Behavior, and Not a Person

Previously Healthy, Young

Larry Houston — 2010-05-13T18:35:28Z

“Previously Healthy, Young”

The first five patients were reported in 1981, beginning what has become known as the HIV/AIDS crisis, soon to be entering its 3rd decade, the five homosexual men was characterized as “previously healthy young men”. The doctors writing the first report themselves were very familiar with the medical conditions and needs of many men who were living an openly homosexual lifestyle. Dr. Joel Weisman himself was a gay.

“The fact that Joel Weisman himself was gay no doubt contributed to the popularity that his clinic had found with that particular clientele. “Everyone knew that I didn't stand in judgment, that with me there was no taboos or psychological barriers, that I was there to treat them and only treat them.”” (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p. 39)

“Over the years the proportion of gays among Dr. Joel Weisman's patients had increased. The doctor saw in this increase not so much a tribute to his ability and discretion as the consequence of an increase in sexually transmitted diseases with a predilection for attacking this particular risk group. “From the years 1977, 1978, I began to get more and more young men with high fevers, nocturnal sweating, diarrhea, all kinds of parasitic diseases and particularly with swollen lymph nodes the size of pigeons' eggs, in their necks, in their armpits, their groin, everywhere. The evidence suggested that these inflammations of the glands were expressions of immunodeficiency disorders. Each time, I feared the worst: cancer, leukemia. Fortunately all my biopsies came back to me 'benign.' True, some of the illnesses identified by analysis were not trivial. There was mononucleosis, hepatitis, lots of cases of herpes, quite a bit of venereal disease. Thank God, the viruses responsible did not kill, at least not yet. Generally, most of the symptoms disappeared after appropriate treatment. Only a few patients kept their abnormally swollen lymph nodes. They resigned yes to living with them.” The arrival, one morning in October 1980, of a hairdresser from Hollywood in Joel Weisman's consulting room was rudely to this relative optimism. This young gay man of twenty-five, with no known medical history, was suffering from a chronic infection of the skin, the mucous membranes, and the nails. “His epidermis is nothing but one big open wound,” Joel Weisman noted on his card. Disconcerted by the extent of the infection, he picked up his telephone and dialed the number of the only person who in his view was capable of curing this patient.” (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p.39-40)

“But only in part: For a number of scientists and physicians first involved in AIDS were either gay or familiar with the gay community. Many CDC staff members had worked closely with the gay community in the course of the research on hepatitis B and had few illusions about sexual practices and sexual diversity, and were aware that not all gay men were active with multiple partners.” (Treichler, AIDS, Gender, and Biomedical Discourse, p. 200 in AIDS The Burdens of History editors Elizabeth Fee and Daniel M. Fox)

A very important question needs an answer. Why were these five homosexual men in the initial report characterized as “previously healthy young men”? Their ages were reported as being from 29 to 36 years of age, with an average age of 30 years and 4 months. Thus could an argument be made that they were not “young men”? But more importantly why were they characterized as “previously healthy? Known by the doctors writing the initial report, the medical conditions and needs of many men who lived an open homosexual lifestyle would lead one to be cautious in describing homosexual men as healthy. The medical charts and histories of these five homosexual men show that their health status was comparable to the men in the general homosexual population. And yet these five homosexual men were characterized in the initial report as “previously healthy young men”.

“What does seem incongruous then and now, however, is that these five homosexual men with pneumonia were characterized as “previously healthy” or “generally healthy young men” in the same breath. Given the state of knowledge and medical scholarship on gay men in the late 1970s and alleged hyperendemic levels of STDs, meningitis, hepatitis B, cytomegalovirus (CMV), gay bowl disease, and so on within their communities-how is it that these men with pneumonia were and continue to be, represented as “previously healthy”? (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 23)

“Turning to the original MMWR report of June 5, 1981, however, reveals that all five patients were characterized as “previously healthy” despite their disparate clinical histories: one patient was an intravenous drug abuser, one had been treated with radiation for Hodgkin's disease, four had evidence of past hepatitis B infection, and all five “reported using inhalant drugs.”” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 24)

“The five cases presented by Michael Gottlieb in his forty-six line communication did not, in fact supply any very startling information: they concerned five young gay men who did not know each other, who all had a substantial history of sexually transmitted diseases, who all inhaled toxic substances, and who were suffering from this infamous parasitic pneumonia that only attacked systems deprived of immune defenses. Yet Michael Gottlieb did stipulate at the time that the infection was very serious. Two patients had already died of it.” (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p.71)

“One important feature of the original classification of AIDS was its distinction as occurring in "previously healthy" homosexuals. While recent reports have cast doubt on the presumption that these original AIDS patients were, in fact, previously healthy at all (Cochrane 2004), this distinction raises the question of why hemophiliacs were ever considered AIDS patients. It is well known that the immune system does not operate normally in hemophiliacs, and that clotting factor (Factor II) therapy is itself immunosuppressive (Papadopulos- Eleopulos et 1995).” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 25)

“The first report cases of the new illness were five young male homosexuals who received treatment in Los Angeles for a rare infection, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and an even rarer form of a malignancy in the United States Kaposi's sarcoma. The first indications were that all five cases were connected by one common factor: a defective immune system.” (Vass, AIDS A Plague in Us, A Social Perspective – The Condition and its Social Consequences, p. 23)

“The first identified case of AIDS in the United States occurred in the spring of 1981, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that five young, previously healthy, homosexually active men in Los Angeles exhibited a rare upper respiratory infection, Pnuemocystis carinii (Fauci, et al., 1984, Gallo, 1987).” (Kalichman, Understanding AIDS Second Edition Advances in Research and Treatment, p.10)

“On June 5, 1981, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the appearance of pneumonia in five young men during the previous six months. Five cases of pneumonia in eight months at a major medical center is hardly notable. Yet suspicion was aroused because the patients shared several characteristics: they were young, their pneumonias were caused by Pneumocystis carinii, a type of infection generally seen only inpatients who were severely immunosuppressed because of the chemotherapy used to treat a known disease (factors absent from these patients' histories), and all five were homosexuals.” (Panem, The AIDS Bureaucracy, p. 8)

“The first documented case of AIDS in the United States was identified by a young immunologist, Dr. Michael S. Gottlieb, at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. His first patient sought medical care because of weight loss. He had candidiosis, a thick white coating in his mouth (Gottlieb, 1998). One week later this patient was readmitted to the UCLA Medical Hospital with fever and with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Soon, local physicians in Los Angeles referred several more patients with weight loss, fever, and candidiosis to Gottleib. All were young gay men.” (Singhal and Rogers, Combating AIDS Communication Strategies in Action, p. 49)

“On June 5, 1981, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported on five previously healthy, homosexual men who had been treated for biopsy-proven Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP). The cluster of cases was noteworthy because the five men had no clinically apparent underlying immunodeficiency and, as the report stated, PCP in the United States “is almost exclusively limited to severely immunosuppressed patients”” (Valdiserri, Dawning Answers How the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Has Helped to Strengthed Public Health, p. 5)

“The story of HIV/AIDS begins in the 1979 and in 1980 when doctors in the US observed clusters of previously extremely rare diseases. These included a type of pneumonia carried by birds (pneumocystis carinii) and a cancer called Karposi's sarcoma. The phenomenon was first reported in the Morbidity and Morality Weekly report (MMWR) of 5 June 1981, published by the US Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. The MMWR reported five cases of pneumocystis carinii.” (Barnett and Whiteside, AIDS in the Twenty-First Century Disease and Globalization, p. 28)

“AIDS was first recognized as a new and distinct clinical entity in 1981 (Gottlieb et al,. 1981; Masur et al., 1981; Siegal et al., 1981). The first case were recognized because of an unusual clustering of disease such as Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in young homosexual men. Although such unusual diseases had been previously observed in distinct subgroups of the population-such as older men of Mediterranean origin in the case of Kaposi's sarcoma or severely immunosuppressed cancer patients in the case of PCP-the occurrence of these disease in previously healthy young people was unprecedented. Since most of the first cases of this newly defined clinical syndrome involved homosexual men, lifestyle practices were first implicated and intensely investigated. These included the exposure to amyl or butyl nitrate ‘poppers' or the frequent contact with sperm through rectal sex, which might have acted as immunostimulatory doses of foreign proteins or antigens.” (Mayer and Pizer, editors, The AIDS Pandemic: Impact on Science and Society, p. 15)

“The first reported cases of the new syndrome were recorded in the Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report (MMWR) June 5, 1981. Five young men, all active homosexuals, had been treated in Los Angeles hospitals for a rare infection, Pneumocystis carnii pneumonia (PCP). Two of these five patients had died. All had evidence of other infections and a defective immune system.” (Foege, “The National Pattern of AIDS” in The AIDS Epidemic by Kevin M. Cahill editor, p. 7)

“The first documented case of AIDS in the United States was identified by a young immunologist, Dr. Michael S. Gottlieb, at the university of California, Los Angeles. His first patient sought medical care because of weight loss. He had candidiosis, a thick, white coating in his mouth (Gottleib, 1998). One week later, this patient was readmitted to the UCLA Medical Hospital with fever and with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Soon, local physicians in Los Angeles referred several more patients with weight loss, fever, and candidiosis to Gottleib. All were young gay men. Their opportunistic infections led Gottlieb to suspect problems with their immune systems, and he found that the men indeed had a deficiency of T lymphocytes (Gottlieb, 2001).” (Singhal and Rogers, Combating AIDS Communication Strategies in Action, p. 49-50)

“In June 1981, the weekly newsletter of the Centers for Disease Control noted an unusual medical occurrence. In the previous six months, five young gay men in Los Angeles had all been diagnosed with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP)- a rare disease, virtually seen in young American men. Two had died. The blurb ran on the newsletter's second page, followed by a long article on alcohol consumption in Utah. Nothing akin to the Los Angeles oddity was mentioned again for several weeks. But slowly, new and equally puzzling reports dribbled in. From New York City: twenty cases of Kasposi's sarcoma, a rare skin cancer, usually found in elderly men of Mediterranean descent. From Los Angeles: six more cases of Kaposi's, and a few new ones of PCP. From San Francisco: Karsopi's sarcoma, PCP, and a smattering of other unusual maladies. Within one year, the CDC accumulated over 350 of these increasing alarming reports. Six months later the number topped 1000-almost all fatal, almost all among otherwise healthy gay men.” (Schwartzberg, A Crisis of Meaning How Gay Men are Making Sense of AIDS, p. 3)

“A review of primary source material such as medical charts and SFDPH AIDS case reports makes a compelling case for seeing the health departments records and subsequent characterization of these patients in the press and popular narratives as flawed in several respects.” (Cochrane,When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p.55)

“First, risk factors were reported inaccurately for one-third of the initial cohort; for example three of the nine were intravenous drug users, none was initially reported with that risk.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 55)

“Second, census tract data used by the city's Department of Public Health for reporting these patients were inaccurate for five of these men (55 percent of the total) and demonstrated bias toward overemphasizing the “gayness” of the disease.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 56)

“As a third and related point, contrary to popular characterizations of patients in the early years of the epidemic, my review of primary source materials indicates that the socioeconomic status of the majority of these early AIDS cases was very tenuous.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 56)

“In sum, many of the AIDS patients reported in San Francisco during the first several years of this epidemic had preexisting health problems (whether congenital or chronic) and/or engaged in risk practices that independently elevated the likelihood that they would experience premature disability or death (e. g. high level of recreational drug abuse, injecting drug use, alcoholism, repeated and/or unresolved systematic infections). However, the majority of these contributing factors to disease were elided from official surveillance reports and historical narratives on the epidemic that were intended for the lay public and representation of a mysterious epidemic striking down previously healthy and relatively wealthy gay men persisted.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 105)

“Identifying the social determinants and correlates of this disease would have been more straightforward if the disease had not first appeared-or rather, had not been represented-as an epidemic of affluent and previously healthy white gay men. Empirical evidence contradicting this representation was clearly evident in medical journals from the late 1970s, which published studies claiming that the health of a subset of gay men in major cities of the United States resembled “the tropics in the Third World,” with epidemic levels of sexually transmitted diseases, hepatitis B, CMV, gay bowl disease, and other infectious diseases (even cholera and typhoid).” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 190-191)

The following quotes are from various sources concerning the first five cases reported in the CDC's MMWR of June 5, 1981, titled Pneumocystis Pneumonia --- Los Angeles June 5, 1981 / 30(21); 1-3

“The first official announcement was published on June 5, 1981, by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the federal epidemiology agency in Atlanta. Its weekly bulletin, the Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report (MMWR), described the five severe pneumonia cases observed between October 1980 and May 1981 in three Los Angeles hospitals. Two unusual facts justified their warnings: all patients were young men (twenty-nine to thirty-six old) whose sexual preference was homosexual, and all had pneumonia attributable to Pneumocysstis carinii. This protozoan is nearly ubiquitous. It parasitizes numerous animals. It is found often enough in the human body, but causes serious illness only when fostered by a deficit in the immune system, either in newborns or in adults receiving immunosuppressive drugs. The diagnoses of PCP had been confirmed by lung biopsy samples obtained either by the bronchoscopic or surgical approach.” (Grmek, History of AIDS, (p. 4)

“It was at the CDC that the first indications of the impending AIDS epidemic became evident in the autumn of 1980. Between October 1980 and May 1981 an alert physician, Dr Michael Gottleib, together with colleagues at three different hospitals in Los Angeles, became intrigued by a cluster of five young male patients, whose ages ranged from 29 to 36 years, under their care. Two of the patients died and the remaining three were seriously ill. All five men, who had previously been healthy, were diagnosed as having a highly unusual form of pneumonia due to a parasite called Pneumocystis carinii. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (often abbreviated to PCP) had previously been found virtually exclusively in patients with severe suppression of their immune systems caused by drugs or disease. In addition, all of these patients had evidence of having been infected with a virus called cytomegalovirus (CMV) which is similarly common in immunosuppressed patients. All five of these patients were also infected with thrush, which is again characteristic of immunosuppressed individuals. Indeed, in three of the five who were tested there was evidence of marked disturbances in the functional capacities of their immune systems. A further feature of the five men was that all were sexually active homosexuals. None of them knew each other, however, and there did not appear to be a common sexual contact. At this stage this all pointed to an association with a homosexual lifestyle and a sexually transmitted disease. The first report of these observations appeared in a relatively small unobtrusive insert in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the CDC on 5 June 1981.” (Schoub, AIDS & HIV in Perspective, p. 2)

“In the late spring of 1981, Dr. Michael S. Gottlieb, four of his colleagues at the UCLS School of Medicine, and Dr.I Pozalski at Cedars Mt. Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles came upon a remarkable medical mystery. Between October 1980 and May 1981 they treated 5 young male homosexuals hospitalized with Pnuemocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a rare infection. Also all had other “opportunistic” infections, normally seen only in organ transplant patients whose immune systems have been broken down intentionally to assist in acceptance of the new organ, and two of the men died during treatment. The sudden appearance of these diseases in so many otherwise healthy men was alarming. The doctors reported the cases in June 5, 1981 issue of the Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report (MMWR), published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, a periodical in which current public health problems and statistics are discussed.” (Choi, Assembling the AIDS Puzzle: Epidemiology, p. 15 in AIDS Facts and Issues editors Victor Gong M.D. and Normn Rudnick.)

"In March of 1981 Weisman's patient had been admitted to UCLA. Tests showed he had the same immune system abnormalities as Gottlieb's patient. He too, was diagnosed as having pneumocystis. Within a couple of weeks another of Weisman's patients was hospitalized at UCLA. He'd been suffering from mysterious fatigue and fevers, had been exposed to cytomegalovirus, and had pneumocystis. His immune system was abnormally depressed. And he was gay.

Gottlieb ran across afourth case of a gay man who'd been exposed to cytomegalovirus and had just died of pneumoncystis.

