The Big Carrot is Toronto’s largest health food store. As in the
United States, people in Canada are started to take responsibility for
their own health and this has alarmed the doctors, the pharmaceutical
industry and the government.
On March 26, 1997, The Big Carrot was inspected by a Health
Protection Branch (HPB--Canada’s version of the FDA) official and
presented with a registered letter implying that as many as a third of
the products sold on the premises were in violation of the DIN drug
directories policies.
The word got out to several reporters and talk show radio
personalities. The e-mail started buzzing and the faxes began rolling
across Canada--Canadians were outraged. It got so hot that the
bureaucracy baeked down. It was all a big mistake, the inspector
announced. He had confused The Big Carrot (remember this is the largest
health food store in the city) with a "supplement
manufacturer."
Was this just an honest mistake? Or was it part of a larger
plan to crack down on Canada's natural products industry?
Actually, what you are about to read is worse than either and, in
fact, is bigger than all of Canada Alhough I have been fighting the
developing police state in this country for 40 years, I didn't believe
what I am about to tell you. I thought it was some sort of fabrication
or misunderstanding on the part of one of my fellow-paranoids. But this
is not a drill. It really is a brazen alternative medicine take-over
attempt by the United Nations, working through the GATT treaty imposed
upon you through Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and their Republican
democrat pals.
The World Health Organization's "CODEX" is a threat to
health freedom like nothing we have ever seen before. What is CODEX, you
ask? CODEX is short for Codex Alimentarius (which is Latin for
"nutrition code") and is the United Nations/WHO Commission to
establish worldwide standards for foods, drugs, pesticides, etc. and
their distribution and trade.
Few Americans have heard of the Codex Alimentarius Commission
partly because it meets in Europe and has not been publicized. This
semi-secrecy is typical of the world government bureaucrats when they
want to pass regulations with a minimum of fuss from the people being
regulated.
The stated purpose of CODEX is "to guide and promote the
elaboration and establishment of definitions and requirments for foods,
to assist in their harmomzation and, in doing so, to facilitate
international it trade . "
Since being established in 1962, CODEx has produced 28 volumes
of standards, guidelines and principles, including 237 food standards
and 41
Hygienic and technological practice codes. CODEX has resulted in
evaluations of the safety of over 700 food additives and contaminants
and the setting of more than 3,200 maximum residue levels for
pesticides--a boondoggle to warm the heart of any bureaucrat.
The CODEX Commission meets every two years and any delegate can
propose
change in its standards. The Commission's latest outrage produced an
ominous new threat to health conscience consumers the world over when
the German delegation presented a bill called the "Proposed Draft
Guidelines for Dietary Supplements."
The German plan calls for the following: (I) No vitamim, mineral,
herb, etc. can be sold for prophylactic (preventive) or therapeutic use
(2) None sold as a food can exceed potency (dosage) levels set by the
commission. (3) CODEX regulations for dietary supplements would become
binding--eliminating the escape clause within the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that allows a nation to set it’s own
standards. And (4) all new dietary supplements would automatically be
banned unless they go through the CODEX approval process.
If these draconian measures are adopted, any party to GATT
(which includes the United States) that does not accept the new
standards can be heavily sanctioned (fined) by the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The WTO will have the right to levy enormous fines
on any nation that gets "out of line," with the potential to
cripple entire sectors of the nation‘s economy.
The sole U.S. delegate to CODEX has been Elizabeth A. Yetley,
Ph.D., RD, an FDA bureaucrat. So instead of the proverbial fox in the
hen house, we have representing us, a fox in the fox house. Responding
to political pressure in the United States, so far she has voted for
health freedom, but with little result--at the last meeting the vote
went 162 in favor of the German proposal. I doubt we will hear much
ranting and raving from our "representative" from the FDA.
You're probably sitting back saying that nothing like this
could happen to us in the U.S.--Congress wouldn't let it happen. If
that's what you're thinking, you're wrong.
Congress, in fact, surrendered much of its power to deal with
the issue when it passed GATT. Under the GATT agreement, member nations
must "harmonize" their rules governing the manufacure of
health and medical products with new internationa stanaards so as to be
"in line" with them. (I wonder if anyone in Congress actually
read that clause before signing the bill.) Republicans in Congress
assured the American people that GATT is not part of a world government
trap--do you believe that now?
