Chapter 25
.
Undeniable Evidence
.
The argument that homosexuality is a mental illness follows from several
lines of evidence, for example, incidence levels of homosexual vs.
homosexual violence which utterly dwarf so-called “fag bashing” by orders of
magnitude.
And testimony to this effect not only derives from critics of
homosexuality
but from homosexuals themselves and from the center-Left, especially a
feature article by Maya Shwayder in the November 5, 2013, edition
of The Atlantic, "A Same-Sex Domestic Violence Epidemic Is Silent."
.
This article is interesting for several reasons, not least the fact that it
basically affirms the accounts in the 1991 book by David Island and
Patrick Letellier, who are homosexuals themselves, Men who Beat
the Men who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,
which put the annual tally of male homosexual vs. homosexual violence,
primarily among domestic partners, at roughly 500,000 cases annually
in the United States.
.
I have usually cut this total in half when mentioning that study,
but the Atlantic article suggests that the 500,000 number is probably
more-or-less accurate. This compares with, depending on the year,
from 1000 to 3000 cases nationwide of so-called "fag bashing."
How mass-scale homosexual violence against other homosexuals
does not constitute a solid indicator of the psychopathogical nature
of homosexuality eludes me. In terms of percentages of incidents
of violence, as in other areas of dysfunctional behavior, the
homosexual record is much worse than among heterosexuals,
possibly by as much as 10:1 odds although such hard data as
exists show numbers about half that figure. Which is bad enough.
.
Such figures can be disputed; standards for reporting in this area
are inconsistent and under-reporting, as the article tells us, would
seem to be fairly common. Still, just maybe there is some exaggeration
for effect; the primary purpose of the essay was to argue that shelters
for battered homosexuals are scarce and why aren't there more
resources available for the purpose? Maybe a 250,000 tally, when
all is said and done, is the safer number. However, no matter what
you conclude about gross totals, here is information that belies
the many protestations of homosexual normality. Even the low
estimate is a staggering statistic.
.
The Atlantic article is a breakthrough even if this was unintended.
This may be the first major publication to document the problem
of homosexual initiated violence, which, of course, is pervasive
and anything but some kind of oddity. That the media narrative
denies any such thing is simply par for the course.
Has the mainstream media ever been objective about homosexuality?
Maybe there were examples of this prior to about 1985, but there
has been almost nothing at all that I know about in all the years since
about 1993, which can in any way be considered true to the facts.
In case you wonder why your reaction to this article is dissonant,
viz., "How can this be true?" "It isn't really true, is it?" "I simply
cannot believe it." "There must be some mistake."
.
But it is true.
.
Here is one key paragraph from the article:
.
"
In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization
by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the
national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and
stalking
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.” The
report
found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent
partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as
opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight
women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men,
it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men."
.
Anyone can do the math. Using low estimates of numbers of female and
male homosexuals, roughly 3 million females and 6 million males, this means
that around one million female homosexuals have been beaten up by other
female homosexuals at some point in their lives, sometimes repeatedly.
For male homosexuals the total is about 2-1/2 million, again, with some
percentage being assaulted repeatedly. Bisexuals are not considered here
because their numbers are quite low, maybe one million nationally,
although that could mean another 750,000 beatings.
.
If homosexual populations are larger than the estimates used here, say,
4 million or so female homosexuals and seven or eight million males,
the numbers of battered homosexuals could be in the 5 million range.
While these are "lifetime" statistics they certainly would fit with the
250,000 annual beatings estimate, especially factoring in repeated
physical attacks.
.
It is also the case that homosexual sponsored organizations like the
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs and the Gay Men's
Domestic Violence Program report much lower numbers but these
groups are tiny in comparison to the populations they try to serve,
and their statistics reflect this fact. Even so, to consider NCAVP data,
there were about three thousand cases it knew about for 2012,
and their latest statistics indicated a "29 percent increase in reports
of violence from 2011 to 2012."
.
On the subject of under-reporting, a spokesman for The Network/La Red,
cited in the Atlantic article, observed that: "Reporting can be really
difficult,
and historically we [LGBTQ people] have not had a very good relationship
with police and law enforcement, so folks may not be reporting it."
.
There is also the claim made by homosexuals that the figures for same-sex
violence are approximately the same as for heterosexual relationships.
Actually that is false. According to the Commission on Domestic Violence
of the American Bar Association, which has an interest in inflating totals,
roughly 25% of women in heterosexual relationships will be physically
abused in their lifetimes. The figure for men is somewhat more than 7%.
