Posted on 01/24/2008 6:44:17 PM PST by jimluke01
You can’t help but feel a little sorry for Amanda Beck. She’s a reporter from Reuters who was among the first to cover a new study conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, which warns about an outbreak of a virulent, drug-resistant, and potentially deadly strain of Staph infection afflicting certain segments of the homosexual community.
Although outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, have primarily been confined to hospitals in the past, the study determined that, due to “high risk behaviors” beyond hospital walls — such as “anal sex” — men who have sex with men are now 13 times more likely to contract the infection.
Because this particular strain can be transmitted through “skin-to-skin contact,” researchers fear the outbreak “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” and will spread to “the general population.” Once it does, they say it will be “unstoppable.”
The initial reporting by some in the mainstream media, even The New York Times, was fairly accurate and balanced. It superficially addressed the study’s lucid data and sound conclusions.
But all that quickly changed.
You see, by even reporting on this study, Amanda Beck and her media codefendants deviated from the script. They broke the rules. And in so doing, they really, really ticked off that 500-pound homosexual activist gorilla and his yappy, apple polishing lapdogs back at media central.
Here’s where Amanda went wrong. She objectively provided scientific information to the public which cast “high risk” homosexual conduct in a negative light. She led people to a credible medical study that underscores the potential consequences of a demonstrably dangerous and desperately empty lifestyle.
She dared to report the study’s genuine findings, and for that, Amanda Beck and her media co-condemned will, no doubt, be working the obits beat in journalistic Siberia until they’ve successfully completed obligatory “sensitivity” training.
Dr. Binh Diep, the researcher who led the study, told Reuters, “Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable … ‘We think that it's spread through sexual activity.’”
And the fan was thusly and most directly hit.
Now began the backpedaling: “Move along, folks, nothing to see here,” seemed to bark The New York Times, Newsweek and other media outlets. “Ignore that homosexual pressure group behind the curtain.”
Following the lead of “gay” activists, the mainstream media desperately scrambled to change the subject, engaging in a classic “kill-the-messenger” strategy. The researchers who conducted the study were even attacked, and calls by groups like Concerned Women for America (CWA) to end political promotion of the “high-risk behaviors” associated with the outbreak were warped through a prism of obfuscation and misdirection.
Homosexual groups and the media set up a mean ol’ straw man and took to knocking the stuffing out of him. Conservative organizations were suggested to have claimed the outbreak was “the new AIDS,” a “new gay disease” and “the gay plague,” all things which nobody I know ever implied.
They mischaracterized a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statement on the controversy as a repudiation of the study (which, of course, it was not). “There is no evidence at this time to suggest that MRSA is a sexually-transmitted infection in the classical sense,” read the statement. Again, nobody said MRSA was “a sexually-transmitted infection in the classical sense.” (Emphasis added). The study merely found that, as it pertains to certain segments of the “gay” community, it was being transmitted through “high-risk” sexual behaviors.
The New York Times disingenuously reported that the researchers had “issued an apology” for releasing “their findings.” “We deplore negative targeting of specific populations in association with MRSA infections or other public health concerns,” said Dr. Henry Chambers in what hardly amounted to “an apology.”
But the coup de grâce came when Kevin Berger — some cat over at Salon Magazine — personally attacked me. He noted that a handful of professional football players with turf burns had also contracted MRSA.
So desperate was he to downplay this behaviorally related MRSA outbreak among “gays” that he wrote an entire article built around the premise that, “It is fair to reason that more American men play football than have sex with one another.”
That little bit of flapdoodle was so rich that I was tempted to respond in kind with an article but decided against it. This poor fellow’s tortured logic betrays his folly. I wouldn’t want to pile on. It’d be like pulling a little girl’s pigtails, and I hate to appear “mean-spirited.”
Nonetheless, Berger’s dodgy rationalization perfectly encapsulates the strategy employed by both the homosexual lobby and the rest of his media cohorts. They can’t possibly be this deep in denial, so the cover up must be intentional.
Still, the actual study left little room for rationalization. It determined that the spread of MRSA, “among men who have sex with men is associated with high-risk behaviors, including use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, sex with multiple partners, participation in a group sex party, use of the internet for sexual contacts, skin-abrading sex, and history of sexually transmitted infections.”
Ultimately, the study warned that, “Having male-male sex seems to be a risk factor for [MRSA] … The infection frequently manifests as an abscess or cellulitis in the buttocks, genitals, or perineum, and male-male sex was a risk factor.”
The study found that this behaviorally related “[MRSA] epidemic probably started in San Francisco and has been disseminated by the frequent cross-coastal travel of men who have sex with men.”
It all boils down to this: The human body is quite callous in how it handles mistreatment and the perversion of its natural functions. When two men mimic the act of heterosexual intercourse with one another, they create an environment, a biological counterfeit, wherein disease can thrive. Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences.
The medical community has known for decades that homosexual conduct, especially among males, creates a breeding ground for often deadly disease. In recent years we’ve seen a profound resurgence in cases of HIV/AIDS, syphilis, rectal gonorrhea and many other STDs among those who call themselves “gay.”