Congress cannot rescind its vote on GATT--and, on the contrary,
the single U.S. delegate to this internanonal commission can be outvoted
by delegates from other countries; it's called international democracy.
Two steps have already been taken in the CODEX process, which is now at
step three: The proposal is going to be formalized and written responses
and debate over its specific features will be undertaken.
In September, 1998, the next CODEX meeting will be held in
Bonn, Germany It could easily be driven through to finalization at step
eight unless enough countries oppose it.
Why would the Germans be so interested in setting international
standards on dietary supplements
The answer lies in the list of international organizations
"allowed" to send delegates to the Commission's meetings. One
glimpse at the list and you'll see that 90 percent of the delegates
represented giant multinational pharmaceutical corporations. The only
"consumer" organization she saw listed is the
"International Organization of Consumers Unions," which means
that right now the general public has zero representation on this
critically important committee--unless you're naive enough to think that
a consumer's union really represents you.
What supplements will CODEX "allow" you to have? None
that you can afford. The drug companies are licking their chops as they
see the natural foods and health industry, which has been eating into
their profits, face wipe-out. The ruthlessness of the pharmaceutical
industry is clearly evident in this move to monopolize the health food
and nutrient business of the entire world.
I find it very upsetting that the German proposal before the CODEX
Commission is being pushed by Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. These three
companies were formed when IG Farben was disbanded after the Nuremberg
War Trials because of its role in manufacturing the poison gas used in
the Nazi concentration camps.
Because of the influence these companies are exerting, Germany
has been attempting to manipulate the CODEX committee on Nutrition and
Foods for Special Dietary Use to further the interests of the German
pharmaceutical industry by raising regulatory standards so that only the
big drug companies can survive.
If you've been reading Second Opinion for very long, it
shouldn't surprise you that the major drug companies are behind this.
Nor should it surprise you that PharmaPrint, Inc. of Irvine,
California announced on December 4, 1996, the world's first patent on a
complex herbal molecule. That means that they have developed a process
which can identify the active compounds in herbs. As this publicly
traded company has the direct backing of the World Health Organization,
it is increasingly obvious that the CODEX movement is an attempt to
abolish herbal therapies all together
PharmaPrint has announced efforts to create pharmaceutical versions
of three of the most commonly traded herbs: saw palmetto, for prostate
enlargement; ginger, to be patented for motion sickness; and St. John's
wart, to be patented for moderate and mild forms of depression.
PharmaPrint has been licensing other pharmaceutical companies to use
their patented technology.
And this is just the beginning. We saw at the beginning of this
report that a CODEX driven pharmaceutical takeover of the natural
products industry in Canada is already in full swing. In fact,
possession of DHEA is now a felony in Canada, carrying the same penalty
as possession of crack cocaine, and foods are now being regulated as
"drugs."
The pharmaceutical connected vitamin companies are
"negotiating " with the HPB over the creation of a quasi-drug
category ("nutraceutical") that would do nothing to stop the
HPB from driving manufacturers, distributors and retailers out of
business. If this happens, it will bar consumer access to a growing list
of natural products, including DHEA, melatonin, fish oil, cranberry,
hawthorns berry capsules, amino acids, chromium picolinate and over 57
other common herbs.
The Canadian government now calls anything with therapeutic
effects, medical claims, or any remote toxicity (even something as
harmless as loose stool --maemesium, or flushing--niacin) a drug under
the minister of health's new Food and Drug Policy.
Anyone who still doesn't think this could happen in the U.S.
had beset wake up. The FDA says, in their own web site, that they intend
to "harmonize our domestic laws" with the draconian CODEX
dictates: "FDA plans to amend its regulations and procedures for
consideration of standards adopted by CODEX. This action is being taken
to provide for the systematic review of CODEX standards in order to
enhance consumer protection, promote international harmonization and
fulfill obligations of the United States under international
agreements"--which you never voted for. (Emphasis added.) Go to the
jackal's den and read about their intentions from their own web site: www.fda.gov/ola/319.html
John Hammell, of the Life Extension Foundation, is leading a
very effective fight against the CODEX proposals. Hammell said:
"The FDA's modus operandi is on record as ensuring that the
existence of dietary supplements on the market do not act as a
disincentive for drug development. (FDA Dietary Supplement Task Force
Report, May 1993) In other words, the FDA's policy is to encourage drug
development and discourage the use of dietary supplements.