This compares with CDC estimates for homosexual females that are
close to half of this population, and about 40% for male homosexuals.
The ratios are 2:1 and 5:1 respectively -greater levels
of homosexual violence per gender.
.
The point is not that these numbers are iron clad; they are not because
they
cannot be. Other calculations are entirely possible. However, it seems
certain
that the most that would change from one set of statistics to another would
be modest differences in proportions, with gross totals within reasonable
plus or minus parameters.
.
What should also be noted is that, while no reliable statistics can be
cited
at this time, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests high rates of violence
against heterosexuals on the part of homosexuals even if, for reasons
of political expedience, these kinds of attacks are rarely documented.
That is, the reverse of 'fag bashing' happens every year and the numbers,
despite the fact that there are far fewer homosexuals in the population
(3%),
are about equal, indicating homosexual propensity to violence at a very
high
ratio, maybe on the order of 30:1. Of course, if there are "only" half as
many
total cases of homosexual vs. heterosexual violence the ratio would drop
to a measly 15:1.
.
Reference should be made to a 2005 study written by Dr. Paul Cameron,
“Violence and Homosexuality,”which shows conclusively that such practices
as
bondage, torture (including sexual torture), so-called“discipline” during
which
homosexuals use restraints such as chains to immobilize a partner for
purposes
of humiliation and inflicting physical punishment, whippings, and other
similar behaviors, are intrinsic to the “homosexual lifestyle” at rates which
are unknown among heterosexuals. Depending on the exact activity, at
ratios
as high as 7 or 8 to one.
.
Further, homosexual violence is closely associated with murder,
especially
serial killing, to the extent that of the top 10 such murderers in US
history
no less than six were homosexuals (Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, etc)
and that in a study of 518 murders committed between 1966 and 1983
which were sexual in nature, some 68 % were carried out by homosexuals.
.
Additionally, homosexual violence often extends to children, or children
as victims of coercion, with the result being that sexual abuse of the
under-age is the greatest single predictor of adult homosexuality,
although
there are other factors of consequence. In other words, the search for a
so-called "gay gene" is a subterfuge; it obscures the fact that we already
know, the most common predictor of homosexuality among people
of legal age, namely, is child abuse by homosexuals.
.
But aren't children raised by homosexual ersatz parents well adjusted
and just like normal children of a mother and father ? Well, no.
.
Your attention should be called to another research paper by Paul Cameron
of the Family Research Institute which has the title : "How Do the Kids of
Homosexual Parents Turn Out? The Best Evidence." This article demolishes
just about all ( all ) arguments made by homosexuals and their acolytes to
the effect that it makes no difference whether a child is raised by
homosexuals
or opposite sex parents.
.
First, the nature of pro-homosexual studies has invariably been on small
test groups. While case studies can have their usefulness for some kinds
of research, that is not true when seeking to generalize about large
populations,
like all children or families in the United States. That is, even a dozen
studies
with sample sizes of 10 or 20 may not establish much of anything. They
might,
in some circumstances, but this is not possible when, as is almost always
true,
the homosexual studies rely exclusively on volunteer subjects. Why is that
? Predisposition -bias, in so many words. Those who sign up
have something to prove.
.
Cameron both carried out large-scale tests of scientifically selected
random samples of people, and examined public records for child custody cases
in
which sworn testimony is available. He also cited parallel large sample
studies by others. Some 156 custody cases were examined, 78 homosexual
parental substitutes vs. 78 parents where there was a father and mother.
The large sample studies were of 2,988 individuals aged 18-39 in one
survey
and 5,182 "adults" in the other.
.
The results are the diametric opposite of claims made by homosexuals.
.
The report is detailed and covers a large range of issues, but it can be
summarized with selected highlights :
.
We have all heard about the lop-sidedly negative results for children,
especially boys, raised in fatherless homes by a single mother. The best
comparison is to homosexual twosomes , viz, high rates of just about every bad
behavior
you can imagine. Children raised by homosexuals are more likely to :
.
Be on welfare
Have a sexually transmitted disease
Report being raped
To be arrested for some kind of crime.
Report high levels of impulsive behavior.
Have problems with drugs.
Be alcoholic.
.
.
They are least likely to :
.
Be employed.
Feel generally satisfied and not be depressed
Report feeling secure and safe at home.
.
.