Then a fifth case: same pattern. fatigue, fever, cytomegalovirus pneumocystis, gay." (Black, The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times, p. 38)

Patient #1

“In December of that year another physician in the Los Angels area, Dr. Michael Gottlieb, was studying a patient at UCLA who was suffering from candida. Gottleib and his colleagues ran some blood tests and found that the man's immune system was in shambles. Eventually the patient was diagnosed as having pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.” (Black, The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times, p. 38)

“It had all begun with an ordinary attack of hives. When he woke up that morning, Ted Peters, thirty-one, a free-lance model working for a fashion agency in Westwood, the residential area of West Los Angeles, felt some small bumps on his tongue and the inner lining of his mouth. A mirror showed him that the whole of his mouth and tongue was covered with a strange whitish coating. Puzzled, Ted Peters rinsed his mouth with a gargle. He had often suffered from skin problems, but never before in his mouth. Like many other sexually active young men, he was prone to episodic outbreaks herpes. He had also been the victim of several bouts of venereal disease. Appropriate treatment had always cured such irritations.” (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p.27)

“The man, Arnold, was a successful artist in Los Angeles and he had never been sick in his life. To the doctors at the Clinical Center he presented a puzzling constellation of symptoms. Candida, or thrush, is a yeast infection of the skin and mucous membranes that is usually seen only in newborn babies whose immune systems are still immature and in older patients whose immune systems have been depressed by medications or by cancers.” (Fettner and Check, The Truth About AIDS Evolution of an Epidemic, p. 12)

Patient #2

“The arrival, one morning in October 1980, a hair dresser from West Hollywood in Joel Weisman's consulting room was rudely to disrupt this relative optimism. This young gay man of twenty-five, with no known medical history, was suffering from chronic infection of the skin, the mucous membranes, and the nails. “His epidermis is nothing but one big open wound,” Joel Weisman noted on his card.” (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p.39-40)

“In late 1980 one of Weisman's patients, also a gay man, wasn't responding to treatment. For three months he'd been getting weaker. He lost thirty pounds. He ran fevers of around 104 degrees. His lymph glands were slow were slower. And he developed a yeast like fungus, called candida or thrush, that caked his mouth, the back of his throat, all the way down his esophagus.” (Black, The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times, p. 37)

“Shortly afterward, Dr. Joel Weisman, a private physician in the San Fernando Valley, admitted to UCLA a man in his early thirties who had been ill for three months with daily fevers of 104, weight loss of more than thirty pounds, and swollen lymph glands. As was Arnold, Al was a homosexual. “Al was a hardworking man who didn't use drugs and didn't seem to be sexually active outside his steady relationship. He was an unlikely candidate for a severe illness, Weisman says. None of the standard tests and examinations Weisman performed on AL revealed a reason for the wasting illness.” (Fettner and Check, The Truth About AIDS Evolution of an Epidemic, p. 13)

Patient #3

“An event occurred that altered the situation dramatically: the visit in Joel Weisman's clinic of a second patient with identical symptoms. This time it was a young publicist from Hollywood, also gay, and also without any previous medical history." (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p.41)

“Less than two weeks later, a man named Ron was admitted to UCLA, again referred by Weisman. Gottlieb was confronted with case number 3. He was very much like the others, except “Ron was an IV drug user, a real swinger who had been on a self-destructive binge for two years,” according to Weisman.” (Fettner and Check, The Truth About AIDS Evolution of an Epidemic, p. 14)

Patient # either 2 or 3

“He was hospitalize in February 1981 in the immunology division of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) hospital. It reminded physician Michael Gottlieb of a case he had seen there in Dec 1980: the blood of a patient with similar symptoms had shown a reduction in the population of lymphocytes, due to almost complete disappearance of the helper T subgroup. They found the same phenomenon in Weisman's patient. In both cases microscopic examination of bronchial brushings revealed Pnuemocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP). Both patients shared another characteristic: they were gay.”(Grmek, History of AIDS, p. 4)

Patient #4 and 5

“The three men decided to regroup their patients in the UCLA hospital. “The appearance at the beginning of 1981, of a fourth case of pneumocystis pneumonia, this time in a black homosexual, swiftly followed by a fifth case, suddenly made the thing look like a real epidemic,” Gottlieb would explained.” (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p.41)

“Gottlieb spoke with Wayne Shandera, a physician with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, who found a similar case in his files. By May 1981 the number of such patients hospitalized in Los Angeles, examined by with careful scientific, grew to five. Soberly and discreetly, California physicians issued the alarm signal.” (Grmek, History of AIDS, p. 4)

"Asking Shndera if he had recently heard of any unusual diseases in gay men, Gottlieb specified CMV as the organism that had been found in the three cases he had encountered. “No,” replied Shandera,” but I'll take a look around.” He did not have to look far. Upstairs in the Health Department's laboratory he found an isolate of CMV growing in a culture. The microbe had been recovered from the lung of a man who had died a month before-of pneumocystis. Shandera drove out to Santa Monica hospital where the man had died and examined his records: they revealed this man, too, had been gay. Back in his office, Shandera began telephoning other hospitals and physicians who were likely to see infectious disease. At Cedars-Sinai, Dr. Irvin Pozalski said he had a “surprising” case of PC in a formerly healthy gay man. That made five.” (Fettner and Check, The Truth About AIDS Evolution of an Epidemic, p. 16)

“In March of 1981 Weisman's patient had been admitted to UCLA. Tests showed he had the same immune system abnormalities as Gottlieb's patient. He too, was diagnosed as having pneumocystis. Within a couple of weeks another of Wiesman's patients was hospitalized at UCLA. He'd been suffering from mysterious fatigue and fevers, had been exposed to cytomegalovirus, and had pneumocystis. His immune system was abnormally depressed. And he was gay. Gottlieb ran across a fourth case of a gay man who'd been exposed to cytomegalovirus and had just died of pneumocystis. Then a fifth case: same pattern. Fatigue, fever, cytomegalovirus, pneumocystis, gay." (Black, The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times, p. 38)

“Two had routinely used poppers (the drugs amyl or butyl nitrite, used by many gays to enhance sexual enjoyment) and had been sexually active with large numbers of other men, many of whom were anonymous contacts in gay bars and bathhouses. All of the men had high levels of various infections or the antibodies that indicate previous exposure to infections.” (Fettner and Check, The Truth About Aids: Evolution of an Epidemic, p. 15)

“15. Gottlieb et al., for instance reported in December 1981 that, of four patients, one had been monogamous for four years, two had several regular partners, and only one “was highly sexually active and frequented homosexual bars and bathhouses” (Pneunocystis Carinii Pneumonia and Mucosal Candidasis,” 1429)” (Epstien, Impure Science, p. 380)

“One of the most obvious common denominators was that all five patients had used poppers, amyl or butyl nitrite, inhalants that intensify organism.” (Black, The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times, p. 39)

“The five patients also suffered from candidiase, a benign fungal disorder of the mucous membranes. Serologic tests had confirmed CMV infection. All five used “poppers” (amyl or butyl nitrite inhalers, so named for the noise their ampules made when broken); one was also an intravenous drug abuser.” (Grmek, History of AIDS Emergence and Origin of a Modern Pandemic, p. 5)

By their own 1981 definition (CDC), therefore, one of the first five cases in Los Angeles would be disqualified as an AIDS case, by virtue of chemotherapy and radiation treatments for Hodgkin's disease. The definition included that there was “no know underlying cause for immunodeficiency.

“The original AIDS was defined as an immunodeficiency for which their was no apparent reason, and which allowed illnesses and death to be produced by bacteria and viruses that are widespread but typically held in check by healthy immune systems. The signature diseases were Kaposi's sarcoma (KS-visible purple blotches on the skin), a specific type of pneumonia (PCP-Pneumnocystis carinii peneumonia), and fungal infections-candidiasis, yeast, thrush (Broder and Gallo 1984).” (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 18)

“The first died in March 1981. In 1978 this patient had been given the diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease. He was treated successfully by radiotheraphy.” (Grmek, History of AIDS, p. 5)

Following this look at the first five patients that were the beginning of what became known as the HIV/AIDS crisis, the next article, titled “New” looks at a general understanding of the gay/homosexual lifestyle of the 1970s and early 1980s.

Bibliography

Barnett, Tony and Alan Whiteside. AIDS in the Twenty-First Century Disease and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2002.

Bauer, Henry H. The Origin, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory. MCFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, NC and London, 2007.

Black, David. The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times. Simon and Schuster. New York, 1986.

Cochrane, Michelle. When AIDS Began: San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic. Routledge. New York and London, 2004.

Culshaw, Rebecca. Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, CA, 2007.

Epstein, Steven. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and New York, 1996.

Fettner, Ann Guidici and Wiliam A Check Ph.D. The Truth About AIDS: Evolution of an Epidemic. Henry Holt and Company. New York, 1985.

Foege, “The National Pattern of AIDS” in The AIDS Epidemic by Kevin M. Cahill editor

Grmek, Mirko D. History of AIDS. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ, 1990.

Kalichman, Seth C. Understanding AIDS Second Edition Advances in Research and Treatment. American Psychological Association. Washington DC, 1988.

Lapierre, Dominique. Translated from French by Kathryn Spink. Beyond Love. Warner Books. New York, 1991.

Mayer, Kenneth H. and HF Pizer, editors. The AIDS Pandemic: Impact on Science and Society. Elsevier Academic Press. London and San Diego, 2005.

Panem, Sandra. The AIDS Bureaucracy. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA and London, England, 1988.

Schwartzberg, Steven. A Crisis of Meaning How Gay Men Are Making Sense of AIDS. Oxford University Press. New York and Oxford, 1996.

Schoub, Barry D. AIDS and HIV in Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK, 1999.

Singhal, Arvind and Everett M. Rogers. Combating AIDS: Communication Strategies in Action. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003.

Valdiserri, M.D., M.P.H., Ronald O. Dawning Answers How the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Has Helped to Strengthen Public Health. Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York, 2003.

Vass, Anthony, A. AIDS: A Plague in Us: A Social Perspective: The Condition and its Social Consequences. St. Ives, Cambs. : Venus Academica, 1986.

Making HIV/AIDS a Disease Section 2

Larry Houston — 2010-05-04T23:00:50Z

HIV Tests

Of great concern should be that the HIV virus that is attributed to causing AIDS has not been isolated as an entity by itself. Also the tests for the HIV virus do not detect the virus itself, but rather detect antibodies that are thought be as a result of infection by the HIV virus. The newer “viral load” tests are said to detect parts of the virus. How is it that parts of the HIV virus may be detected, but the whole virus itself cannot be found? The companies that manufacture the HIV tests include written documentation in the test kits themselves that state, “These test kits are not to be used for diagnosing the presence of HIV virus in those being tested”.

“To design a trustworthy test for something, one needs to know precisely what the thing is. To design a trustworthy test for a virus, one requires a sample of the pure virus; one must isolate the virus free of all other material. That has been done with many viruses, but it has not been done with HIV. All so-called “isolations” of HV are no more than inferences based on procedures in which certain effects are taken to mean that an active virus was caused to grow, or to be transferred; or it is assumed that particular detected bits of DNA or RNA originated in the virus.” (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 90-91)

“Unlike other viruses, HIV has never been isolated as an independent, stable product.” (Hodgkinson, AIDS: The Failure Contemporary Science, p. 361)

“Given that pure HIV has never been isolated, everything said about its genes and proteins is based entirely on inferences.” (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 94)

“There are no photographs of HIV in isolated state simply because it has never been possible to isolate HIV according to accepted methods. Suffice it to say that a blood test that would identify HIV in the body requires a clear picture of HIV, which could only be obtained through isolation.” (Null, AIDS: A Second Opinion, p. 44)

“It is also relevant to note that the HIV antibody tests were never originally intended as diagnostic tools, but rather as screening tests to guarantee the safety of the blood supply.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p.35)

“Although it had never been made plain to the public, experts knew from an early point that there were exceptional problems with the HIV test. Some of these doubts and uncertainties came up at a meeting at the WHO's headquarters in Geneva on 14-16 April 1986, called to discus the safety of blood supplies and issues related to antibody screen. There were more than 100 participants, from thirty-four countries.” (Hodgkinson, AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science, p. 249)

“It may come as a surprise that no HIV antibody test has been approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection on its own. Each test must be tested against or used in combination with another invalidated test, and depending on where you live it takes a magic combination ranging from three, two, one, or no positive result(s) on three, two, or one unvalidated test(s), to be “confirmed “ HIV-positive.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p.35)

“Obvious problems with meeting this standard apply as much to the ELISA as to the Western Blot, for while the latter's reliability is weakened by disputes over which grouping of proteins adds up to a positive assurance that HIV is present, the former's is weakened by question of whether proteins used to attract antibodies are truly HIV-derivative. However, in relation to the gold standard, these points may almost be called quibbles in comparison to the main weakness of both tests, which goes back to the inability of scientists to isolate HIV.” (Nulls, AIDS: A Second Opinion, p. 50)

“Eleopulos's paper was the scientific confirmation for that ground-breaking speech of Stefan Lanka's in Buenos Aires. Not only did she describe why the proteins said to be specific to HIV were not unique to HIV, but also that even if antibodies to these proteins did show up, they could not be assumed to be a sign of HIV infection. Eleopulos criticized both the ELISA and the Western blot tests. The ELISA antibody test she said, could only be meaningful when it was standardized, that is when a given test result had the same meaning in all patients, in all laboratories and in all countries. But this was not the case and results remained variable because there was no absolute standard.” (Shenton, Positively False: Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS, p.228-229)

“Another source of error derived from the inability of some manufacturers to provide uniformly reliable test kits and reagents.” (Hodgkinson, AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science, p. 249)

"To my growing amazement I found out that there was indeed a mass of evidence, pulled together in Eleopulos's enormous review article, that what had come to be called ‘the AIDS test' was scientifically invalid. The proteins used in the test kits were not specific to a unique retrovirus. Positive results were produced in people whose immune systems had been activated by a wide variety of conditions, including tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, malaria, malnutrition, and even a course of flu jabs.” (Hodgkinson, AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science, p. 232)

“Even more shocking than the disclaimers placed in all test kits asserting their lack of validation and lack of FDA approval to diagnose HIV infection is that patient serum (blood) must be diluted by a factor of fifty to four hundred times before it is tested for HIV antibodies Giraldo 1998, Kremer 1998).

The two major test kits routinely used for HIV diagnosis are the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test and the Western Blot (WB) test. The ELISA is run first, as a "screening" tool, and was first approved on the basis that it would be helpful in screening donated blood for HIV antibodies. Depending where you live, if your first ELISA is reactive (what we call "positive," a label that we shall soon see is quite misleading), you may get a second ELISA. If this ELISA is also reactive, you are tested with a different test, the WB. This is the final "confirmatory" test for HIV infection. It is extremely important to realize that these tests are all antibody tests, and they are all used to detect me presence or absence of certain "HIV-specific" antibodies.

Why is this so important? Remember, we're testing for antibodies ere. In most cases, antibody tests are used to determine prior infection, because the pathogen itself is long gone. In certain cases, such as herpes and syphilis, there is concern about latent infections possibly becoming reactivated some time after the production of antibodies, so an antibody test is a reasonable measure to take. Antibody tests are done in general because they are cheaper and easier to do than to directly test for viruses or bacteria. However, in all of these cases, the antibody tests have been rigorously verified against the gold standard of microbial isolation-that is, the microbe was isolated in pure form and determined to consistently and specifically generate exactly those antibodies being tested for.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p.37)

“When I interviewed Professor Charles Geshekter, he explained that the most HIV tests (ELISA and Western blot) are known to frequently produce false positive results, because the tests cannot distinguish between HIV antibodies and microbes that are symptomatic of malaria, leprosy, or tuberculosis. (Anita Allen points out, further, “Pregnancy is one condition which leads to false positive.”)” (Null, AIDS: A Second Opinion, p. 53)

“The results of these repeated assays are too detailed to go into in depth, but not only did they vary dramatically within one laboratory and from one laboratory to another, but also the criteria for declaring them positive or negative would have varied from one country to another. Dr. Val Turner in Perth made a study of the different criteria. In Australia, for example, at least four protein bands are required, in Canada and much of the USA three or more and across Africa two will do. So all an African has to do is be retested in Australia where he or she might be found negative.

In other words, individuals can be HIV positive or negative depending on which laboratory or test kit or in which country they were tested” (Shenton, Positively False: Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS, p.29)

“To show that an antibody test for HIV is scientifically valid and reliable, the paper said, requires four steps. The first of these is to identify a source of HIV-specific antigens - the protein components f the virus to which antibodies bind. Here, one of the first surprises is that because HIV is extremely difficult - perhaps impossible - to isolate in a clear-cut way, there is no guarantee that the method used really does obtain the virus or its components. I shall be discussing these problems of isolation in a later chapter, but for the moment suffice it to say that the manufactures of the tests do not have unequivocal collection of HIV viruses, visible through electron microscopy, which than can be broken down into their various components. Instead, a multi-step procedure has to be followed involving a variety of assumptions, each of which is questionable. The final assumption is that some material which bands at a particular density (1.116 grams per milliliter) when spun in a centrifuge represents ‘pure' HIV protein and RNA from which to make antibody test, or which can serve as a template from which to manufacture the proteins.” (Hodgkinson, AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science, p. 234)

“In sum, as we inquire systemically into the subject, it appears the makers of the test keep moving further out onto a limb. We learn that the test does not actually identify HIV particles but antibodies to them. But these antibodies were not actually created as reactants to HIV proteins themselves, but to proteins of another virus, which supposedly closely resembling HIV. Still, the antibodies found were not actually reacting only to these supposedly analogous viral proteins, but also to inevitable contaminants.” (Nulls, AIDS: A Second Opinion, p. 48)

“A prime impetus for developing HIV tests was to screen the blood supply and avoid spreading disease via transfusions. From that standpoint, it was not particularly troubling that some samples might be wrongly designated HIV-positive, so long as no actually positive blood entered the supply chain. Therefore the tests were introduced with the caveat that they could not be used for diagnosing the presence of HIV in individuals, and pamphlets in test kits continue to reflect that caveat (Conlan 2001; http://healtoronto,com, The 'AIDS test' accessed 24 July 2006):

· ELISA test: Abbott Laboratories, Diagnostic Division, 66-8805/R5; January, 1997

ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present [. . .] there is no recognized standard for establishing presence and absence of HIV -1 antibody in human blood.

