Skip to comments.Are gay men more at risk for cancer? (New study says Yes)
Posted on 05/09/2011 4:58:52 AM PDT by Zakeet
More gay men reported being cancer survivors than straight men in a new study from California.
That suggests they may need targeted interventions to prevent cancer, the researchers said, but more studies are needed to answer lingering questions. For example, are gay men more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than straight men? Or, are they just more likely to survive if they do get cancer?
"A lack of hard data" on how sexual orientation affects the risk of cancer is "one of the biggest problems we have," said Liz Margolies, executive director of The National LGBT Cancer Network. Margolies, who was not involved in the research, told Reuters Health, "It's critical that we know that for funding and for program planning."
As a step toward addressing the lack of data, researchers looked at three years of responses to the California Health Interview survey, which included more than 120,000 adults living in the state.
The findings are published in the journal Cancer.
Out of 51,000 men, about 3,700 said they had been diagnosed with cancer as an adult. While just over 8 percent of gay men reported a history of cancer, that figure was only 5 percent in straight men. The disparity could not be attributed to differences in race, age, or income between gay and straight men.
[Scientists] agree that there is still an important message [besides the need for more government funded research] to take away from the findings: gay, lesbian and bisexual people need more attention from the healthcare community, specifically when it comes to their cancer risks.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
We have no idea why a homosexual life style might lead to more cancer ... so we need to spend more government money on research and treatment.
Hey little buddy, want to work out?
"Certain cancer types . . . are more likely to occur in people who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The most common types are Kaposi sarcoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other AIDS-related cancers include Hodgkin disease and cancers of the lung, mouth, cervix, and digestive system."
Without specifying the types of cancers the article is largely useless.
“Or, are they just more likely to survive if they do get cancer?”
This sounds like a very incomplete study, useless actually.
As for male homosexuality, it's the lifestyle which is unhealthy. We are all sexual creatures and the laws of nature cannot be escaped by choices which are unhealthy. That goes for gay men and women, and nuns. Does the personal choice of sexual partners and the happiness in those relationships outweigh the physical dangers? That's why it's a choice. Excluding a healthy sex life from your time on earth is not good for one's health. That's straight or gay.
A 3% difference is not enough to raise concern
Ulrike Boehmer, the study’s lead author from the Boston University School of Public Health, said higher rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may be related to the increased risk of cancer in gay men, but the study couldn’t address that question specifically.Not controlling for HIV in such a study is so retarded, it cannot be unintentional: This is an activist study, not a scientific one.
They’re also more likely to avoid going to see their doctor for routine physicals or cancer screening, Margolies added—since healthcare providers may not all be tolerant and accepting of their identity.“*cry* *whaaaaa* It’s all your fault!! That I spent every afternoon in public restrooms having unprotected sex with random strangers has nothing to do with it!! *howl*”
“I don’t think that we’re going to get people to have early screening or see doctors except in emergencies ... until they can be guaranteed a safe and welcoming experience” at the doctor’s office, she said.
It may also be that gay men as a group are more likely to seek regular medical attention at a higher rate than men in general. More frequent check ups would lead to earlier cancer detection and a higher survival rate.
QUICK, OBAMA CARE TO THE RESCUE.
Sorry boyos, the death panels say you gotta die.
They death panels say that statistically you just cost too much to keep alive.
Pontiac - you state that as if the death panels will only consider the costs of care in their decision as to whether a person gets a certain portion of the ever shrinking medical resource “pie”.
Nope, since homos are a politically preferred group, they’ll get all the resources they need to continue spreading their moral and physical diseases.
Remember, it’s not just about the cost, but the quality of life of the individual person vs that cost that will be the determining factor. A 70 yr old might not get a decongestant tablet, because his calculated contribution to society will be projected to be minimal,
but a homo with AIDS will get all the expensive drug cocktails available to keep him alive, because the left values the homosexual lifestyle so highly.
My eyes...MY EYES!
Another area to explore is the relative frequency of doctor visits between male homosexuals and male heteros. I would hypothesize that because of certain practices, gay men would visit their doctors more often. We know that the successful treatment of many forms of cancer depend on early detection.
How long before we have the first “Prevent Gay Cancer” walkathon?
"There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" - Ben Franklin
The NIH already knows that the rates of anal cancer among sodomite men are astronomical. No further study is needed to determine that sodomites have major health problems, including cancer, relating to their “lifestyle”.
The real disturbing thing I seem to see fairly often is obese homosexuals, I am not stereotyping, but seeing so many of the kind who are obese personally makes me wonder what serious kinds of health issues either came, or are coming down the road. Obesity is also a risk factor for cancer as well, so there you have another concern.
I have a solution for that on this thread.
Yes I realize that is a likely outcome.
However all things being equal (they never are of course) Obama care implemented as intended would impact the homosexual community rather hard. Especially AIDS victims as there is no identified cure and it is costly to treat.
Another theoretical result of Obama care would be that so called Orphan diseases (rare diseases afflicting tiny portions of the population) would be even more neglected .
Homosexual men being about 3 percent of the population and any specific disease of that population would constitute an insignificant number of individuals therefore there could be no fiscal justification for investing dollars in research on those diseases.
No fiscal justification, of course.
However, the quintessence of liberal/leftist ideology is the wielding of power unequally in order to reward politically friendly groups and punish opponent groups.
There is NO WAY the equivalent of “NICE” (and I bet you could even look at how NICE and see disproportionate spending) would simply be examining each case fiscally and not politically.
I assert that this is THE core reason for implementing such a system here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.