Things get worse from here. In 70 % of cases where children are raised
by homosexuals they are exposed to such things ( "harms" in the language
of psychology ) as neglect, emotional distress and sexual seduction by
a "parent." Among children in mother and father families the rate is 5 %.
.
While exact numbers are not available, these studies also show that
"homosexual parents as compared to heterosexual parents were more
frequently recorded as lying and/or engaging in criminality."
.
This holds true for female homosexuals, not only male homosexuals.
.
The issue of child rape -in the guise of seduction- is especially
prevalent
in homosexual homes. This is a frequent occurrence vs. a rare occurrence
in mother / father families.
.
If there is a problem with Cameron's study it is that he is an
anti-smoking
fanatic and goes out of his way to link every evil he can think of to
tobacco, including homosexuality.
.
This is ridiculous and overlooks just about every methodological
consideration
he berates homosexuals for in their flawed "research." FDR smoked, so did
Winston Churchill, and so did Humphrey Bogart and Hemingway. Others
on the list include Lucille Ball, Groucho Marx, Nat King Cole, John Wayne,
Edward R. Murrow, Walt Disney, and many more. And should we forget
that some of our Founding Fathers owned tobacco plantations? This is
to speak of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among others.
You can make a case that America was founded by smokers.
.
The May 2015 issue of AARP Bulletin provides information about
smoking on a state-by-state basis. Three states, Kentucky, West Virginia,
and Arkansas, have smoking rates above 25%. In another 16 states the
rate is 20% to 24.9%, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maine,
Alabama, North Carolina, and Wyoming. Delaware (19.6%) just missed
the cut as did another three states above 19%. Are we to believe that
homosexual levels are higher in these states? Based on what evidence?
There is none.
.
To associate smoking with homosexuality is unjustifiable. Otherwise
Cameron's research is almost always first rate. He just happens to have
an anti-tobacco fixation.
.
.
A final finding in Cameron's study is historical, namely, that there has
been a "systematic effort by Hollywood and academia — including the
professional societies — to ‘clean up’ the image of homosexuality [which] has
been
under
way for some time." This is one reason why the ill-informed public,
exposed
to pro-homosexual propaganda manufactured by the entertainment industry
and universities since at least the 1980s, is so clueless about the
reality of homosexuality. But it isn't just Big Media and educational
institutions that
are responsible. All kinds of associations are culpable, like, for
instance,
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the
National Association of Social Workers.
.
Yet what most of all demonstrates the pathological nature of homosexuality
is the self destructiveness of this population. The ultimate payoff is the
death rate for homosexuals is higher when compared with normal men
and women. How does this happen?
.
What must be said first is that reliable statistics about homosexual
mortality
rates is notoriously difficult to find. Most public health services that
track
causes of death, and this includes the CDC, do not break down fatalities
by the sexual histories of the deceased. The result has been a number
of studies that have attempted to make such identifications based on
those public records that were available such as obituaries in homosexual
newspapers and miscellaneous reports that have dealt with specific cases;
these reports may or may not be indicative of general trends or of whole
populations. However, they were all anyone had available until after 2009.
.
It is against this background that we should evaluate previous research.
.
Here is where Cameron's research was misleading. As far back as 1998
he had identified the homosexual lifestyle as a direct cause of high
mortality
among homosexuals. In 2005 he released findings from a study of obituaries
in homosexual publications that indicated as much as a 20 year difference
in life expectancy between homosexual males and heterosexual men.
He also did pioneer work in looking at public health statistics for
Norway and Denmark as part of his work.
.
That figure was made use of by a variety of researchers and organizations
in subsequent years, and I was one of them. However, the 20 year difference
seemed implausible to me without better evidence than Cameron presented
and when referring to homosexual mortality my view was that a better figure
was probably about 10 years on average. This is to discuss non-AIDS
deaths. Include AIDS and there is no question at all that homosexuals
live 20 years less on average and maybe more like 25 or 30 years less.
.
What Cameron's work did was to provoke the first known scientific study
of homosexual longevity with a large sample size and valid controls. This
was
a 2009 study published in Denmark and simultaneously in the United States
under the title: "Mortality Among Men and Women in Same-Sex Marriage:
A National Cohort Study of 8333 Danes." The authors were Morten Frisch
and Henrik Brønnum-Hansen. In the USA the study was published by the
American Public Health Association in its periodical, the American Journal
of Public Health in its January 2009 edition.
.
