Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are gay men more at risk for cancer? (New study says Yes)
Reuters ^ | May 9, 2011 | Genevra Pittman

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.

[Snip]

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.

[Snip]

[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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cancer; fdrq; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; medical; riskybehavior

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.

1 posted on 05/09/2011 4:58:59 AM PDT by Zakeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Hey little buddy, want to work out?


2 posted on 05/09/2011 5:04:38 AM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Sounds like a need for a new warning label.

/s

3 posted on 05/09/2011 5:08:32 AM PDT by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that (1) people who engage in risky behaviors are . . . more likely to engage in risky behaviors, and (2) as the National Cancer Institute points 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."

4 posted on 05/09/2011 5:09:17 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Pollster1
The article mentions HIV as a possibility but said the data wasn't there to make a determination. It also mentioned greater incidence of tobacco and alcohol use as factors.

Without specifying the types of cancers the article is largely useless.

5 posted on 05/09/2011 5:21:16 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Stay focused: Debt, Deficits & Immigration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

“Or, are they just more likely to survive if they do get cancer?”

This sounds like a very incomplete study, useless actually.


6 posted on 05/09/2011 5:24:21 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
One of the highest groups at risk for cancer are nuns. Nuns experience cervical and breast cancers at an alarmingly high rate when compared to the general population. In a healthy monogomous sexual relationship , childbearing, and lactation seem to stabilize reproductive tissues as they fulfill their purpose.

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.

7 posted on 05/09/2011 5:33:53 AM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

A 3% difference is not enough to raise concern


8 posted on 05/09/2011 5:37:56 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
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.

“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.

“*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*”
9 posted on 05/09/2011 5:38:13 AM PDT by cartan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

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.


10 posted on 05/09/2011 5:51:30 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
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.

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.

11 posted on 05/09/2011 5:56:15 AM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac; Zakeet

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.


12 posted on 05/09/2011 6:02:01 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

My eyes...MY EYES!


13 posted on 05/09/2011 6:02:07 AM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
As for male homosexuality, it's the lifestyle which is unhealthy.

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.

14 posted on 05/09/2011 6:12:02 AM PDT by Tallguy (Received a fine from the NFL for a helmet-to-helmet hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET; Zakeet

How long before we have the first “Prevent Gay Cancer” walkathon?


15 posted on 05/09/2011 6:14:21 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Yep! Without kids and a wife, one has much more free time to do things like go to the doctor.

"There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" - Ben Franklin

16 posted on 05/09/2011 6:14:56 AM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

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”.


17 posted on 05/09/2011 6:27:23 AM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

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.


18 posted on 05/09/2011 6:32:07 AM PDT by Morpheus2009 (I pity the fool - Mr. T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2717095/posts

I have a solution for that on this thread.

19 posted on 05/09/2011 6:36:32 AM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Chode

.


20 posted on 05/09/2011 8:26:07 AM PDT by Morgana (I speak no more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puckster

21 posted on 05/09/2011 8:28:06 AM PDT by Morgana (I speak no more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Nope, since homos are a politically preferred group, they’ll get all the resources they need to continue spreading their moral and physical diseases.

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.

22 posted on 05/09/2011 9:34:51 AM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Zakeet
[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.

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.

23 posted on 05/09/2011 9:54:11 AM PDT by Pontiac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
damn FDRQ...
24 posted on 05/09/2011 9:58:07 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac; Zakeet

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.


25 posted on 05/09/2011 11:24:13 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson