About that homosexual life expectancy thing . . .

[KarateCowboy]

So in another thread I quoted a stat about the life expectancy for homosexual guys being something like 45. I took it back when I found out the study was flawed. But, I searched "homosexual life expepctancy" in a database and found this article. I haven't read it, but maybe we could all read it and have a discussion on it. Since it's probably we new to us, we could be INDUCTIVE rather than DEDUCTIVE as we tend so often to be. Even the abstract is kind of hard to understand, so if anyone has more research and stats experience than I, that would be great if they contributed.

The article is: Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men

authors: Hogg,-Robert-S [Author]; Strathdee,-Steffanie-A [Author]; Craib,-Kevin-J-P [Author]; O'Shaughnessy,-Michael-V [Author]; Montaner,-Julio-S-G [Author]; Schechter,-Martin-T [Author]

The Journal is the International Journal of Epidimiology 1997; 26(3): 657-661

And the abstact goes like this:

Objective. To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men. Methods. Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age gtoreq 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%), but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years. Results. Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16 219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%. Conclusion. In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

Oh BTW the database I used is ERLWebSpirs.

Ha I'm so awesome.
HERE IS THE FULL TEXT! Click under 'this article' and you can get the full text in PDF format.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657

Also, here's a tip: if you don't understand it at first, reread it about five times. That always seems to help for me

 

[fillerbunny]

A quick perusal of the abstract posted in the OP reveals that these statistics were collected between 1987 and 1992. AIDS had only been identified six years prior to the beginning of the study. This suggests to me that many of the individuals in question were likely infected before information about protection became available.

It is not surprising that homosexual men were disproportionately afflicted, when you consider the fact that they weren't aware of the fact that there was anything to protect themselves from. At the time, protective measures were viewed as a means of preventing pregnancy, not disease- and why would one be concerned with preventing pregnancy if he were having relations exclusively with other men?

Knowing what we do today, the majority of homosexual men residing in North America are quite aware of the AIDS risk, and many take great pains to keep themselves and their partners safe. Unfortunately, there are many heterosexuals placing themselves at risk because they still (errantly) view AIDS as a 'gay man's disease' and presume themselves invincible. (The fastest growing segment of the population affected by HIV today? Heterosexual black women.) When it comes to AIDS, the kiss of death isn't homosexuality, it's ignorance. As the ignorance subsides, so too will AIDS-related deaths. Additionally, treatment options available today- nonexistent during the time frame during which this particular study was conducted- are allowing individuals infected with HIV to live significantly longer, healthier lives.

The other issue I have with this study is that it appears that the data was collected at a medical facility. If this is indeed the case, one would reasonably expect mortality results not representative of the general populace- as you're dealing solely with individuals receiving treatment for medical conditions. That's like attempting to obtain mortality statistics representing the American public as a whole by visiting a cancer ward. Certainly you'd expect higher mortality rates in such a setting than you would if you were to select a random sampling of individuals selected in a non-medical environment.

Either way, even if we operate on the assumption that this sampling was representative at the time (which I'm inclined to disagree with for numerous reasons), times have changed. Given said changes, I'm willing to bet that statistics obtained today would paint a far different picture.

 

[seebs]

This is a different approach than Cameron's, and does an excellent job of showing that, if you don't actually count deaths but merely make up numbers and assume them, a population being smacked hard by an epidemic of a disease which is untreatable, and which is contagious before it can be detected, that you could get something similar to the widely-quoted number.

And yes, the use of data from a medical center is a huge sampling error; so is the assumption that 95% of cases are necessarily going to be in gay men, which may have been true briefly in the late 80s, but hasn't been for a long time.

Worldwide, it's mostly straight people. The straight men in Africa spreading AIDS through rape victims outnumber the gay people breathing in America; even a hypothetical 100% infection rate in American gays couldn't catch up to those numbers.

It seems likely to be true for a while that, in general, the infection rate will be higher among gays than straights in the US, but given that they're mostly being careful, and straight people mostly aren't, that will probably change fairly soon.