There are many technical details in this report but the bottom line was
this
comment by the authors: "Our study shows that same-sex–marrying Danish men
and women have overall mortality rates that are currently 33% to 34%
higher than those of the general population." This would seem to translate to
an
average of
around 10 or 25 years of reduced lifespan for homosexuals. Except that
in this case an average doesn't mean very much. For homosexuals as a
demographic category there certainly are greater incidence levels of
diseases
and, hence, lower life expectancy, but what the numbers say in this case
is that a lot of homosexuals die early but those that survive will probably
live out a relatively long life span even if it will be several years less
than for most heterosexuals.
There is a not-so-hidden catch in the study, moreover: "It is ...
questionable
to what extent our findings will also apply to unmarried gay or lesbian
persons
with continuously shifting partners." This caveat makes it clear that
"typical"
homosexuals, the 90%+ who do not enter into (some travesty of) marriage
are not factored into the story. In other words, the findings of the 2009
study
are misleading. They tell us about the most stable and least promiscuous
sub-population of homosexuals and not the statistical mean, in fact, very
far
indeed, from that mean.
.
This said, limited as the Danish study was, its authors conceded that while
their "data provides a much less dramatic picture than the one drawn by
the Family Research Institute" it nonetheless shows ...[the] documented...
existence of moderately increased mortality among same-sex married
Danish gay men and lesbians during the first few years of their marriages,
even in recent years when AIDS deaths have declined markedly
among gay men."
.
The study factored in the fact that some percentage of homosexuals
entered marriages of convenience so that they could dispose of assets post
mortem.
That is, homosexuals with a fatal disease, who knew they were about to
die, sometimes would "marry" another homosexual so that property would be
transferred in an orderly manner. Hence data for year #1 in all so-called
marriages was not considered.
.
After four years of marriage there was effectively no difference in
homosexual
vs. heterosexual death rates. Which could be the case, but there is another
problem. Since known homosexual marriage rates are in the 1% to 6% range,
if the real number is close to 1% then the sample size would be too small
to generalize from.
.
In part to deal with these kinds of issues, another study was conducted
at UCLA under supervision of Susan D. Cochran; the report, "Sexual
Orientation and Mortality Among US Men Aged 17 to 59 Years,"
appeared in the American Journal of Public Health in 2011.
.
Before discussing this study, which certainly has real world value,
it should be noted that Cochran has some sort of pro-homosexual
agenda, which has been noted in the literature, and this casts a
shadow over her findings. That is, although she, too, found increased
health risks for homosexuals, it is quite possible that the extent of
the differences she identified have been minimized to protect the
public status of homosexuals -especially in California.
.
What was it that she found? The following:
.
* Between 9% and 27% of homosexual males in the United States
are HIV positive
* Homosexuals are 44 times more likely to become infected with HIV than
heterosexual men.
* There is a "consistently documented elevated risk for suicide attempts"
among homosexuals and bisexuals vs. heterosexual men
* Even with new treatments and medications homosexual males are
more likely to die from all causes than heterosexuals. In fact, the
mortality
rate for homosexuals is 3.6 times that for heterosexual men.
.
What is remarkable in all this is the doubletalk in the report. The
abstract at
the beginning of the study says "mortality risk from non–HIV-related
causes,
including suicide, was not elevated among MSM.[homosexuals]." The point
is repeated near the end of the report where it says: "we failed to
detect any differences between MSM and heterosexual men in rates of mortality
related
to suicide or attributed to causes other than HIV infection." Finally, to
add to
the conclusion, "with the exception of deaths related to HIV infection,
MSM
did not appear to experience greater mortality risk than did heterosexual
men despite documented differences in health behaviors related to sexual
orientation."
.
This is quite clear. But in the body of the text we also read:
There is "clear evidence of elevated reports of suicide attempts" among
homosexuals. And " 21% of MSM were deceased" in the course of the
time period of the study. About 2/3rds of these deaths were HIV-related.
This leaves 1/3rd of deaths caused by some other problem. Since it is
not claimed that 1/3rd of the heterosexual subjects died during this time
one can suppose that this means they still were alive and, hence, they
would have an obviously lower mortality rate.
.
Which is it? God only knows.
.
This study deserves some king of gobbledygook prize for obscurantism.
Many medical reports are poorly written, of course, but this one is
particularly bad. For instance, can anyone tell me what this means:
.
"Evaluation of possible sexual orientation differences in mortality from
non–HIV-related causes in a third model failed to detect significant
differences between men reporting same-gender sexual partners
and heterosexual men, after adjustment for possible confounding."