But don’t take my word for it. Ask one of their own. Prolific author and homosexual activist, Jack Hart:
“Many sexually transmitted diseases occur more often among gay men than in the general population. Several factors contribute to this difference: Gay men have the opportunity to engage in sex with more people than do most heterosexual men, and some practices common among gays — especially rimming [anal-oral intercourse] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient at transmitting disease.” (Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, Allyson Books, 1998, pp. 212-213).
Still, don’t just take Jack’s word for it:
“The same patterns of increased sexual risk behaviors among men who have sex with men … have been driving resurgent epidemics of early syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections in San Francisco, Boston, and elsewhere,” concluded the MRSA study.
So finally, I ask this question, and it’s a troubling one indeed: What can one say about the character of organized political activists and mainstream journalists who would intentionally place a deceptive political agenda above the health and well-being of Americans, including members of their own community? … Who would choose to deliberately quash valuable medical information which might save lives simply because it creates a setback to narrow political ambitions?
I know what I’d say, and it sure ain’t nice.
#####
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
Yet Another Study Confirms Gay Life Expectancy 20 Years Shorter
“under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”
This is a PDF that I found.
My health insurer sends me a form to fill out once a year, one of the questions always asked is, “am I a smoker”. I understand their reasoning for that.
They do not and I assume they cannot ask if I’m homosexual, a life style choice every bit as dangerous as smoking and I believe from the stats I read, much more so.
I recently bought some life insurance policies for my grand children. Same question about smoking, even for a 9 year old, though my other grand children are older and was a more legitimate question when asked of them. No questions about the highly risky behavior of homosexuality.
It is stunning that smoking has been made the health crime of the century but no one DARES speak of what the homosexual lifestyle does to a persons mind and body. It’s sad that depravity is protected as a “right”. Talk about “designer sickness”.....you’re on the cutting edge of “freedom” if you support gay rights and a gay lifestyle is suicide.
bookmark
NARTH (I think it stands for The National Association for Reorientation Therapy for Homosexuals)is an incredible resource for info. on this subject.
Semen is DESIGNED for the female body. When it enters another male, for whom it is not designed, it is DISORIENTED, wreaking havoc, and attaching itself to the lining of the bowels where it mutates,etc.
There is a specially-privileged disease. It is given benefits that no other disease has.
I am sick of the low-life politicians who bow down before a very powerful lobby and give it whatever it demands.
That being said, I do hold the medical community responsible for caving to LW pressure groups and not instituting the same proven disease control techniques that have worked for typhoid fever, polio, leprosy, and other deadly communicable diseases when these practices could have saved tens of millions of lives.
Just curious — what should they DO when they “wake up?”
“Semen is DESIGNED for the female body. When it enters another male, for whom it is not designed, it is DISORIENTED, wreaking havoc, and attaching itself to the lining of the bowels where it mutates,etc.”
Huh? What does it mutate into? What havoc does the semen wreak? How does one identify disoriented semen?
For starters, stop teaching schoolchildren that this vile lifestyle is "normal", but is dangerous, filthy, and wrong.
There is an article at NARTH’s website about this. I should have said that the sperm become disoriented. Sorry.
“There is an article at NARTH’s website about this.”
Could you link the article? I’m curious. I’ve never heard of disoriented sperm, or of sperm doing damage to to people.
“For starters, stop teaching schoolchildren that this vile lifestyle is normal.”
Gotcha. That would be liberal schoolteachers. What about the rest of us?
Here is a link from a different source.
http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690
Here is a link re: hyper-aids.
http://www.narth.com/docs/strain.html
Here is one about another disease, expected to enter the heterosexual population eventually.
http://www.narth.com/docs/cdceurope.html
Thanks for the many links, fetal (and for following up by FreepMail). I’ve been away for the weekend.
I was not debating that anal sex can be dangerous (as can vaginal sex) when one of the parties has a sexually transmittable disorder. That’s pretty clear. I was particularly curious about the “disoriented sperm” claim — I hadn’t heard it before.
The article you linked from NARTH gave a rationale, and cited a 1977 study. I did a quick lit search on the topic. It seems that this claim is echoed only in a handful of religiously oriented sites (usually using the same “two-in-one-flesh” wording, so I think they’re probably loosely copied from one another, and all citing the same 1977 study). I can’t access the study (the journal is only online from 1998 forward), and I can’t find any mention of the same explanation for anal cancer anywhere else in the scientific literature or from any credible independent source (one that doesn’t use the same religious language).
We really don’t know what causes anal cancer, although exposure to HPV (which isn’t necessarily prevented with condoms) seems to be a strong marker for it, and smoking increases the risk. There’s a good summary on the matter from the American Cancer Society here:
It doesn’t have anything to say about disoriented sperm. I am starting to think that this may be a bit of an overblown hypothesis derived from that early study. Do you have any other leads on it?
No, sorry, I do not have any further info. I will also look further, although I doubt much will be revealed publicly if it suggests that nature responds negatively to homosexual activity. I would encourage you to contact NARTH directly-particularly Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who has dedicated his life to helping homosexuals (who come to him for help)become chaste and/or reoriented. I have read some of his information, but would suggest you get the info. directly from the professionals who work in this field.
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.