consider a resolution opposing therapeutic efforts to alter sexual orientation. Presumably this resolution will be voted on at their annual convention in Philadelphia in May, 2007.
I have yet to see the actual resolution but I am hopeful that language will be crafted that will allow a respect for religious diversity in this arena.
The September, 2006 Annals of Internal Medicine reported that nearly 10% of heterosexual men surveyed in New York City said they also had sex with men. This study was widely reported.
Now two reports in the April 3 issue of the Annals assert that the format of the survey may have caused a dramatic overreporting of homosexual sex among heterosexual men. Here is that letter:
TO THE EDITOR:
The article by Pathela and colleagues (1) underemphasized an apparent limitation in the data cited. Self-identified heterosexual male respondents were asked whether they had had sex with a man in the previous 12 months and then were read a definition of sex, including vaginal sex. Respondents who said “yes” were disproportionately foreign-born, had low education, and were married. They also overwhelmingly reported a single sex partner in the previous year and had a very low prevalence of risky sexual behavior. This profile suggests that many may have misunderstood the question and were reporting sex with their wives rather than “vaginal” sex with other men. Persuasive supporting evidence in the article’s Discussion section described a repeated study, as yet unpublished, 2 years later, in which asking men about sex with women before asking them about sex with men produced “a much lower self-reported prevalence of men who report sex with other men.” This marked difference in data, produced by a simple flipping of question order, deserved greater attention. Instead, the only limitation prominently reported was that random digitâ€“dialed samples exclude households without residential telephone numbersâ€”-a triviality in light of the effects of the question wording and question order that were much less prominently disclosed. The press release associated with the report made no mention of these effects, and subsequent press reports described the finding as far more conclusive than the relevant data suggest.
Another article in the April 3 edition provides additional caution about the earlier study. In contrast to the 9.4% reported in September, 2006, these authors estimate that just over 1% of straight-identified men have had sex with men in the past year.
The April 3 issue also allows the authors of the original study, Preeti Pathela et al, to respond to their colleagues.