.
The only conclusion to draw from this piece of crap, to be candid about
what it really is, is that the author went to great pains to disguise
facts
that she did not want to acknowledge. That is, the impression is strong
that the author did not want to admit, for her, unpleasant facts, she was
unwilling to face the truth, and -through obtuse language- lied.
Which I cannot "prove," of course, but at a minimum this paper makes
no sense when you take into account its internal contradictions.
.
Much the same can be said for an article by Monte Morin in the
March 12, 2013 edition of the Los Angeles Times. This story reported
the fact that, based on a 2011 study from the International Journal of
Epidemiology, while male homosexuals were living longer than before
because of better treatments for HIV, female homosexuals were
experiencing a sharp increase in their mortality rates
-for no apparent reason.
.
Something is rotten in Denmark, so to speak; this does not compute.
.
There are some interesting observations about marriage and mortality
in the article. For instance, while it is true that (normal) marriage
increases
the chances for a long life, with each successive divorce and remarriage
the longevity odds fell 27% for women and 16% for men. Which stands
to reason. Serious relationships are existential; they effect one's life
in just about every imaginable way. A disruption causes trauma.
Trauma of any kind is bound to have health effects, if not immediately,
sooner or later.
.
But the kicker comes toward the end of the article, which ties it in
with the Cochran study: "It remains unclear precisely why heterosexual
married couples have the lowest risk of death during the years studied,
although researchers suspect it has to do with income, health care,
increased social support and other factors."
.
Did you catch the problem? It is glaring out at you.
.
The article is silent about the effects of homosexual "lifestyle" on
health / mortality outcomes -as if, of course, homosexuals can
do no wrong and we shouldn't even look into homosexual values
and behavior when detecting differences between them and normal
men and women. Instead, we should find some way
to blame heterosexuals.
.
As for the "pity the poor perverts" excuse, viz, the heterosexuals have
all the advantages, better health care, more money for good education,
etc.,
in actual fact homosexuals, certainly in elite enclaves like those in and
around San Francisco and Silicon Valley, have far more average
income, one figure that I have seen putting the difference at about
$ 50,000 -vs. $ 35,000 for heterosexuals and, of course, with no
children to think about, most of the homosexual extra money is
disposable income. Any difference in health care, education, etc,
is self-chosen by homosexuals.
.
I'm not the only one to find flaws in Cochran's paper, by the way.
There may be many others; that would not be a surprise. But for now
there is one critical review to report, in an essay at the The John
Benneth
Journal website for October 30, 2011. This is not about the issues of
physical sickness, though, but about mental illness, also discussed
in the UCLA study.
.
To be sure, Benneth had his own intrinsic reasons to be skeptical
in principle; he practices homeopathic medicine and is very wary
about conventional medical practice. About homeopathy you are
as free to be dubious as you would like, but Benneth, whatever else
you may say about him, is very smart. He saw through Cochran's
false claims without any problem.
.
First, Benneth criticized Cochran for taking a narrow view of Cameron's
research; a "narrow refutation of Cameron," he said, misses the larger
point.
Here is what Cochran said in her paper:
.
“The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of
homosexuality
may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing
homosexuality
and issues associated with it as mental health problems.”
.
However, said Benneth, "critics of the accepted secular interpretation
that mental illness in homosexuals is due to discrimination say that the
numbers of homosexuals seeking help for mental and physical problems
in countries where homosexuality has been “normalized,” are global,
virtually the same as they are where homosexuality is openly condemned."
.
In so many words, what is going on is "homosexuality bigotry," that is,
homosexual bias against all critics as if each and every nay-sayer
necessarily is spouting prejudices from beginning to end with no
possible science as part of the process of criticism. Which , of course,
is the exact opposite of the truth.
.
Benneth was upset because in his experience he has found that homeopathy
offers some percentage of homosexuals an escape from their unwanted
condition. This is denied as a possibility by homosexual militants and
their supporters. Instead of looking at the matter with some degree of
objectivity, they see "symptoms as causes instead of what they really are:
Direct observation reportage."
.
"The global data refutes Cochran’s putative matching conclusion," said
Benneth, "that the pathology of homosexuality comes from it’s condemnation
by heterosexual society. What it suggests instead is that the
pathologizing of homosexuality comes not from homophobes, but from covert
victimization
by its attendants, who have spread the belief that it needs no correction,
the subtext being that homosexuals are stuck that way, when in fact
there is evidence to the contrary."