 

[MrSluagh]

If straight people were more susceptible to STDs, would you be against heterosexuality?

If not, this is a red herring.

 

[seebs]

If straight people were more susceptible to STDs, I would actively promote attempts to make them more likely to form small exclusive family units (two being a likely default) to reduce the spread of STDs.

In fact, I have the same policy towards gays. I think exclusive relationships (as opposed to casual sex) work very well, and I would like to see more social backing for them.

 

[KarateCowboy]

If straight people were more susceptible to STDs, I would actively promote attempts to make them more likely to form small exclusive family units (two being a likely default) to reduce the spread of STDs.

In fact, I have the same policy towards gays. I think exclusive relationships (as opposed to casual sex) work very well, and I would like to see more social backing for them.

Well I guess that on a naturalistic level you and I are very similar. I follow the same principle, only taken a step further. I think monogamous relationships work well, I think monogamous heterosexual relationships work even better. s

However, relating to the study, what leads you to believe that this is just a bogus bunch of fluff? I don't know if its peer-reviewed, but the International Journal of Epidemiology eems to be very reputable. Why is using medical center data a large sampling error? I am curious where you get your standards from, and what would satisfy your standards, besides an article being homosexual-affirmative.

 

[kopilo]

Life expectancy as I know it is dependant on lifestyle and as no sexual orientation can specify a specific lifestyle or rather diet.

Here is a lifestyle chart taken from Manfred 1986, Laugh your way to health;

'completely natural food diet and natural environment' 90 - 100

'mainly natural food diet and natural environment' 80 - 90

'occasional processed foods and drinks and mainly city environment' 70 - 80

'mainly processed foods and drinks and city environment' 60 - 70

'limited natural food diet and complete city environment' 50 - 60

'depleted natural food diet, city environment' 40 - 50

So out of that study how many homosexuals were rural dwellers?
Moreover how many rural homosexuals are actually in the closet as opposed to urban homosexuals, I know I am generalising but I wouldn't expect rural areas to be as accepting of homosexuals as opposed to urban dwellers, reason being in a country town people have to get on with eachother where as in a city people tend to be dime a dozen. Also how many countries was this study done in? Some countries may have crop from more nutrient depleated soil then others.

AIDS is also spread in more ways then sexual ones, such as via dirty needles.

 

[crumbs2000]

What about all the thousands people who received contaminated blood before they identified AIDS? I'm sure they would like to lumped under karatecowboy's category of people who surely had to die from a short life expectancy because of being homosexual???

I love the agenda being masked as an open discussion.

 

[levi501]

I think monogamous relationships work well, I think monogamous heterosexual relationships work even better.

Got to love it when people complain that homosexuals are promiscuous and then in the same breath deny them access to an institution(marriage) that encourages fidelity and monogamy.

Anyone that is against same-sex marriage is in no position to complain about a homosexual's lifestyle when they continue to minimalize any committment they try to make with each other by denying them the right to marry.

 

[fillerbunny]

Wonderful point, crumbs. Reps to you.

Well I guess that on a naturalistic level you and I are very similar. I follow the same principle, only taken a step further. I think monogamous relationships work well, I think monogamous heterosexual relationships work even better.

And that's your opinion, which you're entitled to. Clearly, not everyone agrees. I am wondering, however, what if anything this statement has to do with the OP.

However, relating to the study, what leads you to believe that this is just a bogus bunch of fluff? I don't know if its peer-reviewed, but the International Journal of Epidemiology eems to be very reputable.

Part of the problem, IMO, is the fact that it's so dated.

The sampling was done during what was the height of the AIDS epidemic among homosexual males in North America. Making the assumption that such statistics would hold any bearing on the life expectancies of gay men today is like traveling to Zaire in the midst of an Ebola outbreak, centering in on a small village that's being hit the hardest, and, a few years down the line- long after the outbreak has passed- attempting to pass the mortality statistics you collected off as not only relevant but representative of Zaire's populace as a whole.

Why is using medical center data a large sampling error?

