RETRACTED: Homosexual Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in LGBT populations
This FAKE study by Columbia University which claimed stigma of gays shortens their life on average by 12 years - was used by Australian and US LGBT advocates to push and justify fake homosexual marriage. It was fake research, flawed and was unable to be replicated. Now that study has been withdrawn. Regnerus' study still holds - kids raised with a Mum and Dad do better than in a gay family.
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
M.L. Hatzenbuehler, A. Bellatorre, Y. Lee, B.K. Finch, P. Muennig, K. Fiscella
This article has been retracted at the request of the authors and the Editors-in-Chief.
The reason for the retraction is that the authors discovered an error in the study, which, once corrected, rendered the association between structural stigma and mortality risk no longer statistically significant in the sample of 914 gay and LGB sexual minorities. The authors published a Corrigendum (Corrigendum to “Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations” [Soc. Sci. Med. 103 (2014) 33–41], Volume 200, March 2018, p 271), pending a re-analysis of the data. Re-analysis confirmed that the original finding was erroneous and the authors wish to fully retract their original study accordingly.
Corrigendum to "Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in LGBT sexual minority populations" [Soc. Sci. Med. 103 (2014) 33–41]
Social Science & Medicine, Volume 200, March 2018, Pages 271
This article has been retracted at the request of the authors and the Editors-in-Chief.
The reason for the retraction is that the authors discovered an error in the study, which, once corrected, rendered the association between structural stigma and mortality risk no longer statistically significant in the sample of 914 gay and LGB sexual minorities. The authors published a Corrigendum (Corrigendum to “Structural stigma and all-cause mortality in sexual minority populations” [Soc. Sci. Med. 103 (2014) 33–41], Volume 200, March 2018, p 271), pending a re-analysis of the data. Re-analysis confirmed that the original finding was erroneous and the authors wish to fully retract their original study accordingly.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE GAY LEFT DISAGREED WITH REGNERUS 2017
Regnerus was attacked, and research questioned and LGBT left demanded his resignation
Regnerus came under immediate attack. To the sexual left, the argument par excellence against Regnerus is “but Regnerus!” A gay activist named Zack Ford at ThinkProgress said,
“Regnerus, a researcher with a reputation of distorting facts to fit his anti-gay bias, just did his own analysis and found different results.”
Even “Retraction Watch,” a website that monitors fake science, couldn’t help themselves. Here was a researcher that did what they purport to do, and they referred to him as “the polarizing researcher.” They quote the charges that Regnerus harbors “anti-gay bias.” They quote homosexual scholar/campaigner Nathaniel Frank who said, “Mark Regnerus has destroyed his scholarly credibility.”
DO KIDS IN GAY HOME DO BETTER HETEROSEXUAL HOMES?
RESEARCH: NO THEY DON'T
The charges against Mark Regnerus stem from a paper he published that questioned the “scholarly” claim that kids raised in same-sex households fare just as well as children raised by their married biological parents. The sexual left crucified him. They tried to get him fired. They tried to get his paper retracted. They failed in all but sullying his reputation among the sexual left. His paper has never been withdrawn, and he has been granted permanent tenure at the University of Texas.
We know that Regnerus was right then. In fact, social science abundantly shows that children do best when raised by their married biological mom and dad. Any other structure can cause harm to the child.
And now we know he was right about this new paper. We also know that the Columbia researchers were wrong. Zack Ford was wrong. Nathaniel Frank was wrong.
Regnerus is magnanimous in victory. He praised the eventual retraction,
The retraction makes sense. After the journal published my article detailing a consistent failure to replicate the original study, Professor Hatzenbuehler’s team issued a brief corrigendum noting the coding error and its profound effect on the study’s key finding. But simply noting it — while the original study remained in print, garnering additional readers and new citations — did not seem sufficient.
But he also said,
I do not think Professor Hatzenbuehler and his research team acted in bad faith. However, the whole experience ought to give us pause. The original study’s central finding passed muster with its co-authors, then its reviewers, readers, and the media. Its magnitude — an estimated 12 years of shortened life expectancy — struck me as unlikely upon first read. I can’t be the only one to have wondered that.
We do know that homosexuals suffer from heightened instances of mental health issues. We also know that they have lower lifespans than others. At least for now, this paper cannot be used to say it is your fault or mine.
