Fitzgibbons about Xiridu in his article

“And third, the couple may not necessarily be physically healthy. Dutch research has found that most new HIV infections in Amsterdam occurred among homosexual men who were in steady relationships. The researcher concluded that: “Prevention measures should address risky behavior, especially with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.” (4) Xiridou, M. et al. (2003) “

Box Turtle Bulletin unpacked this research for us below is from their website

—————

Dr. Xiridou and her colleagues based their research article on the Amsterdam Cohort Studies of HIV infection and AIDS among homosexually active men.6 These studies began in 1984, and had several different protocols in their lifetime:

Oct 1984-1985: Gay men aged 18-65 with at least two sexual partners in the previous six months. In other words, monogamous partners were explicitly excluded.

April 1985-Feb 1988: Study enrollment was continued, except HIV-negative men were now excluded. Only HIV-positive men were added.

Feb 1988 – Dec 1988: The study was re-opened to HIV-negative men.

Various additional enrollments continued from through 1998. Especially notable was a special recruitment campaign for men under the age of thirty beginning in 1995. After 1996, all HIV-negative men above the age of thirty were dropped from the study. Their data was excluded from subsequent analyses.

Nobody outside of Amsterdam was accepted into the study except for AIDS patients who attended clinics in Amsterdam for treatment. This makes the study almost exclusively an urban one.

Dr. Xiridou and colleagues used a smaller subset of this population by further excluding everyone under the age of thirty.

So, what do we have? We have a study population that was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. While this population was good for the purposes of the study, it was in no way representative of Amsterdam’s gay men, let alone gay men anywhere else.

———————————-

Dr. Enright

Goldberg+Sirota+Xiridou

Do you still say this research was represented accurately to the GENERAL PUBLIC in Dr. Fitzgibbons article about sexual minority COUPLES adopting children? The words he wrote and the comments he made about this research, was is truthful on it’s face?

http://www.stopthedeportations.com/blog/2012/01/showdown-with-doma-mark-fred-meet-with-uscis-and-fight-for-their-family-at-green-card-interview-in-philadelphia.html

OK…..I am back from my little break….had to earn a living there for a while. Let me try very hard to be understood. Let us start with an analogy. Suppose that we have 4 suspension bridges in our little imaginary country. Modern suspension bridges have a box section roadway which is supported by strong, high tensile strength cables. They are different from, say, arch bridges, so that when we focus on suspension bridges, there is a certain engineering feature common to them, despite quite different appearances.

Now suppose suspension bridge # 1 (SB1) is 7,000 feet long in the moderate climate of our country with characteristic high winds.

SB2 is 3,000 feet long in a frigid part of the country with little wind.

SB3 is 2,000 feet long in a hot part of the country with frequent storms.

Continuing with our analogy, suppose that SB1 collapses, SB2 has some significant structural damage (but has not yet collapsed) and SB3 has a known weakness of concern but not yet critical.

An official in another part of our little country has a suspension bridge 4 (SB4) and is aware of the issues with SB1-3 and asks the question: Should I allow cars to cross my bridge?

There is a hearing and two sides are taken. Side 1 says this: All four bridges are of quite different lengths, in very different climates with different wind conditions and so it is unfair to close SB4 because of what is happening to SB1-3. Keep the bridge open.

Side 2 says this: You are correct. None of these bridges is the exact same in terms of length, climate, and wind conditions, but all 3 are modern suspension bridges with similar engineering characteristics. We must not send cars over SB4 at this time.

Side 1 are literalists, and will not think inductively about the common features, but instead are focused on the dissimilar features of the structures. For Side 1 each bridge is distinctive and independent.

Side 2 people are inductive reasoners, piecing together evidence from similar but not literally similar circumstances for the SBs.

If you were in our little country and you were the official, would you let people drive over SB4 without further investigation? Side 1 allows for freedom of choice, but the consequences of being wrong are more serious than the more cautious approach of Side 2.

We now have Sides 1 and 2 in this debate here. Our “bridges” are the Sarantakos study (collapsed bridge), the Sirota study (structural damage), and the Goldberg study (some observed weaknesses). Boo, StraightGrandmother, and Dr. Throckmorton are seeing very different kinds of studies when the articles by Sarantakos, Sirota, and Goldberg are put on the table. Fitzgibbons sees the common features across all three, which are: a) the presence of at least 1 LGB parent and b) a child who is being raised or was raised by that parent and another parent (or more than one other parent). Fitzgibbons is now thinking inductively about LGB parents raising children in an adoptive situation (still involving LGB and still involving children).

The debate continues.

Are Sides 1 and 2 in the suspension bridge debate worth our time? Yes, both have a point to make and we should listen to both, but especially Side 2 because the consequences for being wrong in Side 1 are more serious than for Side 2.

It is the same in this debate. Side 1 has rational ideas worth taking seriously. Side 2 has rational ideas worth taking seriously. The consequences of being wrong are more serious in the case of Side 1, if the proponents are wrong that there is no connection between the three studies and adoption for the developing children.

This is why Dr. Fitzgibbons is calling for caution and calling on us all to protect the children.

What do you think? Boo, are you gonna whack me on my cabeza for this 🙂 ?

Dr. Goldberg’s description of her sample needed *clarification.* It is not quite clear who was in her sample and even StraightGrandmother, in trying to explain Dr. Goldberg’s sample, got it wrong today. Yet, you did not condemn her as a person for a failure in *clarification.*

StraightGrandmother erred in describing the Goldberg sample, an important misrepresentation of her work. Yet, you were silent toward StraightGrandmother (SG). And, I might add, we have not heard a peep out of the usually quite verbal SG regarding his own error. SG needed *clarification* regarding what he wrote. Yet, you did not condemn him as a person for this.

Dr. Sirota in her abstract was not precise and so she mentions gay and bisexual fathers, without any important clarifications, such as whether these fathers were in heterosexual relationships, gay relationships, or single. Dr. Sirota’s description of her sample needed *clarification* Yet, I hear no thunderous condemnation of her as a person at all.

Now we come to Dr. Fitzgibbons who describes the Sirota study almost exactly as Dr, Sirota did. And now his words need *clarification* because hers do. Yet, you are condemning him and severely I must add.

Complete silence toward Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Sirota, and StraightGrandmother and thunderous abuse heaped onto Dr. Fitzgibbons when all four need clarification— is this fair to Dr. Fitzgibbons?

Are you being fair or unfair to Dr. Fitzgibbons, Boo?

One word answer, Boo: Fair or unfair.

Were you going to be responding to my question to you here?

StraightGrandmother# ~ Jan 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Just wondering since you did mention referencing the post.

“…but this will not address the post.”