.
This has taken us somewhat off the point, but to make it clear that there
are irregularities in Cochran's report.
.
Here is the gist of things: Homosexuals and their fellow-travelers
claim that there are no differences, or only slight differences, between
mortality rates for homosexuals and heterosexuals as soon as you
subtract deaths from AIDS or HIV-related medical issues. But this
is false on the face of it. And why should we completely disregard
the problem of HIV infection?
.
Maybe a case could be made that, had HIV been eradicated by now,
if the question had become moot, we should overlook the infection,
but instead there is a new HIV epidemic even if it is scarcely reported
in the news media. This strongly suggests a pathology at play among
massive numbers of homosexuals that could easily result in other
epidemics even if HIV vanished overnight.
.
If we only discuss non-HIV health problems the situation is hardly
much better for homosexuals. Indeed, prior to the outbreak of AIDS
in the early 1980s, there had been small scale epidemics of other
sexually transmitted diseases in various homosexual populations,
especially those in California.
.
To make the point vividly, consider the mortality rates in several tropical
African nations. Here are some average life expectancy numbers:
.
Gabon 63
Congo 59
Togo 58
Angola 51
Sierra Leone 46
.
These countries were selected because no current civil war is present
in any of them or some other extraneous factor that might
contribute to low longevity figures.
.
.
In contrast, here are the life expectancies at the other end of the
spectrum:
Japan 84
Australia 83
Canada 82
France 82
Israel 82
USA 79
Peru 77
.
The difference, on average, is about 20 years. In a best case comparison,
say Gabon vs. Peru, the difference is 14 years. And please note, these
numbers, albeit in a very different context, line up neatly with Paul
Cameron's
statistics. His original methodology may have been deficient but it may
also
have been sufficient to identify a major epidemiological problem.
Why the discrepancy in death rates?
.
There are many reasons, of course, among them income, education attainment,
and nutrition, but part of the problem is the fact that these African
nations
host a wide range of tropical diseases that claim lives long before many
victims have a chance to grow old.
.
Why do these nations have high rates of tropical diseases while other
tropical countries do not? After all, while life expectancy is lower than
in the most developed nations like Japan, the USA, and the nations
of Europe, countries like Indonesia ( 71) and Brazil (74), which
certainly are tropical, aren't all that far from optimal numbers.
But the nations of South America as well as southern Asia, as a rule,
have fairly good health systems; not as good as countries
that belong to NATO, but respectable enough. And they have
decent education systems, not at American or Canadian levels
but sufficient to inform people about good sanitation practices
and other basic health measures that everyone should take.
.
Some phenomena various African nations have little control over.
Tsetse fly problems are endemic in South Sudan, Rwanda, and Angola,
with also high rates in countries like Mozambique and Chad. People
who are infected by tsetse flies develop African trypanosomiasis,
which, if untreated, is a fatal illness. But other health issues are
well within human control. In any case, this is not about
tsetse caused illnesses.
.
The problem in much of tropical Africa is abysmal sanitation. Human feces
pollute rivers where drinking water is obtained and may also pollute wells
by way of leakage from unsanitary toilet facilities. In any case, the
problem
usually has to do with ingestion of fecal contaminants. In these
contaminants
not only are there toxic substances but types of tiny parasites.
.
What does this have to do with homosexuals in the United States?
Just this: One of the major health problems among California and
other homosexuals concerns epidemic levels of tropical disease infections.
How is that possible? Do large numbers of American homosexuals
visit Africa on vacations? No, that isn't it. Nor does it have anything
to do with rural homosexuals drinking from polluted rivers.
.
Homosexual sexual behavior is the problem.
.
An online article with the title "Myths, Facts, and Consequences of the
Homosexual Lifestyle," spells it all out. Who complied the information
is unknown but whomever it was did excellent work; its all there,
described succinctly, with plenty of details.
.
The essay is also to the point about homosexual irresponsibility:
.
"One principal tactic of the homosexual lobby is to blame all of these
negative health impacts upon society’s lack of approval for their
lifestyle.
However, it is very important for every individual to be personally
accountable for their own actions. Without this, we are inviting denials
of culpability and rationalizations for all types of detrimental
behaviors.
And people will be encouraged to dismiss any and every bad action
on the basis of an unending laundry list of excuses."
.