If the FDA gets its way, here's how the system will work: In Canada,
if claims are made on a natural product, the HPB then requires that a
"Drug Identification Number" be applied for. If this is done,
and HPB deems the product safe, it can be marketed as long as the
manufacturer, distributor and retailer pay costs of up to $720 per DIN
number.
If no one has applied for a DIN, then no one can sell the
product, and you can even be arrested for selling such innocuous
products as fish oil, hawthorns berry and cranberry capsules. That may
not sound like much to even a small American business, but if the DIN
system were adopted in the U.S., these costs would be 10-20 times higher
due to the market being so much bigger. Now you're talking about real
money: $7,000 to $15,000 per number. Where does that leave the mom and
pop operation? It leaves them with nothing to sell.
On top of this outrage, under a "Cost Recovery"
program, manufacturers will be assessed huge "site licensing
fees." For example, if a manufacturer sells four DIN products, he
will have to pay an annual fee of $1,250 for Good Manufacturing Practice
inspections, plus an annual importer assessment fee of $1,562, plus an
analysis fee of $1,250. Add to this the foreign assessment fees (for an
imported product), which are $2,500, plus all expenses for an HPB
inspector to travel to the foreign facility to inspect it--which could
easily cost $5,000 per foreign facility per product. That will not
exactly promote international trade, ostensibly, a goal of the CODEX
commision.
With all the taxes on manufactures and fees at the retail level, and
the millions that will be expended for enforcment (at least
$20,000,000), nutritional products in Canada will at least double in
price. And that isn’t even the full dose of tyranny but a compromise
that supposedly "protects" the consumer!
Most Canadian businesses would be driven south to the states at
these prices, and even so, the "underground" would flourish,
posing great harm to the health of consumers.
The highly sucessful American nutrient company, Nature’s Way,
appears to be one of the traitor companies gearing up to stick it to the
little guys in the U.S. They’re in bed with the German company,
Mandaus AG, which is having studies done at Bastyr University on
echinacea for $385,000. Would Nature’s Way and Madaus AG be doing this
if they weren’t expecting big things in the U.S.? Will Bastyr
University become compromised? Can you do studies for a pharmaceutical
firm without being compromised?
In the U.S., we are facing our own Canadian-style
"compromise" ---herbs and botanicals are scheduled for OTC
treatment. OTC stands for "over the counter," but don't be
misled by *he term in this context. They are "over the
counter" now, but in health food stores. The new OTC regulations
will involve expensive licensing, which will make them available only in
drug stores, and perhaps a few large chains, like (GNC, that can afford
the government payoffs, as described above. These nutrients, if
available at all, will double or even triple in cost.
Do you want your favorite supplements replaced by expensive,
patented, over the counter or prescription drugs? I sincerely hope your
answer is a resounding NO!
But CODEX and the FDA see things differently and they pose the
greatest threat to health freedom in the world today. If they get away
with the changes proposed by the Germans, you will no longer find the
shelves of your local health food store filled with vitamins.
What you will find is little besides "health food."
You'll find organic vegetables, macrobiotic staples, herbal shampoo,
skin creams, Birckenstock sandals, books on massage and only a handful
of multi-nutrient formulas in OTC drug form. The closest thing to the
products available to Americans today will be found only as high-priced
prescription and over the counter drugs in pharmacies
(1) The FDA will be convening a public hearing wherein interested
persons and organizations will be able to discuss and question CODEX and
the U.S. position on it. The FDA will then draft a final U.S. position
paper to he submitted to the five-day Bonn CODEX meeting. The paper will
be highly influencial in shaping the final proposed regulations. It is
vitally important that you write to Dr. Robert Moore, FDA Office of
Special Nutritionals, (HFS-456) 200 C. St. S.W., Washington, DC 20204,
expressing your objections to the German CODEX proposal. Also write/fax
[e-mail] your senators and congresspersons, as well as every member of
the Senate Labor Committee and House Comerce Committee.