IMO.. if one goes to a medical center, obviously they're going to find sick people. They're there for a reason.. so, in terms of health they're not representative of the general public, gay or straight. This study might tell you about the life expectancies of urban gay Canadians afflicted with life-threatening conditions during the height of the AIDS outbreak.. but it's not saying much more than that.

I think everyone would agree that it would be utterly ridiculous to attempt to obtain statistics regarding general American infant survival/mortality rates by sampling exclusively from infants in the NICU. It's safe to say that if you were to attempt to determine the average life expectancy of British men- but retrieved all your statistics by sampling men found in cancer treatment facilities- that your findings wouldn't be taken seriously. How is this study any different?

I am curious where you get your standards from, and what would satisfy your standards, besides an article being homosexual-affirmative.

I cannot speak to where anyone else's standards are derived from. I do think, however, that it is a huge leap to assume that just because a poster has happened to find fault with the (extremely flawed and dated) study provided in the OP that their position has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not the study happens to be "homosexual-affirmative".

A different question in the same vein- is your reluctance to accept the fact that this study may be flawed and/or completely irrelevant in terms of determining the life expectancy of gay men today rooted in the fact that it isn't "homosexual-affirmative"?

 

[Arnold_Philips]

If straight people were more susceptible to STDs, would you be against heterosexuality?

If not, this is a red herring.

I agree. Even if the numbers he suggests are true, that shouldn't have any bearing on the current debate over gay rights. Just because Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs doesn't mean we should deny them certain rights.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Oooookaaaaaaay.

Well, rather than looking at this as an attempt to establish dogma, let's treat it scientifically.
A rule of thumb in science is that research doesn't 'go bad' with time like bread. If it did we'd have to reinvent the wheel, and reprove the theory of mass gravitation any time we wanted to do any sort of physics research. That given, it is important to be conservative. It is best to limit the scope of the application of this experiment to Vancouver, with the inference that other large urban areas may have similar trends.
One of the first orders is to see if the article is peer reviewed. If it is, then that bumps its credibility up much more, and we can work from there. If it isn't, then we can only take it at face value. I have to get to work, so I'll chime in more later.

 

[trunks2k]

Oooookaaaaaaay.

Well, rather than looking at this as an attempt to establish dogma, let's treat it scientifically.
A rule of thumb in science is that research doesn't 'go bad' with time like bread.

Research doesn't go bad as long as the conditions are the same. In this sort of study, the conditions will not stay constant. In fact, conditions have changed significantly. The study uses data from the tail end of a period in which HIV infected a very large percentage of the gay male population, particularly in urban areas, and the life expectancy of someone with HIV was significantly shorter than it was now. Now, that has changed, so the data is out of date.

One of the first orders is to see if the article is peer reviewed. If it is, then that bumps its credibility up much more, and we can work from there.

Yes, it does give it a bit more credibility. But being peer reviewed does not necessarilly mean that a study/experiment is accurate either in the raw data or the conclusion. The point of peer review is to open it up for criticism, which we are doing here.

 

[fillerbunny]

A rule of thumb in science is that research doesn't 'go bad' with time like bread.

This may be true, but we're talking data regarding life expectancy here.. and these statistics change.

Life expectancy stats gathered in say, 1863, may tell you something (if accurate) about the life expectancy for a particular individual residing in a particular area in 1863. However, given the medical advances and lifestyle changes that have occurred since that time (and the resulting increase in life expectancy) those numbers are no longer an accurate predictor of an individual's life expectancy today. Perhaps they are relevant for 1863, but they are certainly not relevant in terms of 2006.

Even after all these years, the wheel is still, basically, the wheel. There is little reason to attempt to update a theory that remains relevant. It can be easily observed, however, that life expectancy statistics are extremely changeable. They do not remain relevant over time as anything other than, at best, a record of history.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Research doesn't go bad as long as the conditions are the same. In this sort of study, the conditions will not stay constant. In fact, conditions have changed significantly. The study uses data from the tail end of a period in which HIV infected a very large percentage of the gay male population, particularly in urban areas, and the life expectancy of someone with HIV was significantly shorter than it was now. Now, that has changed, so the data is out of date.

