Replies

The report, and the priciple “study” represent some apples vs oranges comparisons.

The principle study, from “Psychological Reports”, used obituary information from a “gay” newspaper. Scientfically it is anecdotal and self-reported, with no conclusions that can be drawn as to what portion of the “gay” population is even reported thus (most people’s deaths do not wind up with a printed obituary anywhere).

From that obituary data it was dissected as to which obituaries self-reported as due to aids/HIV, versus those that did not indicate aids/HIV. How many deaths did not report any cause of death was not identified. They then attempted in their study to correlate those “gay” newspaper obituaries with another study.

The other study is very scientific, but what exactly does it report. It reports, among other things, rates of death, by age, for persons with an HIV infection. NOT for “gay” people in general. Just PERSONS WITH AN HIV INFECTION.

And, does the second report (is it able) to tie that to a definite portion of the “gay” population altogether? No it does not.

So the final report abuses both studies. The initial one it cited and the more scientific report that study cited. (I have read them both.)

The “Psychological Reports” study only concluded a correlation between a sample of reported obituaries and causes of death (did it look for “gay” identifications” in deaths reported in other sources? No. Did it determine the rate of use of the “gay” community in reporting obituaries in the “gay” paper? No). That is why it could not conclude - it did not have the data - what portion of “gay” deaths in the survey are representative of the “gay” population in general. They could not even look to reliable data of deaths reported in newpaper published obituaries vs deaths not reported that way - “gay” or straight”. There is no examination of data that finds newpaper reported obituaries represent what % of all deaths. Those are just some of the principal study’s omissions. How represntative of the “gay” community were the obituaries it used? No conclusions could be drawn.

It - the principle study - then made an erroneous apples vs oranges correlation with conclusions, from another study, that were limited to one segment of one demographic - HIV infected persons. And they used that as if it was related to all “gay” persons; it wasn’t; it had no means to.

So they did not have obituary data that could be accurately representative of the entire “gay” community in the survey area, and then they matched that with data, and mortality strictly limited to HIV infected persons alone, and put the two together as if the principle subjects were the same.

They erred because scientifically, the mortality of HIV infected persons, even “gay” HIV infected persons, cannot be assumed to be the mortality rate of all “gay” persons.

That abuse is common in many reports and studies. One conclusion of limited nature is claimed to be applicable to a broader category that was not part of the data, or the study that produced the earlier conclusion.

Put simply, HIV infected persons cannot be used as a stand-in, demographicaly or statistically for all “gay” persons.

Yes, “gay” persons have much higher rates of HIV infection, and persons with HIV infections do have higher mortality rates, but that rate of mortality, specifically for HIV infected “gay” persons is also not a stand in for mortality for ALL “gay” persons. But that is what many erroneous studies and comparisons try to do.

A very large scientific survey of all “peer reviewed” studies in a large number of academic and scientific journals found that a majority were scientificially flawed.

The biggest error, across all politically biases, were the high rate of “studies” that merely reached for the conclusions they sought to begin with, and abused science to get there.

Again, this is not a moral argument about “gays”.

It is an argument that folks, even “Conservative” folks, should not accept “scientific” reports only because they fit their existing perceptions.