(2) There is so much more to this story that I can’t even
begin to cover it all. But Mr. John Hammell (mentioned earlier) is
working closely with our allies---the U.K., Japan, the Netherlands,
Austrailia and New Zealand -- to help insure our health freedom from the
greedy grasp of the international bureaucrats.
Make sure you ask John how you can get involved. He’ll be glad you did.
Medical Consequences
of What Homosexuals Do
Re-printed from an educational pamphlet
produced by the Family Research Institute Top
Of Page
Throughout history, all civilizations and all major religions have
condemned homosexuality.1 In the American colonies,
homosexual acts were a capital offense. Thomas Jefferson said that
homosexuality "should be punished, if a man, by castration, if a
woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half
inch in diameter at least."2 Until 1961 homosexual acts
were illegal throughout America.
Gays claim that the "prevailing attitude toward homosexuals in
the U.S. and many other countries is revulsion and hostility.... for
acts and desires not harmful to anyone."3 The American
Psychological Association and the American Public Health Association
assured the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 that "no significant data
show that engaging in... oral and anal sex, results in mental or
physical dysfunction."4
Is the historic stance against homosexuality merely one of prejudice?
Is homosexual behavior really as harmless as gays and these health
associations assert?
What Homosexuals Do
The major surveys on homosexual behavior are summarized below. Two
things stand out: 1) homosexuals behave similarly world-over, and 2) as
Harvard Medical Professor, Dr. William Hascltine, 33 noted in 1993, the
"changes in sexual behavior that have been reported to have
occurred in some groups have proved, for the most part, to be transient.
For example, bath houses and sex clubs in many cities have either
reopened or were never closed."
Homosexual Activities (in %)
Oral sex: Homosexuals fell ate almost all of their sexual contacts
(and ingest semen from about half of theses). Semen contains many of the
germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex
verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since
the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary
places such as a rectums, individuals so involved may become infected
with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis B). Since many
contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had
had sex only once with over half of their partners 27), and gays average
somewhere between 10.6 and 110.5 different
partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.
Rectal sex: Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have
engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two thirds do it regularly. In
a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries, gays averaged 110 sex
partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.
Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse
the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for: 1) saliva and its germs and/or an
artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient's own feces, 3) whatever germs,
infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid
of the inserter. Since semen readily penetrates the rectal lining (which
is only one cell thick), and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is
very common during analpenile sex, these substances gain almost direct
access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which
sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are
present), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way
to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis and a host of other blood-borne
diseases. Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with
''fisting,'' where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is
also common when 'toys' are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which
are inserted into the rectum--bottles, carrots, even gerbils). The risk
of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such
"sport" is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in
Kinsey's time that he didn't think to ask about it. By 1977, well over a
third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to
accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned
to diapers for life. Fecal sex: About 75% of gays admit to licking
and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus
ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or
wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5
70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly--over 6
months. Result?--the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...
homosexual men was 22 per cent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired
hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the
proportion of Sydney gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not changed
since 1984.
While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the
fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy.
Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A
and the enteric parasites collectively known as the
Gay Bowel Syndrome.
Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of
typhoid fever,9 herpes, and cancer.27 About 10% of
gays have eaten or played with [eg., enemas, wallowing in] feces. The
San Francisco Department of Public Health saw "75,000 patients per
year, of whom 70 to 80 per cent are homosexual men.... An average of 10
per cent of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported... because
of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, Guardia, and shigella
infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments;
almost 5 per cent of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed.10
In 1976, a rare airbome scarlet fever broke out among gays and just
missed sweeping through San Francisco.10 The U.S. Centers for
Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver,
66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal
and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays.ll
A 1982 study "suggested that some transmission from the homosexual
group to the general population may have occurred.''l2Urine
sex: About 10% of Kinsey's gays reported having engaged in "golden
showers" [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest
survey of gays ever conducted,l3 23% admitted to urine-sex.