· Western Blot test: Epitope, Inc., Organon Teknika Corporation PN201-3039 Revision #8

Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosing HIV-1 infection.

· Viral load test: Roche Diagnostic Systems, Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor, Test Kit US:83088, June 1996

The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.

Hodgkson (2004a, b) recounts how the deficiencies of the tests were recognized from the beginning, yet in practice the caveats in the test kits have been studiously ignored, fulfilling a prediction when the tests were first approved: “enforcing the intent of this language would be . . . simply not practical” (Zuck 1986).

For many years, then the diagnostic procedure for individuals has ignored that the tests were are not valid for that purpose. In the United States, the standard approach calls for duplicate ELISA tests (for antibodies) followed by a Western Blot (for proteins). Even beyond the fact that these proteins have never been proven to be specific for HIV, there is no agreed way to decide which of them, or how many of them, must be present to constitute a positive test. In the United Kingdom, the Western Blot is officially regarded as so unreliable that it may be used for research but not for diagnostic purposes (Hodgkinson 2005b).” (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 92-93)

“HIV researchers will swear up and down that HIV has been properly isolated and that such apparently sensible criteria as separation of viral particles from everything else and proof of their existence as shown by clear electron micrographs are not necessary. You might think that with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent so far on HI V there would have been by now a successful attempt to demonstrate HIV isolation by publication of proper electron micrographs. The fact that there has not indicates quite strongly that no one has been able to do it. Since the "isolation problem" has long been an argument pm forth by scientists questioning HIV, it seems that if it were possible to resolve this problem, mainstream researchers would be eager to do it if only to shut such dissenters up.

While this may be alarming enough in and of itself, it is of particular concern when one considers that every day people are given a diagnosis of imminent death based on a test whose value as a diagnostic tool is very dubious indeed. One need only consider some of the disclaimers included in any of the popular test kits:

ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS.
Abbott Laboratories test kit (Abbott 1997)

Do not use this kit as the sole basis for HIV infection. – Epitope Western Blot kit (Epitope 1997)

The amplicor HIV-l monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV, nor a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.
Roche viral load kit (Roche 1996)"

(Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p.46)

How HIV/AIDS differs from other diseases.

“AIDS is peculiar historically in that the definition of the syndrome actually became more expansive after the alleged causative agent was identified. This is contrary to all logic and counter to the reasoning that underlies the existence and usefulness of clinical syndromes in the first place. Moreover, these expansions make it very difficult to properly analyze epidemiological data. As the definition expanded and it became more and more clear that HIV did not do at all what it was purported to do-that is, kill CD4+ T-cells by any detectable method-researchers began to invent more and more convoluted explanations for why their theory was correct. The logical, scientific thing to have done would have been to notice that their original disease designation did not accurately identify the causative agent or agents and, rather than changing the syndrome, throw out the supposed causative agent(s) find one that explained the observations better. As we know, this has not happened.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 24)

“AIDS is looking less and less like a disease or even a syndrome at all, as all uncomfortable contradictions are swept under the rug, and “HIV disease: has become a name for some combination of the results of three blood tests-antibody, CD4+, and viral load-often in the presence of no disease at all.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 34)

“But these data embody particular political decisions and subjective criteria that have significant implications for understanding the past and future trajectory of the AIDS epidemic in this country. Moreover, surveillance statistics for AIDS are unique among those for diseases reported by public health agencies. First, “AIDS is the first (and only) disease reported and record cumulatively.” Second, how the ASSB establishes San Francisco residency for AIDS patients “is contrary to the usual morbidity reports for other diseases which are based on residence.”” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 137)

“AIDS” has come to encompass a number of things that do not share enough common features to warrant the use of the single name. “AIDS” in Africa (and perhaps the Caribbean) is different in many respects from “AIDS” elsewhere. Within the United States, 1980 AIDS is not the same as post-1980s AIDS; and post-1993 AIDS is not the same as pre-1993 AIDS.

Throughout, there is also unavoidable ambiguity or confusion because the diagnosis of AIDS on the basis of certain clinical symptoms-opportunistic infections- has shifted to diagnosis on the basis of certain laboratory tests intended to detect HIV. But that shift, a corollary of HIV/AIDS theory, has not been universally applied in practice. In Africa, for example, diagnosis continues to be base on symptoms wherever HIV-testing is not feasible. Everywhere, HIV-tests are not always considered necessary, for instance when gay men or drug users present opportunistic infections. One consequence is that data, in particular historical data, are lacking on several salient points (for example, see below, The strange case of Kaposi's sarcoma).” (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 117)

“As AIDS survivor Michael Callen writes in his in his inspirational book, Surviving AIDS, long-term AIDS survival does occur, but no one, once diagnosed definitely with AIDS, has ever been taken off the lists kept by the CDC except at death. This makes AIDS the first disease that no can survive, by definition. Not only is this description of AIDS logically bankrupt, it sends the demoralizing and an inaccurate message to people with HIV or AIDS that they have a disease that is not worth fighting. A more legitimate, and more hopeful, definition must be devised.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 68)

Who is at Risk?

All these questions and questionable actions result in prolonging and increasing the AIDS epidemic. This was seen in a 1994 declaration of a second wave of the AIDS epidemic. Today there continue to be warnings and reports in both the homosexual media and the mainstream media of increasing rates of AIDS cases among those most effected by AIDS, male homosexuals.

“It was a standing room only night at the New York City Gay and Lesbian Community Services on the night of November 16, 1994. Leaders from sixteen AIDS prevention agencies had called this emergency meeting to announce “the second wave” of AIDS.” (Sadownick, Sex Between Men, p.225)

Despite all these questions and questionable actions surrounding AIDS what is know for certainty are those who are AIDS cases. It has been over three decades since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in 1981, and today AIDS is still mainly confined in the same two groups of people that were initially effected, male homosexuals and intravenous drug users.

“The Centers for Disease Control HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports notes, “ Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a specific group of diseases or conditions which are indicative of severe immunosuppression related to infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).” The precision of this medical definition obscures the fact that has been essential to the public understanding of AIDS: most people with AIDS are gay men or injection drug users (IDUs)." (Donovan, Taking AIM: Target Populations and the Wars on AIDS and Drugs, p. 54)

“AIDS in America has two primary sources at present: unprotected anal intercourse, which is associated with gay male behavior and which probably accounts for the bulk of the existing cases nationwide; and intravenous drug injection with virus-contaminated needles, which is currently the major source of new cases and is likely to be the source of most cases within a few years.” (Perow and Guillen. The AIDS Disaster: The Failure of Organizations in New York and the Nation, p.55)

“AIDS, however, has remained absolutely fixed in its original risk groups. Today, a full decade after it first appeared, the syndrome is diagnosed in homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and hemophiliacs some 95 percent of the time, just as ten years ago. Nine out every ten AIDS patients are male, also just as before. Even the very existence of a “latent period” strongly suggests that years of health abuse are required for such fatal conditions. Among AIDS patients in the United States and Europe, one extremely common health risk has been identified: the long-term use of hard drugs (the evidence will be presented in chapter 8 and 11). AIDS is not contagious nor is it even a single epidemic." (Duesburg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, p. 217)

“It is, of course, always dangerous to generalize about any group of people, and people with AIDS are no exception. And yet certain generalizations about who is most likely to contract AIDS have proved to be useful from a medical perspective. We recognize that the vast majority of people with AIDS are gay men /or intravenous drug abusers. These generalizations provide clues about what may cause AIDS, what may dispose people to contract the syndrome, and how the disease may spread.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 224)

“If exposure to HIV is sufficient to cause AIDS, than everyone should be at equal risk, and AIDS should develop at an equal rate among different risk groups once infection has been established. Clearly that is not the case.

Researchers recognized by 1987 that the threat of AIDS to non-risk groups was very small. . . .

On the other hand, the high risk groups are still the high-risk groups.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 220)

The following information was taken from the CDC's MMWR of June 27, 2008 / 57(25); 681-686.

“Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- 33 States, 2001—2006

In 2008, CDC conducted an analysis of trends in diagnoses of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the 33 states* that have had confidential, name-based HIV case reporting since at least 2001. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM overall during 2001—2006 increased 8.6% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] = 1.5). During 2001—2006, an estimated 214,379 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed in the 33 states. Of these diagnoses, 46% were in MSM, and 4% were in MSM who engaged in illicit injection-drug use (IDU) (i.e., MSM and IDU). To reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS in the United States, HIV prevention services that aim to reduce the risk for acquiring and transmitting infection among MSM and link infected MSM to treatment must be expanded.

“Editorial Note: During 2001—2006, male-to-male sex remained the largest HIV transmission category in the United States and the only one associated with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses. In this analysis, statistically significant decreases in HIV/AIDS diagnoses were observed for all other transmission categories (i.e., among persons likely to have been infected through high-risk heterosexual contact, IDU, MSM and IDU, and other routes). Among MSM aged 13—24 years, statistically significant increases in diagnoses were observed in nearly all racial/ethnic populations. These findings underscore the need for continued effective testing and risk reduction interventions for MSM, particularly those aged <25 years.”

Making HIV/AIDS a Disease Section 1

Larry Houston — 2010-05-04T22:23:52Z

Making HIV/AIDS a Disease

A very strong case may be made that after thirty years (three decades) of the HIV/AIDS crisis that more is unknown than know. Why is that? Looking at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS crisis and the foundation upon which it is built is very revealing.

“The theory that HIV causes AIDS has remained the preeminent AIDS paradigm throughout the course of the epidemic, despite the fact that orthodox researchers readily admit to the existence of multiple lacunae or paradigmatic anomalies that this theory of specific etiology does not resolve. Examples in this regard include the following: there is still no effective treatment to cure the disease; there is still no vaccine against HIV that can evoke protective immunity for populations at risk for the disease; and orthodox AIDS science and research communities have failed to construct an adequate theoretical model that can describe or model the “pathogenesis of HIV infection” (e.g. the exact mechanism or means by which the human immunodeficiency virus induces immune suppression in a host infected with the retrovirus).” "(Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 176-177)

The definition of HIV/AIDS has been changed numerous times and varies from country to country. Some who were excluded in the original 1981 definition are now included in 1993 definition, this change also included a gender specific cancer, cervical cancer that only occurs in women. The original definition was that the person had no known cause/history for suppression of their immune system, but those with known causes of a suppressed immune system are now included.

Of greater concern should be that the HIV virus that is attributed to causing AIDS has not been isolated as an entity by itself. Also the tests for the HIV virus do not detect the virus itself, but rather detect antibodies that are thought be as a result of infection by the HIV virus. The newer “viral load” tests are said to detect parts of the virus. How is it that parts of the HIV virus may be detected, but the whole virus itself cannot be found? The companies that manufacture the HIV tests include written documentation in the test kits themselves that state, “These test kits are not to be used for diagnosing the presence of HIV virus in those being tested”.

This lengthy article has been divided into two sections with the following headings “What is HIV/AIDS”, Changing Definitions”. The second section includes “HIV Tests”, How HIV/AIDS Differs from Other Diseases”, and “Who is at Risk for HIV/AIDS?”.

"“Regardless, AIDS remains to this day a government-defined syndrome with simultaneously, no specific clinical symptoms of its own yet a myriad of indirect illnesses and symptoms supposedly "caused" by the immune suppression-really quite a clever idea, since essentially everything is a symptom.”" (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

The following three quotes address the “questionable start” to what became known as the HIV/AIDS crisis.

“It was just before Christmas 1980 when immunologist Dr. Michael Gottlieb of UCLA's School of Medicine suggested to his Fellow, Dr. Howard Schanker, that he hunt up a case that would be good for teaching about the immune system.

Most Fellows will say, ‘Sure, sure' then go to the library and read, but Howard went to the wards and found a thirty-one year old man with a diagnosis of some sort of leukemia” Gottlieb recalls. “The man had been admitted through medical service with candidiasis of the esophagus so bad he could hardly breathe. His throat was blocked by the fluffy white growth.”” (Fettner and Check, The Truth About AIDS Evolution of an Epidemic, p. 11-12

“It remains a matter largely hidden from the public that the first cases of AIDS did not suddenly arrive all at once, but rather were sought out by an assistant professor of immunology at UCLA Medical Center named Michael Gottlieb in 1981. After searching hospitals in Los Angeles for gay men suffering from opportunistic infections, he managed to find five (Brown 2001). Upon measuring their T-cells, a subset of the immune system, he found that in all five men they were depleted. What is quite curious about this discovery is that the technology to count T-cells had only just been perfected.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

“It is assumed that AIDS “broke out,” among gay men, but in fact, it was searched out. In 1980, Michael Gottlieb, a researcher, at the University of California medical center, “wanted to study the immune system and began scouring the hospital for patients with immune deficiency diseases”. He found a case- a man in his early thirties with a yeast infection in his throat and a case of Pneumocystic cariini pneumonia. Using a new technology that counted T-cells, a subset of white cells of the immune system, Gottlieb found out that his patient had very few. Gottlieb kept searching, and eventually found four more similar cases.” (Farber, Serious Adverse events: An Uncensored History of AIDS, p. 14)

What is HI/AIDS?

“The most serious substantive difficulty is that the criteria for identifying a case of AIDS have changed so much over the years that AIDS in 2000 is actually an entirely different set of diseases than AIDS was in the early 1980s.” (Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 16)

“What we now know as "AIDS" bears little resemblance to the original cases of AIDS, as observed in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco in 1981. The original definition of AIDS was based upon the observation of very rare opportunistic infections in previously healthy homosexual men. This list of opportunistic infections included Kapoi's sarcoma (although it is highly debatable whether KS has anything It all to do with immune suppression), Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, and severe candidiasis (CDC 1986). The status "HIV-positive" had nothing to do with a diagnosis of AIDS prior to 1984, as HIV had yet to be identified.