Conditions do change. But in order to make accurate conclusions you must first show that they have changed, and then examine how the conditions have changed, if they have. We can examine that in another thread. For now, why don't we limit our discussion specificially to this study and this period, and the immediate ramifications of what was going on then and there?

Yes, it does give it a bit more credibility. But being peer reviewed does not necessarilly mean that a study/experiment is accurate either in the raw data or the conclusion. The point of peer review is to open it up for criticism, which we are doing here.

Close. Being peer reviewed does mean it is perfect. However, it does usually mean that it meets certain scientific standards of integrity and rigor. Also, even though studied biology in college(I was a pre-med student for two years), I would not consider myself a 'peer', and it's accurate to say the vast majority of us here aren't. Still, we can learn from this.

ANYWAY, this is so tempting. I'm going to get back to work now. Seriously.

 

[kopilo]

A rule of thumb in science is that research doesn't 'go bad' with time like bread.

This isn't just science it is mathematical statistics as well and mathematical statistics can 'go off with time' that is why we are constantly measuring the earth's atmosphere, keeping a record of player stats as they change and why upto date data is more important in studying recent issues then out of date data. Also encyclopedia sets do outdate eachother as new information is discovered which may contradict the old data.

Such as how it was stated that spinach contained the most amount of iron, ten times the amount of other vegetables.

 

[Lokisdottir]

Oooookaaaaaaay.

Well, rather than looking at this as an attempt to establish dogma, let's treat it scientifically.
A rule of thumb in science is that research doesn't 'go bad' with time like bread.

A research study conducted in 100,000,000 BCE by a pair of time travelers indicates that there are roughly half a billion dinosaurs on the planet. Since research doesn't go bad, this must still be true.

 

[MrSluagh]

Conditions do change. But in order to make accurate conclusions you must first show that they have changed, and then examine how the conditions have changed, if they have. We can examine that in another thread. For now, why don't we limit our discussion specificially to this study and this period, and the immediate ramifications of what was going on then and there?

People on this thread have already discussed how things were different then, and how they've changed. Why don't you challenge their assertions? Basically:

The study was performed at the height of the AIDS epidemic, when awareness, and therefore prevention, was low. The gay community is much more aware of AIDS now, therefore any study performed when it wasn't is obsolete. It's impossible to tell exactly how much things have changed until someone performs another reputable study, but a change is apparent, making this study irrelevant.

 

[KarateCowboy]

People on this thread have already discussed how things were different then, and how they've changed. Why don't you challenge their assertions? Basically:

The study was performed at the height of the AIDS epidemic, when awareness, and therefore prevention, was low. The gay community is much more aware of AIDS now, therefore any study performed when it wasn't is obsolete. It's impossible to tell exactly how much things have changed until someone performs another reputable study, but a change is apparent, making this study irrelevant.

Well, I didn't start this thread to argue. The idea is that we take a scientific study and see what conclusions we can draw from it. Also, even if I were to argue, referencing the International Journal of Seebs' Opinion does not count as a valid 'challenge' to a scientific study. Why can't you guys just shut the heck up, take off the agenda-colored glasses for one second,, and look at a scientific article for what it is without treating it like a piece of propaganda? Geez. Most of my comments in this thread so far have been just trying to get you guys to chill for a second and put the sword down. I haven't even really made any assertions about what the article means. I gotta go. My blood pressure is rising.

 

[fillerbunny]

For now, why don't we limit our discussion specificially to this study and this period, and the immediate ramifications of what was going on then and there?

I'm afraid I don't entirely understand where you're going with this.. or with the whole 'immediate ramifications' thing.

The study was conducted in the midst of an epidemic of what was, at the time, a poorly-understood, invariably fatal condition. The ramifications- both for those infected with HIV and those attempting to preserve their negative status- are quite different today, sexual orientation aside.

The immediate ramification at the time, for those afflicted, was obviously an untimely death.