It seems as if a number of typical homosexual sexual activities results in
ingestion of fecal matter or of infection of the bloodstream with
parasites
that otherwise live in defecation. This is to discuss anal
pseudo-intercourse
for starters, aka, "asshole ramrodding." When this sort of thing goes on,
there is "repeated trauma, friction and stretching" of the anus and lower
intestine; "the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a
tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material
that can
easily become chronic." As well, "the potential for injury is exacerbated
by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating
it
from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that
are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing
a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina." There are still
other considerations but surely you get the idea.
.
Then there is the activity known as "rimming," a very common homosexual
activity whereby one homosexual inserts his tongue into the defecation
portal
of the other. This they insist is a 'treat' and a source of pleasure
rather than
nauseating revulsion. " It is because of this practice that intestinal
parasites ordinarily found in the tropics are encountered in the bodies of
American
gay men. Combined with anal intercourse and other homosexual practices, “
rimming” provides a rich opportunity for a variety of infections"
.
There are also cases of salmonella and typhoid that have been directly
traced
to these basic homosexual behaviors.
.
The tropical diseases that result all have been studied in depth by
scientists
and public health specialists. Not that personally I have any interest in
these
diseases; they are totally irrelevant to my life and, anyway, medical
research
is something I only carry out under duress. There are approximately one
thousand
other subjects I would rather spend time with. However, the question
occurred
to me, if, as a variety of scientific reports agree, homosexuals have high
rates
of infection with such diseases as Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium,
Giardia lamblia, Isospora belli, and Microsporidia, to name a few, then
what kind of mortality effect should we look for?
.
For there are levels of mortality associated with the kinds of diseases
that are found in homosexuals that are not found at all, or only found
rarely,
among heterosexuals and since this is true then any "study" that assures
us
that there is no difference in mortality rates between homosexuals and
heterosexuals is based on deception -lies, in other words.
.
What clearly is going on in certain parts of the medical / public health
establishment is that studies are being commissioned that are designed
to find homosexual / heterosexual equivalence whether any exists or not.
The only serious question is whether these specious studies are the result
of deliberate falsification or the consequence of what assumptions are
built into the studies that follow from internalized pro-homosexual bias.
.
Here are some facts that should warm the hearts of epidemiologists:
.
This is from an online publication sponsored by:
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and
Distributed by The American College of Radiology, the RSNA,
the Radiology Outreach Foundation, and
The International Society of Radiology
.
Although the primary reason for the interest of the American military
in tropical diseases has to do with deployments of troops and other
personnel in the Mid East and other parts of Asia, it is noted in the
body of the text that "Entamoeba histolytica and Giardia appear
to be more common in patients with AIDS in the United States than
in African and other third world nations, probably due to increased
male homosexual contact." This would obviously be a concern ever
since enactment of Don't Ask, Don't Tell." With local policing in African
nations an unsure proposition, military officials expressed worry that
American soldiers and others, through contact with indigenous people,
might easily become infected. Hence the "U.S. Military Medical Dept...
at Fort Dietrich, Maryland) recognized the value of the material
within this text for members of the Armed Forces....."
.
One section in the study, "Organisms Likely to Cause AIDS-Related
Diarrhea in the Tropics," notes that "coccidian parasites Cryptosporidium
parvum, Isospora belli, and Cyclospora, and the Microsporidia are
thought to account for at least half of the cases of persistent
AIDS-associated diarrhea in the developing world, with contributions from
Mycobacterium
avium complex, other bacteria, and cytomegalovirus."
.
Then there is this paragraph that, as much as a medical paper ever spells
things out, explains essential facts about the relationship of tropical
diseases
to HIV-related epidemics and mortality:
.
"Cryptosporidium was the most common pathogen identified in several AIDS
diarrhea studies from Africa and Haiti, and is also common in Central and
South America. In a study from Brazil, Cryptosporidium and Isospora were not
found in any of the normal hosts examined, but were present in 19% and 10%
of AIDS patients respectively. Examination of the causes of chronic
diarrhea in AIDS patients, as compared to the general population in Zambia,
showed
that Isospora occurred in markedly increased numbers in AIDS patients (and
was not seen in the general population), and that Cryptosporidium was also
an important AIDS-related pathogen. Cryptosporidium has been documented in
38% of AIDS patients with diarrhea in Mali, and 21% in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. In two Tanzanian studies, cryptosporidiosis and
isosporiasis were virtually restricted to HIV-positive individuals with
diarrhea.
Also in Tanzania, a survey of intestinal parasites showed that the
prevalence of Cryptosporidium parvum, Isospora belli, and Strongyloides
stercoralis
was higher in HIV-positive than in HIVnegative patients ...