"It is worth noting that AIDS was not originally conceived as a specific disease. The definition was developed as a surveillance tool to assist clinicians and epidemiologists in identifying and controlling this strange new syndrome.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

“The story of HIV/AIDS begins in the 1979 and in 1980 when doctors in the US observed clusters of previously extremely rare diseases. These included a type of pneumonia carried by birds (pneumocystis carinii) and a cancer called Karposi's sarcoma. The phenomenon was first reported in the Morbidity and Morality Weekly report (MMWR) of 5 June 1981, published by the US Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. The MMWR reported five cases of pneumocystis carinii. A month later it reported a clustering of cases of karposi's sarcome in New York.” (Barnett and Whiteside, AIDS in the Twenty-First Century Disease and Globalization, p. 28)

“It was in 1981 that the first cluster of cases of what was eventually to be called AIDS, was identified in five young homosexual men in California. They all had two medical conditions in common, a type of pneumonia called pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) and a form of a blood vessel tumor called Kaposi's sarcoma causing internal and external lesions. They also had one other thing in common, they inhaled poppers-amyl and butyl nitrites.” (Shenton, Positively False Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS, p. xx)

“AIDS was first recognized as a new and distinct clinical entity in 1981 (Gottlieb et al,. 1981; Masur et al., 1981; Siegal et al., 1981). The first case were recognized because of an unusual clustering of disease such as Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in young homosexual men. Although such unusual diseases had been previously observed in distinct subgroups of the population-such as older men of Mediterranean origin in the case of Kaposi's sarcoma or severely immunosuppressed cancer patients in the case of PCP-the occurrence of these disease in previously healthy young people was unprecedented. Since most of the first cases of this newly defined clinical syndrome involved homosexual men, lifestyle practices were first implicated and intensely investigated. These included the exposure to amyl or butyl nitrate ‘poppers' or the frequent contact with sperm through rectal sex, which might have acted as immunostimulatory doses of foreign proteins or antigens.” (Mayer and Pizer, editors, The AIDS Pandemic: Impact on Science and Society, p. 15)

“The first identified case of AIDS in the United States occurred in the spring of 1981, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that five young, previously healthy, homosexually active men in Los Angeles exhibited a rare upper respiratory infection, Pnuemocystis carinii (Fauci, et al., 1984, Gallo, 1987). One month later, the CDC reported another 10 cases of this illness and 26 cases of Kaposi's sarcoma, a rare cancer of connective and vascular tissues. All these cases occurred in New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles among previously healthy young homosexual men.” (Kalichman, Understanding AIDS Second Edition Advances in Research and Treatment, p.10)

“In 1981, physicians in the San Francisco Bay area of California began to see small numbers of gay men infected with an unusual protozoan parasite identified as Pneumocystis carinii, this infection became known as Pneumocystic carinii pneumonia. Other gay men were developing a rare neoplasm called Kaposi's sarcoma, whose lesions could cover the body externally and might also internalize to attack some or all of the major organs. Up until this time, karposi's sarcoma had been believed to occur only in elderly men of Jewish extraction who lived on the shoreline surrounding the Mediterranean. In Jewish men it did not internalize and was most frequently seen as skin lesions between the knee and the ankle. Both the protozoan infection and the cancer appeared to be opportunistic as they only occurred in individuals whose immune systems had been comprised by an unknown infection that caused massive destruction of the T4 lymphocytes.” (O'Donnell, HIV/AIDS: Loss, Grief, Challenge, p. 1-2)

“The story of AIDS began long before the fateful 1984 press conference. At least as early as mid-1980, reports began to surface of a small group of gay men who were dying from a strange pneumonia and a hitherto rare-and not previously fatal-form of skin cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma. The first five men with AIDS were patients of Michael Gottlieb who used a new technology that enabled technicians to count not just the total number of white blood cells a patient has but the number of each subset of T-cells. Using this new technology-which coincidentally came into existence and was patented at the beginning of the AIDS era-Gottlieb was able to determine that these men suffered from an unusually low number of the white blood cell subset known as helper T-cells.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 59)

“It was at the CDC that the first indications of the impending AIDS epidemic became evident in the autumn of 1980. Between October 1980 and May 1981 an alert physician, Dr Michael Gottleib, together with colleagues at three different hospitals in Los Angeles, became intrigued by a cluster of five young male patients, whose ages ranged from 29 to 36 years, under their care. Two of the patients died and the remaining three were seriously ill. All five men, who had previously been healthy, were diagnosed as having a highly unusual form of pneumonia due to a parasite called Pneumocystis carinii. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (often abbreviated to PCP) had previously been found virtually exclusively in patients with severe suppression of their immune systems caused by drugs or disease. In addition, all of these patients had evidence of having been infected with a virus called cytomegalovirus (CMV) which is similarly common in immunosuppressed patients. All five of these patients were also infected with thrush, which is again characteristic of immunosuppressed individuals. Indeed, in three of the five who were tested there was evidence of marked disturbances in the functional capacities of their immune systems. A further feature of the five men was that all were sexually active homosexuals. None of them knew each other, however, and there did not appear to be a common sexual contact. At this stage this all pointed to an association with a homosexual lifestyle and a sexually transmitted disease.

The first report of these observations appeared in a relatively small unobtrusive insert in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the CDC on 5 June 1981.” (Schoub, AIDS & HIV in Perspective, p. 2)

“The theory that HIV causes AIDA has remained the preeminent AIDS paradigm throughout the course of the epidemic, despite the fact that orthodox researchers readily admit to the existence of multiple lacunae or paradigmatic anomalies that this theory of specific etiology does not resolve. Examples in this regard include the following: there is still no effective treatment to cure the disease; there is still no vaccine against HIV that can evoke protective immunity for populations at risk for the disease; and orthodox AIDS science and research communities have failed to construct an adequate theoretical model that can describe or model the “pathogenesis of HIV infection” (e.g. the exact mechanism or means by which the human immunodeficiency virus induces immune suppression in a host infected with the retrovirus).” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 176-177)

“Thus, despite repeated statements by government officials that the cause of AIDS is known and that it is HIV, I can no longer find any major investigator in the field of AIDS who will defend the proposition that HIV is the only immunosuppressive agent involved in AIDS. Even Robert Gallo, one of the staunchest defenders of the HIV-only hypothesis, has written that “although infection by HIV-1 has been implicated as the primary cause of AIDS and related disorders, cofactorial mechanisms may be involved in the pathogenesis of the disease.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 330”)

“As mentioned in the Introduction, AIDS is the acronym for ‘acquired immunodeficiency syndrome' and was a term coined early on in the history of the disease. AIDS is by definition, the end-stage disease manifestation of an infection with a virus called human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The virus infects mainly two systems of the body, the immune system and the central nervous system, and disease manifestations are consequent on damage to these two systems.” (Schoub, AIDS and HIV in Perspective, p. 20)

“AIDS is a syndrome of about thirty diseases, not a disease. It displays no unique combination of diseases in the patient. Clinically, it is identified by the diagnosis of specific diseases known to medical science for decades or centuries. The CDC has several times increased-but never decreased-the official list: of AIDS indicator diseases, most recently on January 1, 1993 (See Table 2).

The list now includes brain dementia, chronic diarrhea, cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma and several lymphomas, and such opportunistic infections as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, cytomegalovirus infection, herpes, candidiasis (yeast infeclions), and tuberculosis. Even low T-cell counts in the blood can now be called "AIDS," with or without real clinical symptoms. Cervical cancer has recently been added to the list, the first AIDS disease that can affect only one gender (in this case, women). The purpose behind adding this disease was entirely political, admittedly to increase the number of female AIDS patients, creating an illusion that the syndrome is "spreading" into the heterosexual population. Originally the AIDS diseases were tied together because they were all increasing within certain risk groups, but today they are assumed to derive from the common basis of immune deficiency. The overlap between AIDS and certain risk groups still holds true but, as pointed out in Table I, a significant number of these diseases are not products of weakened immune systems.” (Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus, p. 209)

“We have to see what AIDS is, AIDS is not a disease entity, AIDS is a whole bag of old diseases under a new name.” (Adams, AIDS: The HIV Myth, p.130)

“One could justifiably argue that the AIDS epidemic is due at least partially to the grouping of two dozen causes of death under one rubric, rather than to a new disease.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 67)

“In other words, AIDS is new not only in the sense that it was only recently recognized; AIDS is also new in the way that biomedical researchers have defined it. These are important points to remember when we try to determine what AIDS is, what causes it, and whether its causes are in fact new. After all, if the biomedical tools and concepts did not, as Grmek asserts, exists twenty years ago for recognizing AIDS, how could it have been observed even if it had existed?” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 65)

“Although in aggregate the cohort studies corroborate orthodox constructions of AIDS historiography and epidemiology, a critical reading of these texts shows, at best, a messier picture of “science in the making.” And when in key instances, data from the cohort studies either fail to confirm or explicitly refute central premises of orthodox AIDS science, accepted wisdom on risk factors for AIDS, or the proportion of HIV-infected gay men in San Francisco, and so on, these data are marginalized or wholly elided from subsequent scientific accounts.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 33-34)

“This finding is consistent with an argument I have developed throughout this text, namely that the social construction of AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease meant that drug use (and all other HIV/AIDS risks) among gay male AIDS cases has always been, and continues to be, significantly underreported in official AIDS surveillance statistics as homosexual and bisexual orientation preempts all other modes of HIV transmission in surveillance practice.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 56)

“Regardless, AIDS remains to this day a government-defined syndrome with simultaneously, no specific clinical symptoms of its own yet a myriad of indirect illnesses and symptoms supposedly "caused" by the immune suppression-really quite a clever idea, since essentially everything is a symptom.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 23)

Changing Definitions

“Almost all AIDS statistics for the United States come from CDC publications. The number of AIDS cases has increased over time, partly because the definition of AIDS has been expanded. In particular, the number of conditions that meet the CDC's criteria for AIDS changed in 1993, resulting in a substantial increase in the number of cases.” (Rushing, The AIDS Epidemic: Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease, p. 3)

“Here is how the progressive re-definitions of AIDS came about. After 1985, HIV testing became routine in hospitals, as part of precautions taken to guard medical personnel against a presumed danger of infection through needle-sticks or transfers of body fluids. In time, significant numbers of positive HIV-tests were noticed among patients suffering from a variety of ailments, and these were reported to the CDC. These positives were not interpreted as the rather non-specific indication of a health challenge that they are, like a fever or an inflammation; they were interpreted as showing infection specifically by an AIDS-causing virus, Since that virus is presumed to wreck the immune system, it could be held responsible for just about anything that ails a person the reasoning being that had the immune system not already been damaged, the illness might not have occurred. Thus the CDC found (spurious) reason to list a progressively increasing number of ailments as AIDS-indicative. Therefore all the relevant statistics have become misleading. The numbers of people with AIDS was expanded by, for example, tuberculosis patients; but including a so common a condition as TB turns on its head the original AIDS definition of rare opportunistic infections. By adding to the AIDS-defining disorders quite common ones that strike males and females about equally, the relative incidence of AIDS among men and women was distorted; and even more by the incorporation of cervical cancer, which affects only women. So the degree of apparent correlation between HIV and AIDS was augmented by definition, and the actual lack of correlation became obscured.” (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 113-114)

“The continual redefinitions of AIDS have resulted in a syndrome day whose clinical manifestation is very different from that seen in the original AIDS cases of the early 1980s. Some of the conditions listed are not even caused by immune deficiency, whereas others are clearly politically motivated, such as the 1993 inclusion of invasive cervical cancer. One can only presume that this disease was added to correct the disparity between male and female AIDS numbers, as there is little basis for including as "AIDS-defining" a cancer that is relatively common among women with no evidence of immune suppression whatsoever. After this addition, the media began issuing alarming statements such as "women are the fastest growing group of people with AIDS," conveniently neglecting to mention that the increases were simply small percentage differences and in some case actually indicated a decrease in overall incidence.” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 25)

“A study of the social construction of San Francisco AIDS surveillance data and national AIDS statistics demonstrates that frequent changes in the clinical criteria by which patients are diagnosed has contributed in large measure to the dramatic growth in the number of AIDS cases reported during the past two decades. A failure to grasp this central point of AIDS surveillance practices distorts the analysis of the historical evolution of the epidemic, compromises a critical understanding of who is at risk for AIDS and why, and confounds evaluation of the efficacy of treatment and prevention initiatives.” (Cochrane, When AIDS Began San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic, p. 148)

“The original AIDS was defined as an immunodeficiency for which there was no apparent reason, and which allowed illness and death to be produced by bacteria and viruses that are widespread but typically held in check by healthy immune systems. The signature diseases were Kapsosi's sarcoma (KS – visible as purple blotches on the skin), a specific type of pneumonia (PCP – Pneummocystis carnii pneumonia), and fungal infections – candidiasis, yeast, thrush (Broder and Gallo 1984).” (Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 18)

“Essentially the classification systems for AIDS consist of three major features: firstly, laboratory test for HIV infection as well as immunosuppression; secondly, demonstration of what are called indicator diseases, that is the specific opportunistic infections or tumors which predict that the individual is at least significantly immunosuppressed; thirdly, the cerebral manifestations of AIDS as well as the other direct effects of the virus such as wasting." (Schroub, AIDS and HIV in Perspective, p. 36)

“Each time the definition of AIDS has been altered by the CDC, it has led to an increase in the number of AIDS cases. In 1985, the change in definition led to a 2% increase over what would have been diagnosed prior to the change. The 1987 change led to a 35% increase in new AIDS cases per year over that expected using the 1985 definition. The 1993 change resulted in a 52% increase in AIDS cases over that expected for 1993. Such rapid changes altars the baseline from which future predictions are made and makes the interpretations of trends in incidence and characteristic of cases difficult to process.” (Stine, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, p. 27)

“In 1982, the CDC developed a surveillance case definition for this syndrome focusing on the presence of opportunistic infections; it initially received case reports directly from both health care providers and state and local health departments.” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.33-34)

“The AIDS case definition was expanded in 1985 to include a total of 20 conditions. Four of these conditions were cancers: Kaposi's sarcoma and three distinct types of lymphoma. The remaining conditions were opportunistic infections - those caused by bacteria, fungi, protozoans, and other infectious agents - that an intact immune system can usually manage but which take advantage of the “opportunity” provided by weakened immunity to proliferate in the body.” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.34)

“Ongoing evidence about the inadequacy of the case definition prompted another revision in 1987 and the inclusion of three additional conditions. One of the new conditions was an opportunistic infection, tuberculosis (TB), but only the extrapulmonary (outside the lungs) type. The other conditions were not opportunistic infections, but rather conditions resulting from the direct effects of infection by HIV in cells of the digestive system (wasting syndrome) and the central nervous system (encephalopathy or dementia).” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.34)

“In November 1992, the CDC announced that it was expanding the surveillance definition, effective January 1, 1993, to include the three conditions from the community proposal and any HIV positive individual with a CD4+ cell count of 200 or less or whose CD4+ cells represented less than 14 percent of all lymphocytes. Evidence for HIV seropositivity could be obtained by any means of an HIV-antibody test, direct identification of the virus in tissues, an HIV-antigen test, or another highly specific licensed test for HIV.” (Smith, Encyclopedia of AIDS, p.35)

The United States Center for Disease Control's defining of HIV/AIDS chronologically.

Mid 1981: “a person who 1) has either biopsy -proven KS or biopsy-proven life threatening opportunistic infection, 2) is under age 60, 3) no history of either immunosuppressive underlying illness or immunosuppressive therapy.”

September1982: “a disease at least moderately predictive of a defect in cell-mediated immunity, occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished resistance to that disease.” 1) Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) (< 60 years of age) 2) Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PSP) 3) a specific list of “other opportunistic infections” (a list which which the CDC has amended over the years). This was a list of 14 different opportunistic diseases.

June 1985: After discovery of HIV and its identification as “the cause of AIDS” the CDC once again revised the definition of AIDS. It added 7 more diseases to the previous list of 14 different opportunistic infectious diseases. The list now included 21 diseases. Also this new AIDS definition included a person who was HIV seropostive by any test.

January 1993: This definition change retained the previous list of 24 diseases and added 3 additional diseases, one of which, invasive cervical cancer is gender specific. It affects only women. The other 2 diseases are pulmonary tuberculosis and recurrent pneumonia in persons with documented HIV infection. The list of indicator and opportunistic infectious diseases has grown from 14 to 29. Also more significant any person was considered to have AIDS if they had developed a significant loss of a particular white blood cell, called T-helper lymphocytes. The person's T-helper cell count was to below 200 per cubic millimeter of blood if the individual is HIV seropositive, even if they did not have any opportunistic infectious diseases.

“But the point just now is not what causes AIDS; it is how the definition of AIDS has changed over the years. Following the announced discovery of HIV in 1984, what had originally AIDS-defining illnesses became AIDS-indicating only if accompanied by a positive HIV test. Thereby HIV became associated with AIDS by definition, though at first this had little effect on statistical counts. In 1987 further disease were added as AIDS-defining. In 1993 a portentous change immediately doubled the count of cases regarded as AIDS by including asymptomatic HIV-positive people with low counts of CD4 cells, just as long as they were HIV-positive.” (Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 19)

“Perhaps the most egregious addition was the inclusion of low T-cell numbers as qualifying a person for an AIDS diagnosis. This change came about in 1993 and resulted in the number of reported AIDS cases more than doubling overnight. The rationale for this change was as follows: the immune suppression observed in AIDS patients could be quantified by counting the number of CD4+ T-cells per cubic millimeter of blood. CD4+ cells are those cells for which HIV possesses a receptor, and it has been stated that the normal level of CD4+ T-cells per cubic millimeter of blood in a healthy individual is about one thousand. However, it is also well established that these counts very dramatically among healthy individuals and even within the same individual under conditions as severe illness or drug use, or as mild as over-exercise or simply taking the measurements at different times of day (Beck et al. 1985, Carney et al. 1981, Des Jarlais et al. 1987). (CD4+ T-cell counts are subject to diurnal variation, similar to variations in appetite and energy level.)” (Culshaw, Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, p. 25-26)

“In other words, acquired immune deficiency syndrome attributed to HIV infection is now diagnosed even among people who were born with congenital immune deficiencies; who have demonstrable, preexisting, or coexisting causes of immune suppression due to chemotherapy, radiation treatment, or corticosteroid use; among transplant patients who are on regimens of immunosuppressive drugs for life; and so forth.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 63)

“Originally, AIDS had been identified by actual symptoms of illness; by a little more than a decade later, symptom-free people who did feel ill were being diagnosed as having AIDS on the basis of laboratory tests- moreover, tests so lacking validated standards that the criteria for "positive” vary from country to country (Chapter 8, "HIV" tests).

In 1999,the previously used tests for HIV, which were designed to detect antibody, were augmented by so-called "viral load" tests for particular bits of DNA, RNA, or protein that had come to be accepted as characteristic of HIV (Nakashima and Fleming 2003). “Viral loads” implies that the amount of HIV is being measured, an implication taken for granted by adherents to HIV/AIDS theory. However, makers of the testing kits disclaim that they even detect HIV, let alone measure the amount of the virus present; there are also technical grounds to question the validity of the technique used. (See Chapter 8. “HIV” tests.)" (Bauer, The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory, p. 20-21).