In the largest random survey of gays,6 29% reported
urine-sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays, only 24 % claimed to
have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5%
drank urine, 7% practiced "fisting," 33% ingested feces via
anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their
rectum during the previous month.
Other Gay Sex Practices Sadomasochism: as the Table indicates,
a large minority of gays engage in torture for sexual fun. Sex with
minors: 25% of adult white gays17admitted to sex with boys 16
or younger. In a 9-state study,30 33% of the 181 male, and
22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so
homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engage in
homosexuality3l). Depending on the study, the percent
of gays reporting sex in public restrooms ranged from 14%16,
to 41%13 66%;6 9%16 60%,l3and
67%6 reported sex in gay baths; 45%,35 64%,16
and 90%8 said that they used illegal drugs.
Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the
numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin15 reported that
824 gays had lowered their sex-rate from 70 different partners/yr in
1982 to 50/yr by 1984. McKusick14 reported declines from
76/yr to 47/yr in 1985. In Spain32 the average was 42/yr in
1989. Medical
Consequences Of Homosexual Sex
Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual
activity. 70% to 78%6l of gays reported having had a sexually
transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms,
flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25%18 to 39%.19 As of
1992 83% of U.S. AIDS in whites had occurred in gays.21 The
Seattle sexual diary study5 reported that gays had, on a
yearly average:
1) fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;
2) exchanged saliva with 96;
3) experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and
4) ingested focal material from 19.
No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted hepatitis A
during the 6 month study. Effects on the
Lifespan
Smokers and drug addicts don't live as long as nonsmokers or
non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The
typical lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more
destructive than smoking and as dangerous as drugs.
6,737 obituaries from 18 U.S. homosexual journals over the past 13
years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular
newspapers.23 The obituaries from the regular newspapers were
similar to U.S. averages for longevity: the median age of death of
married men was 75 and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For
unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and 32% of them
died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old.
Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71 and 60%of them died old.
The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the
same nationwide--and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS
was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died
of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42 and 9% died
old. The l63 lesbians had a median age of death of 44 and 20% died old.
2.9% of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be
murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a
traffic-accident death-rate 18 times the rate of comparably aged white
males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally
common. 18% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident -- a rate
456 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age
distributions of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature
from 1858 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened lifespan
The Gay Legacy
Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned with a
plague that gives every indication of destroying most of them. Those who
treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection,
which, as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers,2l
but also from TB and new strains of other diseases.24 Those
who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk.24 Dr.
Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992
that "AIDS has already lead to other kinds of dangerous
epidemics.... If AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will
emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent
them."28 At least 8, and perhaps as many as 3029
patients had been infected with HIV by health care workers as of 1992.
The Biological Swapmeet
The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror
story -- imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with
dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting
feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis. Often these
encounters occur while the participants are drunk, high, and/or in an
orgy setting. Further, many of them occur in extremely unsanitary places
(bathrooms, dirty peep shows), or, because homosexuals travel so
frequently, in other parts of the world.
Every year, a quarter or more of homosexuals visit another country. 20,36
Fresh American germs get taken to Europe, Africa and Asia. And fresh
pathogens from these continents come here. Foreign homosexuals regularly
visit the U.S. and participate in this biological swap meet.
The Pattern of Infection
Unfortunately the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect
homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York
City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays
carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world.27
Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of
1992 received it from homosexuals and most of the women in California
who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged
in homosexual behavior.22 The rare form of airborne scarlet
fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals.10
There is a pattern here that we ignore at our peril. With the rise of
these new contagious diseases, homosexuality not only raises our medical
costs, it also increases the hazards of medical care, receiving blood,
and eating out.
Genuine Compassion
Society is legitimately concerned with health risks - they impact our
taxes and everyone's chances of illness and injury. Because we care
about them, smokers are discouraged from smoking by higher insurance
premiums, taxes on cigarettes and bans against smoking in public. These
social pressures cause many to quit. They likewise encourage non-smokers
to stay non-smokers.
Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous
activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them,
it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a
destructive lifestyle.
