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 ...
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.