Bibliography

Larry Houston — 2010-05-04T16:39:08Z

Bibliography

Adams, Jad. AIDS: The HIV Myth. MacMillian London, Inc., London, 1989.

Allen, Peter Lewis. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 2000.

Altman, Dennis. AIDS in the Mind of America. Anchor Books. Garden City, New York, 1987.

Andriote, John-Manuel. Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 1999.

Antonio, Gene. The AIDS Cover-Up? The Real and Alarming Facts About AIDS. Ignatius Press. San Francisco, 1986.

Barnett, Tony and Alan Whiteside. AIDS in the Twenty-First Century Disease and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2002.

Bauer, Henry H. The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London, 2007.

Bayer, Ronald. Private Acts, Social Consequences: AIDS and the Politics of Public Health. The Free Press. New York, 1989.

Black, David. The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times. Simon and Schuster. New York, 1986.

Brookmeyer, Ron and Mitchell H. Gail. AIDS Epidemiology: A Quantitative Approach. Oxford University Presss. New York and Oxford, 1994.

Brummelhuis, Hans ten & Gilbert Herdt editors. Culture and Sexual Risk: Anthropological Perspectives on AIDS. Gordon and Beach Publishers. United States, 1995.

Cahill, M.D. Kevin M. Editor. The AIDS Epidemic. St. Martin's Press. New York, 1983.

Callen, Michael. Surving AIDS. HarperCollins Publishers. New York, 1990.

Cantwell, Jr., M. D. Alan. AIDS: The Mystery and the Solution. Aries Rising Press. Los Angeles, 1986.

Cantwell, Jr., M. D. Alan. Queer Blood. Aries Rising Press. Los Angeles, 1993.

Cantwell, Jr., M. D. Alan. AIDS and the Doctors of Death An Inquiry Into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic. Aries Rising Press. Los Angeles, 1988.

Catania PhD, Joseph A. and et. al. “The Continuing HIV Epidemic Among Men Who have Sex With Men.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6, 907-914.

Caton, Hiram. The AIDS Mirage. Univesity of New South Wales Press LTD., Sydney, Australia, 1994.

Chin, James MD MPH. The AIDS Pandemic The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness. Radcliffe Publishing. Oxford and Seattle, 2007.

Choi, Kewwhan. Assembling the AIDS Puzzle: Epidemiology in AIDS Facts and Issues, editors Victor Giong M.D. and Norman Rudnick.

Clark, M. D. Charles F. AIDS and the Arrows of Pestilence. Fulcrum Publishing. Golden, CO, 1994.

Cochrane, Michelle. When AIDS Began: San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic. Routledge. New York and London, 2004.

Cohen, M. D., Ph.D., P. T., Merle A Sande, M. D., and Paul A. Volberding, M. D. The AIDS Knowledge Base: A Textbook on HIV Disease from the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco General Hospital. The Medical Publishing Group. Waltham, Massachusetts, 1990.

Crimp, Douglas, editor. AIDS: Cultural Analysis Cultural Activism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA and London, England, 1988.

Culshaw, Rebecca. Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, CA, 2007.

Doka, Kenneth J. AIDS, Fear, and Society. Taylor & Francis. Washington D.C., 1997.

Donovan, Mark C. Taking AIM: Target Populations and the Wars on AIDS and drugs. Georgetown University Press. Washington, D.C., 2001.

Duesburg, Peter H. Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, CA, 1995.

Duesberg, Dr. Peter. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery Publishers, Inc. Washington, D.C., 1996.

Duesberg, Peter H., AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced? Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1996.

Ellison, George, Melissa Parker, and Catherine Campbell, Editors. Learning From HIV and AIDS. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.

Engel, Jonathan. The Epidemic: A Global History of AIDS. Smithsonian Books. New York, 2006.

Epstein, Steven. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and New York, 1996.

Fan, Hung, Ross F. Conner, Luis P. Villarreal. The Biology of AIDS. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston, 1991.

Fan, Hung Y., Ross F. Conner, Luis P. Villarreal. AIDS: Science and Society 4th Edition. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston, 2004.

Farber, Celia. Serious Adverse events: An Uncensored History of AIDS. Melville House Publishing. Hoboken, NJ, 2006.

Farber, Celia. “The HIV test,” 343-346 in AIDS: Virus- Drug Induced?, Editor Peter Duesberg, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1996.

Fee, Elizabeth and Daniel Fox, Editors. AIDS: The Burdens of History. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1988.

Fee, Elizabeth and Daniel M. Fox. AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1992.

Feldman,Douglas A., and Julia Wang Miller, Editors The AIDS Crisis A Documentary History. Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut and London, 1998.

Fettner, Ann Guidici and Wiliam A Check Ph.D. The Truth About AIDS: Evolution of an Epidemic. Henry Holt and Company. New York, 1985.

Foege, M.D., William. “The National Pattern of AIDS”. in The AIDS Epidemic by Kevin Cahill M.D.

Fumento, Michael. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. Basic Books. New York, 1990.

Foege, M.D., William. “The National Pattern of AIDS”. in The AIDS Epidemic by Kevin Cahill M.D.

Gould, Peter. The Slow Plague. Blackwell. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA, 1993.

Grmek, Mirko D. History of AIDS. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ, 1990.

Gross PhD, Michael. “The Second Wave Will Drown Us.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2003, Vol. 93, No. 6, 872-879.

Herdt, Gilbert and Shirley Lindenbaum. The Time of AIDS: Social Analysis, Theory, and Method. Sage Publications. Newby Park, London, and New Delhi, 1992.

Hodgkinson, Neville. AIDS: the Failure of Contemporary Science. How a Virus That Never Was Decieved the World. Fourth Estate. London, 1996.

Hooper, Edward. The River A Journey Back to the Source of HIV and AIDS. Allen Lane The Penguin Press. London, 1999.

Johnston, William B. and Kevin R. Hopkins. The Catastrophe Ahead: AIDS and the Case for a New Public Policy. Praeger. New York, 1990.

Jonsen, Albert R. and Jeff Stryker. The Social Impact of AIDS in the United States. National Academy Press. Washington D.C., 1993.

Kalichman, Seth C. Understanding AIDS: advances in research and treatment. America Psychology. Washington, DC. 1998.

Kaslow, M.D., M.P.H., Richard A. and Donald P. Francis, M.D., D.Sc., editors. The Epidemiology of AIDS: Expression, Occurrence and Control of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection. Oxford University Press. New York and Oxford, 1989.

Klitzum, M.D., Robert. Being Positive The Lives of Men and Women with HIV. Ivan R. Dee. Chicago, 1997.

Lang, Serge. “HIV and AIDS: Have We Been Misled?” 271-295 in AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced. Peter Duesberg editor. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1996.

Lapierre, Dominique. Translated from French by Kathryn Spink. Beyond Love. Warner Books. New York, 1991.

Lauritsen, John. Poison by Prescription The AZT Story. Asklepios. New York, 1990.

Lauritsen, John. The AIDS War. Asklepios. New York, 1990.

Leone, Daniel A.. editor. The Spread of AIDS. Greenhaven Press, Inc. San Diego, CA, 1987.

Lerner, Eric K. and Mary Ellen Hombs. AIDS Crisis in America: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara, CA, 1998.

Levine, Martin P., Peter M. Nardi, and John H.Gagnon editors. In Changing Times: Gay Men and Lesbians Encounter HIV/AIDS. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 1997.

Lewis, Lynette A. and Michael W. Ross. A Select Body: The Gay Dance Party Subculture and the HIV/AIDS Pandemic. Cassell London and New York, 1995

Mahmoud, Dr. Fahmi M. AIDS The Untold Story. Aldurar Distributor & Book Sellars. Amman, Jordan, 1995.

Matthews, Dawn D. editor. AIDS Sourcebook: Health Reference Series, Third Edition. Omnigraphics. Detroit, MI, 2003.

Mayer, Kenneth H. and HF Pizer. The AIDS Pandemic: Impact of Science and Society. Elsevier Academic Press. London, 2005.

McElrath, Karen, Editor. HIV and AIDS: A Global View. Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut and London, 2002.

McKinney, Kathleen and Susan Sprecher editors. Human Sexuality: The Societal and Interpersonal Context. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Norwood, New Jersey, 1989.

Miller, Heather G., Charles F. Turner, and Lincoln E. Moses, Editors. AIDS The Second Decade. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1990.

Murphy FRCPI, Siobhamn M., Gary Brook MD, FRCP, and Martin A. Birchall MD(Contab), FRCS , FRCS(Otol). HIV Infection and AIDS. Churchill Livingstone. London, 2000.

Null, Ph.D. Gary with James Feast. AIDS: A Second Opinion. Seven Stories Press. New York, Toronto, London, and Sydney, 2002.

O'Donnell, R.N., M.H.M., Mary. HIV/AIDS: Loss, Grief, Challenge. Taylor and Francis. Washington DC, 1996.

Panem, Sandra. The AIDS Bureaucracy. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA and London, England, 1988.

Patton, Cindy. Inventing AIDS. Routledge. New York and London, 1990.

Patton, Cindy. Fatal Advice: How Safe-Sex Education Went Wrong. Duke University Press. Durham & London, 1996.

Patten, Cindy. Globalizing AIDS. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis and London, 2002.

Perow, Charles and Mauro F. Guillen. The AIDS Disaster: The Failure of Organizations in New York and the Nation. Yale University Press. New Haven and London, 1990.

Rofes, Eric. Dry Bones Breathe Gay men Creating Post-AIDS Identities and Cultures. Harrington Press. New York and London, 1998.

Root-Berstein, Robert S. Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus. The Free Press. New York, 1993.

Rotello, Gabriel. Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. A Dutton Book. New York, 1997.

Rushing, William A. The AIDS Epidemic: Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease. WestviewPress. Boulder, CO, 1995.

Sadownick, Douglas. Sex Between Men: An Intimate History of the Sex Lives of Gay Men Postwar to Present. HarperSanFrancisco. San Francisco, 1996.

Schoub, Barry D. AIDS and HIV in Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK, 1999.

Schwartzberg, Steven. A Crisis of Meaning How Gay Men Are Making Sense of AIDS. Oxford University Press. New York and Oxford, 1996.

Shannon, Gary W. Gerald F. Pyle, and Rashid L. Bashur. The Geography of AIDS. The Guildford Press. New York and London, 1991.

Shenton, Joan. Positively False: Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS. I.B. Tauris. London and New York, 1998.

Siegal, MD, Frederick P. and Marta Siegal. AIDS: The Medical Mystery. Grove press, Inc. New York, 1983.

Singhal, Arvind and Everett M. Rogers. Combating AIDS: Communication Strategies in Action. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003.

Smith, Ph.D. Raymond A. editor. Encyclopedia of AIDS: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Scientific Record of the HIV Epidemic. Penguin Books. New York, 2001.

Stine, Gerald J., Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Prentice Hall. Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey, 1996.

Turner, Charles F., Heather G. Miller, and Lincoln E. Moses, Editors. AIDS Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1989.

Valdiserri, M.D., M.P.H., Ronald O. Dawning Answers How the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Has Helped to Strengthen Public Health. Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York, 2003.

Vass, Antony A. AIDS A Plague in Us A Social Perspective – The Condition and its Consquences. Venus Academica. St. Ives, Cambs., 1986.

Watstein, M.L.S., M.P.A. Sarah Barbara and Stephen E. Stratton. The Encyclopedia of HIV and AIDS. Facts on File. New York, 2003.

Watney, Simon. Practices of Freedom: Selected Writings on HIV/AIDS. Duke University Press. Durham, 1994.

Zimmerman, Rick S. “AIDS: Social Causes, Patterns, ‘Cures', and Problems.” 286-317 in Human Sexuality: The Societal and Interpersonal Context. Kathleen McKinney and Susan Sprecher editors. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Norwood, New Jersey

Bibliography

Larry Houston — 2010-05-04T16:37:12Z

Adams, Jad. AIDS: The HIV Myth. MacMillian London, Inc., London, 1989.

Allen, Peter Lewis. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 2000.

Altman, Dennis. AIDS in the Mind of America. Anchor Books. Garden City, New York, 1987.

Andriote, John-Manuel. Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 1999.

Antonio, Gene. The AIDS Cover-Up? The Real and Alarming Facts About AIDS. Ignatius Press. San Francisco, 1986.

Barnett, Tony and Alan Whiteside. AIDS in the Twenty-First Century Disease and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2002.

Bauer, Henry H. The Origins, Persistence and Failings of the HIV/AIDS Theory. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Jefferson, North Carolina, and London, 2007.

Bayer, Ronald. Private Acts, Social Consequences: AIDS and the Politics of Public Health. The Free Press. New York, 1989.

Black, David. The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times. Simon and Schuster. New York, 1986.

Brookmeyer, Ron and Mitchell H. Gail. AIDS Epidemiology: A Quantitative Approach. Oxford University Presss. New York and Oxford, 1994.

Brummelhuis, Hans ten & Gilbert Herdt editors. Culture and Sexual Risk: Anthropological Perspectives on AIDS. Gordon and Beach Publishers. United States, 1995.

Cahill, M.D. Kevin M. Editor. The AIDS Epidemic. St. Martin's Press. New York, 1983.

Callen, Michael. Surving AIDS. HarperCollins Publishers. New York, 1990.

Cantwell, Jr., M. D. Alan. AIDS: The Mystery and the Solution. Aries Rising Press. Los Angeles, 1986.

Cantwell, Jr., M. D. Alan. Queer Blood. Aries Rising Press. Los Angeles, 1993.

Cantwell, Jr., M. D. Alan. AIDS and the Doctors of Death An Inquiry Into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic. Aries Rising Press. Los Angeles, 1988.

Catania PhD, Joseph A. and et. al. “The Continuing HIV Epidemic Among Men Who have Sex With Men.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6, 907-914.

Caton, Hiram. The AIDS Mirage. Univesity of New South Wales Press LTD., Sydney, Australia, 1994.

Chin, James MD MPH. The AIDS Pandemic The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness. Radcliffe Publishing. Oxford and Seattle, 2007.

Choi, Kewwhan. Assembling the AIDS Puzzle: Epidemiology in AIDS Facts and Issues, editors Victor Giong M.D. and Norman Rudnick.

Clark, M. D. Charles F. AIDS and the Arrows of Pestilence. Fulcrum Publishing. Golden, CO, 1994.

Cochrane, Michelle. When AIDS Began: San Francisco and the Making of an Epidemic. Routledge. New York and London, 2004.

Cohen, M. D., Ph.D., P. T., Merle A Sande, M. D., and Paul A. Volberding, M. D. The AIDS Knowledge Base: A Textbook on HIV Disease from the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco General Hospital. The Medical Publishing Group. Waltham, Massachusetts, 1990.

Crimp, Douglas, editor. AIDS: Cultural Analysis Cultural Activism. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA and London, England, 1988.

Culshaw, Rebecca. Science Sold Out Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, CA, 2007.

Doka, Kenneth J. AIDS, Fear, and Society. Taylor & Francis. Washington D.C., 1997.

Donovan, Mark C. Taking AIM: Target Populations and the Wars on AIDS and drugs. Georgetown University Press. Washington, D.C., 2001.

Duesburg, Peter H. Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, CA, 1995.

Duesberg, Dr. Peter. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery Publishers, Inc. Washington, D.C., 1996.

Duesberg, Peter H., AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced? Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1996.

Ellison, George, Melissa Parker, and Catherine Campbell, Editors. Learning From HIV and AIDS. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.

Engel, Jonathan. The Epidemic: A Global History of AIDS. Smithsonian Books. New York, 2006.

Epstein, Steven. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and New York, 1996.

Fan, Hung, Ross F. Conner, Luis P. Villarreal. The Biology of AIDS. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston, 1991.

Fan, Hung Y., Ross F. Conner, Luis P. Villarreal. AIDS: Science and Society 4th Edition. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston, 2004.

Farber, Celia. Serious Adverse events: An Uncensored History of AIDS. Melville House Publishing. Hoboken, NJ, 2006.

Farber, Celia. “The HIV test,” 343-346 in AIDS: Virus- Drug Induced?, Editor Peter Duesberg, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1996.

Fee, Elizabeth and Daniel Fox, Editors. AIDS: The Burdens of History. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1988.

Fee, Elizabeth and Daniel M. Fox. AIDS: The Making of a Chronic Disease. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1992.

Feldman,Douglas A., and Julia Wang Miller, Editors The AIDS Crisis A Documentary History. Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut and London, 1998.

Fettner, Ann Guidici and Wiliam A Check Ph.D. The Truth About AIDS: Evolution of an Epidemic. Henry Holt and Company. New York, 1985.

Foege, M.D., William. “The National Pattern of AIDS”. in The AIDS Epidemic by Kevin Cahill M.D.