References: 1) Karlen A Sexuality and
Homosexuality NY: Norton, 1971. 2) Pines B Back to Basics NY: Morrow,
1982, p. 211. 3) Weinberg G Society and the Healthy
Homosexually:StMartin's,1972,preface.4)Amicicuriaebrief,inBowersvHardwick,
1986. 5) Corey L & Holmes KK Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in
homosexual men New Engl J Med 1980;302:435-38. 6) Cameron P et at Sexual
orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Med J
1985:70:292-99; Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social
order Psychol Rpts 1989;64:1167-79. 7) Manligit GW et at Chronic immune
stimulation by sperm alloantigens. JAmer Med Assn 1984:251:237-38
Mulhall BP et at Anti-sperm antibodies in homosexual men Gerintourin Med
1990;66:57. 8) Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope, The Reader (Chicago)
3*28/86) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his
column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the UPS. and
Canada] 9) Dritz S & Braff Sexually transmitted typhoid fever. New
Engl J Med 1977;296: 1359-60. 10) Dritz S Medical aspects of
homosexuality. New Engl J Med 1980;302:463-4. 11) CDC Hepatitis A among
homosexual men -- United States, Canada, and Australia. MMWR
1992;41:155-64. 12) Christenson B et at, An epidemic outbreak of
hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm Amer J
Epidemiologyl982;116:599-607.13)JayK&YoungAThegayreportNYsummit,1979.
14) McKusick L et at AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in
San Francisco Amer J Pub Health 1985: 75:493-96. 15) USA Today 11/21/84.
16) Gebhard P & Johnson A The Kinsey data NY: Saunders, 1979. 17)
Bell A & Weinberg M Homosexualihes NY: Simon & Schuster 1978.
18) Jaffee H et at National case-control
studyofKaposi'ssarcomaAnnalsInfer1ZalMed 1983;99:145-51. 19)
QuinnTCetalThe polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in
homosexual men New Engl J Med 1983:309:576-82. 20) Biggar RJ Low
T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men JAmer Medals 1984:251:1441-46;
WallStreetJournal7118191, B1.21) CDCHlV/AIDSSurveillance February 1993.
22) Chu S et at AIDS in bisexual men in the US Amer J Public Health,
1992:82:220-24. 23) Cameron P, Playfair W & Wellum S. The longevity
of homosexuals: Before and after the AIDS epidemic. Omega 1994 (in
press). 24) Dooley SW et at Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis in a
hospital unit for HlV-infected patients JAmer Med Assn 1992:267:2632-35.
25) Schechter MT et at Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS
Lancet, 1984: 1: 1293. 26) Elford J et at Kaposi's sarcoma and insertive
rimming. cancel 1992:339:938. 27) Beral V et at Risk of Kaposi's sarcoma
and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or
bisexual men with AIDS Lancet 1992:339:632-35.28) Testimony before House
Health & Environment Subcommittee 2/24/92. 29) Ciesielski C et at
Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice.Annals
Intemal Med 1992:116:798-80; CDC Announcement Houston Post 817192. 30)
Rubin S Sex education: teachers who sexually abuse students. 24th
Internal. Congress Psychology, Sydney, Australia Aug, 1988. 31) Cameron
P & Cameron K Prevalence of homosexuality. Psychos Rpts, 1994, in
press; Melbye M & Bigger RJ Interactions between persons at risk for
AIDS and the general population in Denmark. Amer J Epidemiology
1992:135:593-602. 32) Rodriguez-Pichardo A et at Sexually transmitted
diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain Genitourin Med
1991:67;335-338. 33) AIDS Prognosis Washington Times 2/13/93, C1. 34)
Myers, T et at AIDS: Knowledge, attitudes, behaviors in Toronto AIDS
Comrnittee of Toronto, 1991. 35) Rotheram-Borus MJ et at Sexual and
substance abuse acts of gay and bisexual male adolescents in New York
City Sex Research 1994,31, 47-57.36) Tveit K-S Casual sexual experience
abroad Genitourin Medicine 1994, 70, 12-14.
Family Research Institute
P.O. Box 2091
Washington, DC. 20013-2091
(703) 690-8536