.
Actually there is even more in this lengthy paragraph loaded with technical
terminology, but this should provide sufficient information make a few
meaningful comments:
* A full range of parasite caused infections compound the problems
for anyone infected with the HIV virus. Heterosexuals seldom are
infected with these parasites, hence, while some of the problem
is generated universally (to anyone) it seems fairly obvious that
homosexual sexual rectal contact is the responsible agent.
* There are many diseases in this complex of illnesses and not all
of them have been reported in the United States. For instance in a
"large Haitian diarrhea study in HIV-positive patients, the most common
enteric protozoa included Cryptosporidium (30%), Isospora belli (12%),
Cyclospora (11%), Giardia (3%), and Entamoeba histolytica (1%).
Co-infections with Isospora and Cryptosporidium are seen quite commonly."
Mentioned in a related study were: Isospora belli, Entamoeba histolytica,
Giardia lamblia, Ascaris lumbricoides, Enterobius vermicularis,
Hymenolepis nana, and Dicrocoelium dentriticum.
* Salmonella seems to be a major cause of death in the third world nations
even if it is rare in the United States. Hence: "Nontyphi Salmonellae are
also a substantial cause of morbidity in HIV in the tropics, and systemic
salmonellosis may be an underdiagnosed cause of death. Of 103 patients in
Burundi in hospital for Salmonella dysentery, 86 were HIV-positive (83%)."
.
Which says that while these kinds of infections do not ordinarily cause
death
in and of themselves, combined with HIV infection, mortality skyrockets.
However, even in the absence of HIV, diseases of this kind do no-one
any good and may weaken the immune system and make those infected
more susceptible to AIDS. Physical illness-induced trauma may be severe
enough as well, to shorten life spans especially if an individual
isn't young and resilient.
.
This also makes sense in scattered references in other publications such
as
the 2001 opus, Radiology of AIDS, by Jacques W. A. J. Reeders, and
Philip C. Goodman, which notes that "Cryptosporidium has been
documented in 38 %of AIDS patients with diarrhea ... "
.
Confirmation of the role of excrement in transmitting this class of
diseases
can be found at websites like NetDoctor.co.uk, which has a posting that
answers the question: What is giardia lamblia? The answer, given on
February 19, 2015, says that ... "Giardia lamblia is a parasite that is
transferred through water polluted with faeces."
.
Hepatitis C, which can be a cause of death in its own right, sometimes
is also associated with so-called tropical diseases. Another medical site
tells us that "Hepatitis C may be present in some persons presenting
with the following conditions: essential mixed cryoglobulinemia (EMC),
glomerulonephritis, porphyriacutaneatarda(PCT), Itisalsoseen in persons with
cutaneous conditions, including: lichen planus, polyarteritis nodosa,
erythema nodosum, erythema multiforme, urticaria, and cutaneous vasculitis."
.
Don't ask me to explain, all of this is beyond my level of competence, but
enough is clear to note the obvious.
.
Also worth noting is a paper that dates to the onset of the AIDS epidemic,
from the journal
Pharmacotherapy, for 1982 January - February of 1982:
"Enteric diseases of homosexual men." Even at that time associations
between tropical diseases and HIV - AIDS were observable.
.
As the paper says: "Certain enteric ailments are particularly common among
homosexual men. They are primarily infectious diseases and include not
only
such common venereal diseases as gonorrhea and syphilis but also
infections
not usually regarded as being sexually transmitted. Among the latter are
shigellosis, salmonellosis, giardiasis, and amebiasis. Patients' symptoms
are
non-specific and seldom helpful in diagnosing particular diseases. The
practitioner must be prepared to identify a number of infections with
similar presentations that may occur singly or together in gay men.
Gonorrhea is probably the most common bacterial infection in gay men.
[Infection]rates as high as 50% have been reported, and
extra-genital carriage is common."
.
My apologies for not being able to work with this kind of research except
at a basic level; medicine is not my field and, to be candid, these kinds
of
documents leave me bleary eyed and sullen; I have not felt so depressed
since, many years ago I took a temporary job doing accounting work.
This kind of subject matter is not for me.
.
However, if I am correct about mortality and effects of diseases then
any number of people with medical backgrounds should be able to take
these very elementary observations and develop their own ideas much
further than I could ever hope to do.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RC] Chapter 25 When the truth is found to be lies...
BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:15:07 -0700