Fumento, Michael. The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. Basic Books. New York, 1990.

Foege, M.D., William. “The National Pattern of AIDS”. in The AIDS Epidemic by Kevin Cahill M.D.

Gould, Peter. The Slow Plague. Blackwell. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA, 1993.

Grmek, Mirko D. History of AIDS. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ, 1990.

Gross PhD, Michael. “The Second Wave Will Drown Us.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2003, Vol. 93, No. 6, 872-879.

Herdt, Gilbert and Shirley Lindenbaum. The Time of AIDS: Social Analysis, Theory, and Method. Sage Publications. Newby Park, London, and New Delhi, 1992.

Hodgkinson, Neville. AIDS: the Failure of Contemporary Science. How a Virus That Never Was Decieved the World. Fourth Estate. London, 1996.

Hooper, Edward. The River A Journey Back to the Source of HIV and AIDS. Allen Lane The Penguin Press. London, 1999.

Johnston, William B. and Kevin R. Hopkins. The Catastrophe Ahead: AIDS and the Case for a New Public Policy. Praeger. New York, 1990.

Jonsen, Albert R. and Jeff Stryker. The Social Impact of AIDS in the United States. National Academy Press. Washington D.C., 1993.

Kalichman, Seth C. Understanding AIDS: advances in research and treatment. America Psychology. Washington, DC. 1998.

Kaslow, M.D., M.P.H., Richard A. and Donald P. Francis, M.D., D.Sc., editors. The Epidemiology of AIDS: Expression, Occurrence and Control of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection. Oxford University Press. New York and Oxford, 1989.

Klitzum, M.D., Robert. Being Positive The Lives of Men and Women with HIV. Ivan R. Dee. Chicago, 1997.

Lang, Serge. “HIV and AIDS: Have We Been Misled?” 271-295 in AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced. Peter Duesberg editor. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1996.

Lapierre, Dominique. Translated from French by Kathryn Spink. Beyond Love. Warner Books. New York, 1991.

Lauritsen, John. Poison by Prescription The AZT Story. Asklepios. New York, 1990.

Lauritsen, John. The AIDS War. Asklepios. New York, 1990.

Leone, Daniel A.. editor. The Spread of AIDS. Greenhaven Press, Inc. San Diego, CA, 1987.

Lerner, Eric K. and Mary Ellen Hombs. AIDS Crisis in America: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara, CA, 1998.

Levine, Martin P., Peter M. Nardi, and John H.Gagnon editors. In Changing Times: Gay Men and Lesbians Encounter HIV/AIDS. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 1997.

Lewis, Lynette A. and Michael W. Ross. A Select Body: The Gay Dance Party Subculture and the HIV/AIDS Pandemic. Cassell London and New York, 1995

Mahmoud, Dr. Fahmi M. AIDS The Untold Story. Aldurar Distributor & Book Sellars. Amman, Jordan, 1995.

Matthews, Dawn D. editor. AIDS Sourcebook: Health Reference Series, Third Edition. Omnigraphics. Detroit, MI, 2003.

Mayer, Kenneth H. and HF Pizer. The AIDS Pandemic: Impact of Science and Society. Elsevier Academic Press. London, 2005.

McElrath, Karen, Editor. HIV and AIDS: A Global View. Greenwood Press. Westport, Connecticut and London, 2002.

McKinney, Kathleen and Susan Sprecher editors. Human Sexuality: The Societal and Interpersonal Context. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Norwood, New Jersey, 1989.

Miller, Heather G., Charles F. Turner, and Lincoln E. Moses, Editors. AIDS The Second Decade. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1990.

Murphy FRCPI, Siobhamn M., Gary Brook MD, FRCP, and Martin A. Birchall MD(Contab), FRCS , FRCS(Otol). HIV Infection and AIDS. Churchill Livingstone. London, 2000.

Null, Ph.D. Gary with James Feast. AIDS: A Second Opinion. Seven Stories Press. New York, Toronto, London, and Sydney, 2002.

O'Donnell, R.N., M.H.M., Mary. HIV/AIDS: Loss, Grief, Challenge. Taylor and Francis. Washington DC, 1996.

Panem, Sandra. The AIDS Bureaucracy. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA and London, England, 1988.

Patton, Cindy. Inventing AIDS. Routledge. New York and London, 1990.

Patton, Cindy. Fatal Advice: How Safe-Sex Education Went Wrong. Duke University Press. Durham & London, 1996.

Patten, Cindy. Globalizing AIDS. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis and London, 2002.

Perow, Charles and Mauro F. Guillen. The AIDS Disaster: The Failure of Organizations in New York and the Nation. Yale University Press. New Haven and London, 1990.

Rofes, Eric. Dry Bones Breathe Gay men Creating Post-AIDS Identities and Cultures. Harrington Press. New York and London, 1998.

Root-Berstein, Robert S. Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus. The Free Press. New York, 1993.

Rotello, Gabriel. Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. A Dutton Book. New York, 1997.

Rushing, William A. The AIDS Epidemic: Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease. WestviewPress. Boulder, CO, 1995.

Sadownick, Douglas. Sex Between Men: An Intimate History of the Sex Lives of Gay Men Postwar to Present. HarperSanFrancisco. San Francisco, 1996.

Schoub, Barry D. AIDS and HIV in Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge UK, 1999.

Schwartzberg, Steven. A Crisis of Meaning How Gay Men Are Making Sense of AIDS. Oxford University Press. New York and Oxford, 1996.

Shannon, Gary W. Gerald F. Pyle, and Rashid L. Bashur. The Geography of AIDS. The Guildford Press. New York and London, 1991.

Shenton, Joan. Positively False: Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS. I.B. Tauris. London and New York, 1998.

Siegal, MD, Frederick P. and Marta Siegal. AIDS: The Medical Mystery. Grove press, Inc. New York, 1983.

Singhal, Arvind and Everett M. Rogers. Combating AIDS: Communication Strategies in Action. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003.

Smith, Ph.D. Raymond A. editor. Encyclopedia of AIDS: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Scientific Record of the HIV Epidemic. Penguin Books. New York, 2001.

Stine, Gerald J., Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Prentice Hall. Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey, 1996.

Turner, Charles F., Heather G. Miller, and Lincoln E. Moses, Editors. AIDS Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1989.

Valdiserri, M.D., M.P.H., Ronald O. Dawning Answers How the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Has Helped to Strengthen Public Health. Oxford University Press. Oxford and New York, 2003.

Vass, Antony A. AIDS A Plague in Us A Social Perspective – The Condition and its Consquences. Venus Academica. St. Ives, Cambs., 1986.

Watstein, M.L.S., M.P.A. Sarah Barbara and Stephen E. Stratton. The Encyclopedia of HIV and AIDS. Facts on File. New York, 2003.

Watney, Simon. Practices of Freedom: Selected Writings on HIV/AIDS. Duke University Press. Durham, 1994.

Zimmerman, Rick S. “AIDS: Social Causes, Patterns, ‘Cures', and Problems.” 286-317 in Human Sexuality: The Societal and Interpersonal Context. Kathleen McKinney and Susan Sprecher editors. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Norwood, New Jersey

MMWR

Larry Houston — 2010-04-06T00:21:56Z

MMWR

The following are two actual reports by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the federal epidemiology agency in Atlanta. They are Morbidity and Morality Weekly Reports (MMWR), a weekly bulletin published by the CDC. These reports are reporting on what became HIV/AIDS, they are dated June 5, 1981and August 30, 1996. The sources have been given, web articles accessible on the cdc.gov website. A third MMWR report is not available on the CDC website. It is the second report on AIDS. “Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among homosexual men-New York and California July 4, 1981.”

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/june_5.htm

Pneumocystis Pneumonia --- Los Angeles June 5, 1981 / 30(21); 1-3

In the period October 1980-May 1981, 5 young men, all active homosexuals, were treated for biopsy-confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at 3 different hospitals in Los Angeles, California. Two of the patients died. All 5 patients had laboratory-confirmed previous or current cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and candidal mucosal infection. Case reports of these patients follow.

Patient 1: A previously healthy 33-year-old man developed P. carinii pneumonia and oral mucosal candidiasis in March 1981 after a 2-month history of fever associated with elevated liver enzymes, leukopenia, and CMV viruria. The serum complement-fixation CMV titer in October 1980 was 256; in may 1981 it was 32.* The patient's condition deteriorated despite courses of treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), pentamidine, and acyclovir. He died May 3, and postmortem examination showed residual P. carinii and CMV pneumonia, but no evidence of neoplasia.

Patient 2: A previously healthy 30-year-old man developed p. carinii pneumonia in April 1981 after a 5-month history of fever each day and of elevated liver-function tests, CMV viruria, and documented seroconversion to CMV, i.e., an acute-phase titer of 16 and a convalescent-phase titer of 28* in anticomplement immunofluorescence tests. Other features of his illness included leukopenia and mucosal candidiasis. His pneumonia responded to a course of intravenous TMP/.SMX, but, as of the latest reports, he continues to have a fever each day.

Patient 3: A 30-year-old man was well until January 1981 when he developed esophageal and oral candidiasis that responded to Amphotericin B treatment. He was hospitalized in February 1981 for P. carinii pneumonia that responded to TMP/SMX. His esophageal candidiasis recurred after the pneumonia was diagnosed, and he was again given Amphotericin B. The CMV complement-fixation titer in March 1981 was 8. Material from an esophageal biopsy was positive for CMV.

Patient 4: A 29-year-old man developed P. carinii pneumonia in February 1981. He had had Hodgkins disease 3 years earlier, but had been successfully treated with radiation therapy alone. He did not improve after being given intravenous TMP/SMX and corticosteroids and died in March. Postmortem examination showed no evidence of Hodgkins disease, but P. carinii and CMV were found in lung tissue.

Patient 5: A previously healthy 36-year-old man with clinically diagnosed CMV infection in September 1980 was seen in April 1981 because of a 4-month history of fever, dyspnea, and cough. On admission he was found to have P. carinii pneumonia, oral candidiasis, and CMV retinitis. A complement-fixation CMV titer in April 1981 was 128. The patient has been treated with 2 short courses of TMP/SMX that have been limited because of a sulfa-induced neutropenia. He is being treated for candidiasis with topical nystatin.

The diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia was confirmed for all 5 patients antemortem by closed or open lung biopsy. The patients did not know each other and had no known common contacts or knowledge of sexual partners who had had similar illnesses. Two of the 5 reported having frequent homosexual contacts with various partners. All 5 reported using inhalant drugs, and 1 reported parenteral drug abuse. Three patients had profoundly depressed in vitro proliferative responses to mitogens and antigens. Lymphocyte studies were not performed on the other 2 patients.

Reported by MS Gottlieb, MD, HM Schanker, MD, PT Fan, MD, A Saxon, MD, JD Weisman, DO, Div of Clinical Immunology-Allergy; Dept of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine; I Pozalski, MD, Cedars-Mt. Siani Hospital, Los Angeles; Field services Div, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC.

Editorial Note:

Pneumocystis pneumonia in the United States is almost exclusively limited to severely immunosuppressed patients (1). The occurrence of pneumocystosis in these 5 previously healthy individuals without a clinically apparent underlying immunodeficiency is unusual. The fact that these patients were all homosexuals suggests an association between some aspect of a homosexual lifestyle or disease acquired through sexual contact and Pneumocystis pneumonia in this population. All 5 patients described in this report had laboratory-confirmed CMV disease or virus shedding within 5 months of the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia. CMV infection has been shown to induce transient abnormalities of in vitro cellular-immune function in otherwise healthy human hosts (2,3). Although all 3 patients tested had abnormal cellular-immune function, no definitive conclusion regarding the role of CMV infection in these 5 cases can be reached because of the lack of published data on cellular-immune function in healthy homosexual males with and without CMV antibody. In 1 report, 7 (3.6%) of 194 patients with pneumocystosis also had CMV infection' 40 (21%) of the same group had at least 1 other major concurrent infection (1). A high prevalence of CMV infections among homosexual males was recently reported: 179 (94%) had CMV viruria; rates for 101 controls of similar age who were reported to be exclusively heterosexual were 54% for seropositivity and zero fro viruria (4). In another study of 64 males, 4 (6.3%) had positive tests for CMV in semen, but none had CMV recovered from urine. Two of the 4 reported recent homosexual contacts. These findings suggest not only that virus shedding may be more readily detected in seminal fluid than urine, but also that seminal fluid may be an important vehicle of CMV transmission (5). All the above observations suggest the possibility of a cellular-immune dysfunction related to a common exposure that predisposes individuals to opportunistic infections such as pneumocystosis and candidiasis. Although the role of CMV infection in the pathogenesis of pneumocystosis remains unknown, the possibility of P. carinii infection must be carefully considered in a differential diagnosis for previously healthy homosexual males with dyspnea and pneumonia.

References

Walzer PD, Perl DP, Krogstad DJ, Rawson G, Schultz MG. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in the United States. Epidemiologic, diagnostic, and clinical features. Ann Intern Med 1974;80:83-93.

Rinaldo CR, Jr, Black PH, Hirsh MS. Interaction of cytomegalovirus with leukocytes from patients with mononucleosis due to cytomegalovirus. J Infect Dis 1977;136:667-78.

Rinaldo CR, Jr, Carney WP, Richter BS, Black PH, Hirsh MS. Mechanisms of immunosuppression in cytomegaloviral mononucleosis. J Infect Dis 1980;141:488-95.

Drew WL, Mintz L, Miner RC, Sands M, Ketterer B. Prevalence of cytomegalovirus infection in homosexual men. J Infect Dis 1981;143:188-92.

Lang DJ, Kummer JF. Cytomegalovirus in semen: observations in selected populations,. J Infect Dis 1975; 132:472-3.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00043494.htm

Pneumocystis Pneumonia — Los Angeles August 30, 1996 / 45(34); 729-733

As part of its commemoration of CDC's 50th anniversary, MMWR is reprinting selected MMWR articles of historical interest to public health, accompanied by a current editorial note.

On June 4, 1981, MMWR published a report about Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men in Los Angeles. This was the first published report of what, a year later, became known as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). This report and current editorial note appear below. In the period October 1980-May 1981, 5 young men, all active homosexuals, were treated for biopsy-confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at 3 different hospitals in Los Angeles, California. Two of the patients died. All 5 patients had laboratory-confirmed previous or current cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and candidal mucosal infection. Case reports of these patients follow.

Patient 1: A previously healthy 33-year-old man developed P. carinii pneumonia and oral mucosal candidiasis in March 1981 after a 2-month history of fever associated with elevated liver enzymes, leukopenia, and CMV viruria. The serum complement-fixation CMV titer in October 1980 was 256; in May 1981 it was 32. * The patient's condition deteriorated despite courses of treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), pentamidine, and acyclovir. He died May 3, and postmortem examination showed residual P. carinii and CMV pneumonia, but no evidence of neoplasia.

Patient 2: A previously healthy 30-year-old man developed P. carinii pneumonia in April 1981 after 5-month history of fever each day and of elevated liver-function tests, CMV viruria, and documented seroconversion to CMV, i.e., an acute-phase titer of 16 and a convalescent-phase titer of 28 * in anticomplement immunofluorescence tests. Other features of his illness included leukopenia and mucosal candidiasis. His pneumonia responded to a course of intravenous TMP/SMX, but, as of the latest reports, he continues to have a fever each day.

Patient 3: A 30-year-old man was well until January 1981 when he developed esophageal and oral candidiasis that responded to Amphotericin B treatment. He was hospitalized in February 1981 for P. carinii pneumonia that responded to oral TMP/SMX. His esophageal candidiasis recurred after the pneumonia was diagnosed, and he was again given Amphotericin B. The CMV complement-fixation titer in March 1981 was 8. Material from an esophageal biopsy was positive for CMV.

Patient 4: A 29-year-old man developed P. carinii pneumonia in February 1981. He had had Hodgkins disease 3 years earlier, but had been successfully treated with radiation therapy alone. He did not improve after being given intravenous TMP/SMX and corticosteroids and died in March. Postmortem examination showed no evidence of Hodgkins disease, but P. carinii and CMV were found in lung tissue.

Patient 5: A previously healthy 36-year-old man with a clinically diagnosed CMV infection in September 1980 was seen in April 1981 because of a 4-month history of fever, dyspnea, and cough. On admission he was found to have P. carinii pneumonia, oral candidiasis, and CMV retinitis. A complement-fixation CMV titer in April 1981 was 128. The patient has been treated with 2 short courses of TMP/SMX that have been limited because of a sulfa-induced neutropenia. He is being treated for candidiasis with topical nystatin.

The diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia was confirmed for all 5 patients ante-mortem by closed or open lung biopsy. The patients did not know each other and had no known common contacts or knowledge of sexual partners who had had similar illnesses. The 5 did not have comparable histories of sexually transmitted disease. Four had serologic evidence of past hepatitis B infection but had no evidence of current hepatitis B surface antigen. Two of the 5 reported having frequent homosexual contacts with various partners. All 5 reported using inhalant drugs, and 1 reported parenteral drug abuse. Three patients had profoundly depressed in vitro proliferative responses to mitogens and antigens. Lymphocyte studies were not performed on the other 2 patients.

Reported by MS Gottlieb, MD, HM Schanker, MD, PT Fan, MD, A Saxon, MD, JD Weisman, DO, Div of Clinical Immunology-Allergy, Dept of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine; I Pozalski, MD, Cedars-Mt. Sinai Hospital, Los Angeles; Field Services Div, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC.

Editorial Note

Pneumocystis pneumonia in the United States is almost exclusively limited to severely immunosuppressed patients (1). The occurrence of pneumocystosis in these 5 previously healthy individuals without a clinically apparent underlying immunodeficiency is unusual. The fact that these patients were all homosexuals suggests an association between some aspect of a homosexual lifestyle or disease acquired through sexual contact and Pneumocystis pneumonia in this population. All 5 patients described in this report had laboratory-confirmed CMV disease or virus shedding within 5 months of the diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia. CMV infection has been shown to induce transient abnormalities of in vitro cellular-immune function in otherwise healthy human hosts (2,3). Although all 3 patients tested had abnormal cellular-immune function, no definitive conclusion regarding the role of CMV infection in these 5 cases can be reached because of the lack of published data on cellular-immune function in healthy homosexual males with and without CMV anti-body. In 1 report, 7 (3.6%) of 194 patients with pneumocystosis also had CMV infection; 40 (21%) of the same group had at least 1 other major concurrent infection (1). A high prevalence of CMV infections among homosexual males was recently reported: 179 (94%) of 190 males reported to be exclusively homosexual had serum antibody to CMV, and 14 (7.4%) had CMV viruria; rates for 101 controls of similar age who were reported to be exclusively heterosexual were 54% for seropositivity and zero for viruria (4). In another study of 64 males, 4 (6.3%) had positive tests for CMV in semen, but none had CMV recovered from urine. Two of the 4 reported recent homosexual contacts. These findings suggest not only that virus shedding may be more readily detected in seminal fluid than in urine, but also that seminal fluid may be an important vehicle of CMV transmission (5). All the above observations suggest the possibility of a cellular-immune dysfunction related to a common exposure that predisposes individuals to opportunistic infections such as pneumocystosis and candidiasis. Although the role of CMV infection in the pathogenesis of pneumocystosis remains unknown, the possibility of P. carinii infection must be carefully considered in a differential diagnosis for previously healthy homosexual males with dyspnea and pneumonia.

References

Walzer PD, Perl DP, Krogstad DJ, Rawson PG, Schultz MG. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in the United States. Epidemiologic, diagnostic, and clinical features. Ann Intern Med 1974;80:83-93.

Rinaldo CR, Jr, Black PH, Hirsch MS. Interaction of cytomegalovirus with leukocytes from patients with mononucleosis due to cytomegalovirus. J Infect Dis 1977;136:667-78.

Rinaldo CR, Jr, Carney WP, Richter BS, Black PH, Hirsch MS. Mechanisms of immunosuppression in cytomegaloviral mononucleosis. J Infect Dis 1980;141:488-95.

Drew WL, Mintz L, Miner RC, Sands M, Ketterer B. Prevalence of cytomegalovirus infection in homosexual men. J Infect Dis 1981;143:188-92.

Lang DJ, Kummer JF. Cytomegalovirus in semen: observations in selected populations. J Infect Dis 1975;132:472-3.

Editorial Note — 1996:

The June 4, 1981, report of five cases of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in homosexual men in Los Angeles was the first published report about acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). This report in MMWR alerted the medical and public health communities 4 months before the first peer-reviewed article was published (1). The timeliness of this report can be credited to the public health sensitivity of the astute reporting physicians and the diligence of CDC staff. Dr. Gottlieb and his colleagues at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine and Cedars-Mt. Sinai Hospital worked closely with the CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer assigned to the Los Angeles Department of Health Services to summarize the data and draft this brief report. When news of these cases reached CDC, scientists in the Parasitic Diseases Division of CDC's Center for Infectious Diseases already were concerned about other unusual cases of PCP. That division housed the Parasitic Diseases Drug Service and requests for pentamidine isethionate to treat PCP in other similar patients in New York had been called to the attention of these scientists by the CDC employee who administered the distribution of this drug (which was not yet licensed and was available in the United States only from CDC). In July 1981, following the report of these cases of PCP and cases of other rare life-threatening opportunistic infections and cancers (2), CDC formed a Task Force on Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections. A key first task facing CDC was to develop a case definition for this condition and to conduct surveillance. The CDC case definition was adopted quickly worldwide. Results from active surveillance conducted in the United States rapidly established that the syndrome was new, and the number of cases was increasing rapidly (3). By the end of 1982, the distribution pattern of cases strongly suggested that AIDS was caused by an agent transmitted through sexual contact between men (4,5) and between men and women (6,7) and transmitted through blood among injecting-drug users and among recipients of blood or blood products (8-10). Cases also were identified among infants born to women with AIDS or at risk for AIDS (11), and the epidemic extended beyond the life-threatening reported cases to include persistent unexplained lymphadenopathy (12). To prevent transmission of AIDS, in 1983 the Public Health Service used epidemiologic information about the condition to recommend that sexual contact be avoided with persons known or suspected to have AIDS and that persons at increased risk for AIDS refrain from donating plasma or blood (10,13). In addition, work was intensified toward developing safer blood products for persons with hemophilia. These recommendations were developed and published only 21 months after the first cases were reported and well before the first published reports identifying what is now termed HIV as the etiologic agent of AIDS (14,15). Isolation of HIV enabled development of assays to diagnose infections; characterization of the natural history of HIV; further protection of the blood supply; development of specific antiviral therapies; and expansion of surveillance criteria to include other conditions indicative of severe HIV disease. Research and prevention programs for HIV have contributed greatly to scientific and programmatic approaches to other public health problems. During 1981-1996, approximately 350 reports related to AIDS were published in MMWR, an average of two per month since June 1981. Throughout the HIV epidemic, timely publication of reports about AIDS and related topics in MMWR have continued to play a crucial role in alerting health professionals and the public. In 1996, HIV transmission occurs worldwide and has an impact in all countries (16). In the United States, prevention efforts have been successful at reducing HIV transmission. For example, blood-donor deferral and blood screening have virtually eliminated HIV transmission through blood and blood products, and adoption of less risky behaviors has greatly reduced sexual transmission between men; most recently, therapeutic advances have reduced transmission from mother to newborn (17). However, in the United States, AIDS has been diagnosed in 548,000 persons, and 343,000 have died. HIV infection has become the leading cause of death for persons aged 25-44 years, and an estimated 650,000-950,000 persons are living with HIV infection. Throughout the world, HIV continues to spread rapidly, especially in impoverished populations in Africa, Asia, and South and Central America. The emergence of the HIV pandemic demonstrates the vulnerability of the world's populations to previously unknown infectious diseases. The first 15 years in the recorded history of AIDS have included remarkable scientific successes and countless examples of individual courage and accomplishment. Although these accomplishments provide hope for the future, further efforts are needed to halt the steady spread of HIV throughout the world. Editorial Note by: James W. Curran, M.D., Dean, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University (Atlanta); Coordinator of the 1981 Task Force on Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections; and former Director of the Office of HIV/AIDS, CDC.

References

Hymes KB, Cheung T, Greene JB, et al. Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men: a report of eight cases. Lancet 1981;2:598-600.

CDC. Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among homosexual men — New York City and California. MMWR 1981;30:305-8.

CDC Task Force on Kaposi's Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections. Epidemiologic aspects of the current outbreak of Kaposi's sarcoma and opportunistic infections. N Engl J Med 1982;306:248-52.

CDC. A cluster of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia among homosexual male residents of Los Angeles and Orange counties, California. MMWR 1982;31:305-7.

Jaffe HW, Choi K, Thomas PA, et al. National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: part 1, epidemiologic results. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:145-51.

CDC. Immunodeficiency among female sexual partners of males with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) — New York. MMWR 1983;31:697-8.

Harris C, Small CB, Klein RS, et al. Immunodeficiency in female sexual partners of men with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med 1983;308:1181-4.

CDC. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia among persons with hemophilia A. MMWR 1982;31:365-7.

CDC. Possible transfusion-associated acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) — California. MMWR 1982;31:652-54.

CDC. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS): precautions for clinical and laboratory staffs. MMWR 1982;31:577-80.

CDC. Unexplained immunodeficiency and opportunistic infections in infants — New York, New Jersey, and California. MMWR 1982;31:665-7.

CDC. Persistent, generalized lymphadenopathy among homosexual males. MMWR 1982;31: 249-51.

CDC. Prevention of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS): report of inter-agency recommendations. MMWR 1983;32:101-3.

Barre-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, et al. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 1983;220:868-71.

Gallo RC, Salahuddin SZ, Popovic M, et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science 1984;224:500-3.

Mann J, Tarantela D, eds. AIDS in the world II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

CDC. Recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service Task Force on the Use of Zidovudine to Reduce Perinatal Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus. MMWR 1994;43(no. RR-11). Paired specimens not run in parallel.

New

Larry Houston — 2010-04-06T00:06:16Z

“New”

This article has four sections, three of them are referencing to “new” that which can characterize those who self-identify as homosexual and lead an openly homosexual lifestyle. First it is how they choose to identify themselves, using the word gay/lesbian instead of homosexual. The changing America culture/society also allowed for “new places of meeting”. The third “new” are the “sexual behaviors/practices” of many of those who self-identified as homosexual and lead an openly homosexual lifestyle. Many of the quotes following have been written by those who self-identify as gay/homosexual and advocate for living an openly homosexual lifestyle. The final section describes the consequences/results of these new dangerous and harmful sexual behaviors/practices that many who self-identify as gay/homosexual and lead an openly homosexual lifestyles.

New Identity

“In short, the political and cultural environment had undergone a liberalizing shift which had created the opportunity for the emergence of a mass homosexual movement.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.38)

“The configuring of the meaning of homosexuality by its advocates into a lifestyle alternative or minority status, and the movement of lesbians and gay men into the social center parallels the transformation of the social role of the African-Americans and women during the same period.” (Seidman, Embattled Eros, p.148-149)

“The idea of a gay and lesbian identity sexual identity has been formulated over the last two decades. Historically it is the product of the gay and lesbian liberation movement, which, itself, grew out of the Black civil rights and women's liberation movements of the fifties and sixties. Like ethnic identities, sexual identity assigns individuals to membership in a group, the gay lesbian community. Although sexual identity has become a group identity, its historical antecedents can be traced to the nineteen-century notion that homosexual men and women, each representative of a newly discovered biological specimen, represented a “third sex”. Homosexuality, which had been conceived primarily as an act was thereby transformed into an actor. (De Cecco, 1990b). Once actors had been created it was possible to assign them a group identity. Once a person became a member of a group, particularly one that has been stigmatized and marginal, identity as an individual was easily subsumed under group identity.” (De Cecco and Parker, “The Biology of Homosexuality: Sexual Orientation or Sexual Preference,” p. 22-23 in Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual, Preference, editors De Cecco and Parker)

“Transcending all these issues of lifestyle was the potent question of the gay identity itself. The gay identity is no more a product of nature than any other sexual identity. It has developed through a complex history of definitions and self-definition, and what recent histories of homosexuality have clearly revealed is that there is no necessary connection between sexual practices and sexual identity.” (Weeks, Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, p. 50)

“Gay liberation had somehow evolved into the right to have a good time-the right to enjoy bars, discos, drugs, and frequent impersonal sex.” (Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America, p.445)

“Other men who had participated enthusiastically in the life of the ghetto had grown tired of its anonymity and inverted values. They questioned why membership in the gay community had come to require that one be alienated from his family, take multiple drugs and have multiple sex partners, dance all night at the “right” clubs, and spend summer weekends at the “right” part of Fire Island. Rather than providing genuine liberation, gay life in the ghettos had created another sort of oppression with its pressure to conform to social expectations of what a gay man was “supposed” to be, believe, wear, and do.” (Andriote, Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America, p.24)

“Evidence convincingly argues that before the middle of the century gay sexual behavior was vastly different from what it was to become later, that from mid century onward there were fundamental changes not only in gay male self-perceptions and beliefs, but also in sexual habits, kinds and numbers of partners, even ways of making love. These revolutions reached a fever pitch just as at the moment HIV exploded like a series of time bombs across the archipelago of gay America. When gay experience is viewed collectively, it appears that the simultaneous introduction of new behaviors and a dramatic rise in the scale of old ones produced one of the greatest shifts in sexual ecology ever recorded. There is convincing evidence that this shift had a decisive impact on the transmission of virtually every sexually transmitted disease, of which HIV was merely one, albeit the most deadly.” (Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 39)

“The pull of the fast-track S-M gay life, which seems to have been the breeding ground-or at least the staging area-for what increasingly appeared as a new and mysterious disease, is not just a pathology the rest of us can dismiss.” (Black, The Plague Years: A Chronicle of AIDS, The Epidemic of Our Times, p. 43)

“The primary factor that led to increase HIV transmission was anal sex combined with multiple partners, particularly in concentrated core groups. By the seventies there is little doubt that for those in the most sexually active core groups, multipartner anal sex had become a main event. Michael Callen, both an avid practitioner and a careful observer of life in the gay fast lane, believed that this was a “historically unprecendented aspect” of the gay sexual revolution.” (Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 75)

“These data demonstrate definitively that the gay liberation movement resulted in a great increase in promiscuity among gay men, along with significant changes in sexual practices that made rectal trauma, immunological contact with semen, use of recreational drugs, and the transmission of many viral, amoebal, fungal, and bacterial infections far more common than in the decades prior to 1970. The same data strongly suggest that recent changes in sexual and drug activity played a major role in vastly enlarging the homo- and bisexual male population at risk for developing immunosuppression. Since promiscuity, engaging in receptive anal intercourse, and fisting are the three highest-risk factors associated with AIDS among gay men and since each of these risk factors is correlated with known cases of immunosuppression, they represent significant factors in our understanding of why AIDS emerged as a major medical problem only in 1970.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 290-291)

“When AIDS hit the homosexual communities of the US, several studies were conducted by the vigilant CDC to determine what it was in the homosexual lifestyle which predisposed to this immunosuppressive condition. There were really only two things which distinguished the homosexual lifestyle: the promiscuous sex and the extensive use of recreational drugs.” (Adams, AIDS: The HIV Myth, p.127)

“Gay liberation had somehow evolved into the right to have a good time-the right to enjoy bars, discos, drugs, and frequent impersonal sex.” (Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America, p.445)

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn't work: it doesn't serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people's natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it's impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravates of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s, p.363)

New Places of Meeting

“The complex research agenda that characterized the period from the early 1970s to the beginning of the AIDS epidemic reflected major changes within the gay and lesbian communities themselves. The decision by a large number to openly label themselves gay men and lesbian changed the experience of same-gender sexuality. From a relatively narrow “homosexual” community based primarily on sexual desire and affectional commitment between lovers and circles of friends, there emerged a community characterized by the building of residential areas, commercial enterprises, health and social services, political clubs, and intellectual movements.” (Turner, Miller, and Moses, Editors. AIDS Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use, p.127)

“In the 1970s an extraordinary proliferation of clubs, bars, discotheques, bathhouse, sex shops, travel agencies, and gay magazines allowed the community to “come out” and adopt a whole new repertoire of erotic behavior, out of all measure to any similar past activities.” (Grmek, History of AIDS, p. 168-169)

“In sum, gay sex institutions and the sexual activity in them became the functional social equivalent of family, friends, and community: They promoted social bonds that gave gays a sense of belonging and social support.” (Rushing, The AIDS Epidemic Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease, p. 30)

“The institutions of the gay world have often made it easier for men to meet for sex than for companionship, and most long-lasting relationships accept sexual ‘infidelity', through the word itself rings oddly.” (Altman, Defying Gravity: A Political Life, p.118)

“The magical link was through a key term. “One word”, the gay writer Nathan Frain has written, ‘is like a hand grenade in the whole affair: promiscuity.' Although promiscuity has long been seen as a characteristic of male homosexuals, there is little doubt that the 1970s saw a quantitative jump in its incidence as establishments such as gay bath-houses and back-room bars, existing specifically for the purposes of casual sex, spread in all major cities of the United States and elsewhere from Toronto to Pairs, Amsterdam to Sydney (though London remained more or less aloof, largely due to the effects of the 1967 reform). Michel Foucalt has written characteristically of the growth of ‘laboratories of sexual experimentation' in cities such as San Francisco and New York, ‘the counterpart of the medieval courts where strict rules of proprietary courtship were defined'. For the first time for most male homosexuals, sex became easily available. With it came the chance not only to have frequent partners but also to explore the varieties of sex. Where sex becomes to available, Foucault suggests, constant variations are necessary to enhance the pleasure of the act. For many gays coming out in the 1970s the gay world was a paradise of sexual opportunity and of sensual exploration.” (Weeks, Jeffery. Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, p.47-48)

“We don't know, in real quantitative terms, what really changed in homosexual behavior in the 1970s, but it is possible to identify three major areas of change: the expansion of homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs, which facilitate numerous sexual contacts in one night (by 1984 one bathhouse chain included baths in forty-two American cities, including Memphis and London, Ontario), the emergence of sexually transmitted parasites as a major homosexual health problem, especially in New York and California, and a boom in “recreational drugs” - that is, the use of chemical stimulants such as MDA, angel dust, various nitrates, etc. - in conjunction with what came to be known as “fast-lane sex.” These three elements would all be linked to various theories about AIDS during the 1980s.” (Altman, AIDS in the Mind of America, p. 14)

“This model, which was sometimes called the “immune overload” or “antigen overload” hypothesis, represented the initial medical frame for understanding the epidemic: the syndrome was essentially linked to gay men, specifically to the “excesses” of the homosexual lifestyle. The epidemic coincided historically Newsweek suggested in the article “Diseases That Plague Gays,” with the burgeoning of bathhouse, gay bars and bookstores in major cities where homosexual men met. Urban gay men, enjoying “life in the fast lane,” had subjected themselves to so many sexually transmitted diseases, taken so many strong treatments to fight those diseases, and done so many recreational drugs that their immune systems had ultimately given up all together, leaving their bodies open to the onslaught of a range of opportunistic infections. As one Harvard doctor is reported to have put it informally, “overindulgence in sex and drugs” and “the New York lifestyle” were the culprits. What distinguished gay men from CMV-infected, sexually adventurous heterosexuals, and from cardiac patients inhaling amyl nitrite, and from the many patients who took strong antibiotic or antiparasitic drugs was, these experts suggested, that only gay men (or gay men living in the “fast lane”) confronted all of these risks at once.” (Epstein, Impure Science, p. 48)

New Sexual Behaviors/Practices

“In general, sexual adventure is regarded within the gay world as an end in itself, not necessarily linked to emotional commitment- while, in reverse, emotional commitment does not demand sexual constancy (may not even demand sex at all) to survive.” (Altman, Defying Gravity: A Political Life, p.118)

“Gay historian Dennis Altman notes that in the “liberated” seventies, when promiscuity was seen as a virtue in some segments of the gay community, “being responsible about one's health was equated with having frequent checks for syphilis and gonorrhea, and such doubtful practices as taking a couple of tetracycline capsules before going to the baths.” To gay men for whom sex was the center and circumference of their lives, their only real health concern was that illness would prevent them from having sex - which, to their way of thinking, meant they would no longer be “proudly” gay.” (Andriote, Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America, p.37)

“Indeed, there is no record of any culture that accepted both homosexuality and unlimited homosexual promiscuity. Far from being the universal default mode of male homosexuality, the lifestyle of American gay men in the seventies and eighties appears unique in history.” (Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 225)

“For the first time ever, a community standard developed that transformed anonymous sex into a god thing - another choice on the broadening sexual palette. Casual sex encounters no longer took place simply because men needed to conceal their identities, but because it was considered hot to separate sex from intimacy.” (Sadownick, Sex Between Men, p. 83)

“Anal sex had come to be seen as an essential - possibly the essential - expression of homosexual intimacy by the 1980s.” (Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 101)

“These observations of new syndromes associated with a very active male homosexual life-style suggests that both the type of sexual activity and the extent of promiscuity associated with it changed markedly during the 1970s.” (Root-Bernstein, Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, p. 285-286)

“In the middle of the century, and particularly in the sixties and seventies, gay men began doing something that appears rare in sexual history: They began to abandon strict role separation in sex and alternately play both the insertive and receptive roles, a practice sometimes called versatility.” (Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 76)

“Another relative novelty was the increasing flexibility of sex roles. Homosexuality in more traditional cultures had typically followed rigid patterns: certain men were the insertive partners in oral and anal intercourse, others the receptive ones. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, American gay men often took both insertive and receptive roles. Rather than serve as cul-de-sac for the virus, as heterosexual women often did, gay and bisexual men more often acted as an extremely effective conduit for HIV.” (Allen, The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present, p. 125-126)

“As the gay version of the sexual revolution took hold among certain groups of gay men in America's largest cities, it precipitated a change in sexual behaviors. Perhaps the most significant change was the fact that some core groups of gay men began practicing anal intercourse with dozens or even hundreds of partners a year. Also significant was a growing emphasis on “versatile” anal sex, in which partners alternately played both receptive and insertive roles, and on new behaviors such as analingus, or rimming that facilitated the spread of otherwise difficult-to-transmit microbes. Important, too, was a shift in patterns of partnership, from diffuse systems in which a lot of gay sex was with non-gay identified partners who themselves had few contacts, to fairly closed systems in which most sexual activity was within a circle of other gay men. Also important was a general decline in “group immunity” caused by repeated infections of various STDs, repeated inoculations of antibiotics and other drugs to combat them, as well as recreational substantive abuse, stress, and other behaviors that comprised immunity.” (Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 57-58)

“In the 1970s, a new cultural scenario developed that celebrated and encouraged sexual experimentation and the separation of sex from intimacy among gay men; this, in turn, reinforced the transactional nature of the market as anonymous sexual encounters and multiple partners became normative (see Murray, 196, 175; Sadownick, 1996, 77-112). Levine (1992, 83) summarizes the effect of gay liberation on gay sexual scripts: “Gay liberation's redefinition of same-sex love as a manly form of erotic expression provoked masculine identification among clones, which was conveyed through butch presentational strategies, and cruising, tricking, and partying . . . In a similar vein, the roughness, objectification, anonymity, and phallocentrism association with cruising and tricking expressed such macho dictates as toughness and recreational sex . . . The cultural idea of self-gratification further encouraged these patterns, sanctioning the sexual and recreational hedonism inherent in cruising, tricking, and partying.” While relational sex or coupling and safe sex may have become symbolically important in the 1980s and 1990s, scripts that legitimate the transactional market are still prominent, and there is no conclusive evidence that the market has become relational (see Sadownick, 1996 chapters 5-7; Murray 1996, 175-78; cf. Levine 1992, 79-82.)” (Laumann, Ellingson, Mahay, Paik, and Youm, The Sexual Organization of the City, p. 97)

“Whatever the cause of AIDS, single or multi-factorial, it is certain that the promiscuous homosexuals of the late seventies and early eighties were fertile ground for an epidemic.” (Adams, AIDS: The HIV Myth, p.131)

“The extensive casual networks of gays engaging in sex apparently for the sole purpose of sensuous pleasure, and in so many different ways, went far beyond anything that had occurred before in the United States or elsewhere or that anyone could have imagined just a few years previously. Without question, “the sexual style of gay communities in the 1970s and early 1980s was a specific historic phenomenon” (Bateson and Goldsby, 1988:44).” (Rushing, The AIDS Epidemic Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease, p. 27)

Consequences/Results

“It was an historic accident that HIV disease first manifested itself in the gay populations of the east and west coasts of the United States,” wrote British sociologist Jeffrey Weeks in AIDS and Contemporary History in 1993. His opinion has been almost universal among gay and AIDS activists even to this day. Yet there is little “accidental” about the sexual ecology described above. Multiple concurrent partners, versatile anal sex, core group behavior centered in commercial sex establishments, widespread recreational drug abuse, repeated waves of STDs and constant intake of antibiotics, sexual tourism and travel -these factors were not “accidents.” Multipartner anal sex was encouraged, celebrated, considered a central component of liberation. Core group behavior in baths and sex clubs was deemed by many the quintessence of freedom. Versatility was declared a political imperative. Analingus was pronounced the champagne of gay sex, a palpable gesture of revolution. STDs were to be worn like badges of honor, antibiotics to be taken with pride. Far from being accidents, these things characterized the very foundation of what it supposedly meant to experience gay liberation, Taken together they formed a sexual ecology of almost incalculably catastrophic dimensions, a classic feedback loop in which virtually every factor served to amplify every other. From the virus's point of view, the ecology of liberation was a royal road to adaptive triumph. From many gay men's point of view, it proved a trapdoor to hell on earth.” (Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 89)

“Over the years the proportion of gays among Dr. Joel Weisman's patients had increased. The doctor saw in this increase not so much a tribute to his ability and discretion as the consequence of an increase in sexually transmitted diseases with a predilection for attacking this particular risk group. “From the years 1977, 1978, I began to get more and more young men with high fevers, nocturnal sweating, diarrhea, all kinds of parasitic diseases and particularly with swollen lymph nodes the size of pigeons' eggs, in their necks, in their armpits, their groin, everywhere. The evidence suggested that these inflammations of the glands were expressions of immunodeficiency disorders. Each time, I feared the worst: cancer, leukemia. Fortunately all my biopsies came back to me 'benign.' True, some of the illnesses identified by analysis were not trivial. There was mononucleosis, hepatitis, lots of cases of herpes, quite a bit of venereal disease. Thank God, the viruses responsible did not kill, at least not yet. Generally, most of the symptoms disappeared after appropriate treatment. Only a few patients kept their abnormally swollen lymph nodes. They resigned yes to living with them.” (Lapierre, Beyond Love, p.39-40)

Bibliography

Adams, Jad. AIDS: The HIV Myth. MacMillian London, Inc., London, 1989 . Allen, Peter Lewis. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 2000.

Altman, Dennis. AIDS in the Mind of America. Anchor Books. Garden City, New York, 1987.

Altman, Dennis. Defying Gravity: A Political Life. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd. St Leonards, Australia. 1997.

Andriote, John-Manuel. Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 1999.

Clendinen, Dudley and Adam Nagourne. Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America. Simon and Schuster. New York, 1990.

De Cecco, John P. PhD, and David Allen Parker, MA editors. Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference. Harrington Park Press, New York, 1995.

Engel, Stephen M. The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK, 2001.

Epstein, Steven. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and New York, 1996.

Grmek, Mirko D. History of AIDS. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ, 1990.

Kirk, Marshall and Hunter Madsen Ph.D. After the Ball How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s. Double Day. New York, 1989.

Lapierre, Dominique. Translated from French by Kathryn Spink. Beyond Love. Warner Books. New York, 1991.

Laumann, Edward O., Stephen Ellingson, Jenna Mahay, Anthony Paik, and Yoosik Youm editors. The Sexual Organization of the City. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and London, 2004.

Root-Berstein, Robert S. Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus. The Free Press. New York, 1993.

Rotello, Gabriel. Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. A Dutton Book. New York, 1997.

Rushing, William A. The AIDS Epidemic: Social Dimensions of an Infectious Disease. WestviewPress. Boulder, CO, 1995.

Sadownick, Douglas. Sex Between Men: An Intimate History of the Sex Lives of Men Postwar to Present. HarperSanFrancisco. San Francisco, 1996.

Seidman, Steven. Embattled Eros: Sexual Politics and Ethnics in Contemporary America. Routledge. New York, 1992.

Turner, Charles F., Heather G. Miller, and Lincoln E. Moses, Editors. AIDS Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1989.

Weeks, Jeffery. Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1988.

Chapter 4 World War II to the 1960s

Larry Houston — 2009-11-30T03:22:00Z

Chapter 4 World War II to the 1960s

The “homosexual” as a distinct person, which was first advocated in Germany during the 1860s by homosexuals themselves seeking legal rights, was next adopted by sexologists and then by psychiatrists. But it was the American military during World War II with the psychiatric profession that was to play a leading role in defining the ‘homosexual' as a character type, who was sick that persisted until the early 1970s.

“Examining the evolution of gay and lesbian identity shows that two pivotal periods in history were essential to the establishment of the gay rights movement in the 1950s. Sexologists in the nineteen century argued that sexual orientation is a core trait that defines the essence of human beings. Under their influence, those who were attracted to people of the same gender began to think of themselves as homosexuals. Following this change in personal identity, homosexuals had the opportunity to form communities during World War II, when the crisis afforded them chances to meet others like themselves and develop networks. For the first time in history, gay men and lesbians could share their stories and find like-minded friends and partners.” (Burns, Editor, Gay Rights, p.21)

“In 1940, in conjunction with the peacetime draft, the military adopted psychiatric screening. One of the chief proponents of screening, Henry Stark Sullivan, was himself homosexual and believed that homosexuality in itself should not bar a potential recruit from military service.” (Edsall, Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World, p.262)

“The status of homosexuals changed around the time of World War II. Prior to this point, identifications with homosexuality were primarily individual experiences. The identification of homosexuals as a group was given impetus by the actions of the military and the federal government who attempted to identify homosexuals and remove them from military positions. Early in the war effort, discovered homosexuals were given dishonorable discharges by the thousands. Later, those who had served in the war were given a newly created category of discharge - a “general” discharge which was neither honorable or dishonorable (Licata, 1980). The labeling and singling out of these individuals by the government helped to create minority status of homosexuals as group and to promote discrimination against them.” (Heyl, “Homosexuality: A Social Phenomenon, p. 341 in Human Sexuality: the Societal and Interpersonal Context, edited by Kathleen McKinney and Susan Sprecher)

“Over the course of the 1940 build-up, all the backing and forthing between the military and the burgeoning psychiatric community, and than, once when war was declared, all that psychiatric screening, in whatever its final form created in the mind of huge portions of the general population a picture of the a character type known as ‘the homosexual'.” (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.106)

“What the military did in its rough and ready way was to mush all these things together into one character type – the homosexual. The homosexual was now, for all the world to see an effeminate man (and after the war, a masculine woman) who had sex with members of the same sex, and was either passively or actively pathological.” (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.105)

“While the discussion of such things as the relationship to gender to sexuality was limited to scientific, literary, intellectual, and interested circles – as it was, mostly from the nineteen century through the Second World War – the link was not firmly or especially popularly made. Many pieces of what would eventually be the popular conception of the early-modern homosexual (which let's say dates from the Second World War to about 1969) were floating independently between sexologists and psychiatrists. There was the effeminate man or pansy, there was the pervert and/or psychopath who could be expected to commit violent crimes of a sexual nature on any sort of person at all, and there was the man or woman, not much spoken of in polite company, who had a tendency to have sex with others of the same sex. When this was spoken of, it was in purely non-sexual terms, like the partners on ranches that Front Runner author Patricia Nell Warren remembers her father mentioning in Montana when she was a child in the late thirties and forties, or those urban bachelors and the ubiquitous maiden aunts and their companions.” (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.105)

“Despite this modicum of sympathy initially extended to “sexual perverts,” the military categorically declared homosexual behavior and “proclivities” as incompatible with military service. Historian Allan Berube (1990) has documented the ill effects of this military ban on those who managed to stay in the service and those given dishonorable discharges simply for being homosexual. The psychiatric profession that dedicated itself to screening out homosexuals also promised to treat the “problem of homosexuality” as it was perceived to affect the individuals discharged and the society that would receive them.” (Rosario, Homosexuality and Science A Guide to the Debates, p. 89)

This military ban on homosexuals was a result but not the intent of two psychiatrists. President Roosevelt received a memo from Harry Stack Sullivan and Winfred Overholser suggesting a screening process for identifying potential soldiers who may later suffer from mental health issues. Their intent was to help prevent a situation that occurred after World War I, in which men by the thousands required treatment for mental health issues, including hospitalization that resulted in a tremendous financial cost and burden. President Roosevelt accepted this idea and had these two psychiatrists draw up guidelines, which became known as Medical Circular Number One. But within one year, both the army and navy had revised the guidelines, adding homosexuality to the list of deviations Sullivan and Overholser had said should disqualify those from military service. This revision resulted in the military for the rest of the war and decades thereafter, referring to men and women who engaged or were prone to homosexual activity as sexual psychopaths. This military ban on homosexuals was the unintended result of the actions by psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan, who was a homosexual himself. One interesting part of Sullivan's life was his relationship with, James Inscoe, who was 20 twenty years younger than Sullivan. When they meet in 1927 Sullivan was 35 and James was 15 years old.

“As I said earlier, Sullivan's standing in psychiatric history is not quite what it was. This is, in part, due to rumors that he was as one colleague said upon hearing of his death, “a homosexual, an alcoholic, and a paranoid schizophrenic.” (Allen, “Sullivan's Closet: A Reappraisal of Harry Stack Sullivan's Life and His Pioneering Role in American Psychiatry,” p.5)

“Sometime in 1927, he met a young man named James Inscoe. Jimmie who later took Sullivan's surname, was about 15 or 16 years old at the time. Although Helen Perry wrote that nobody would tell her how Harry met Jimmie, she confessed to me when we met one quiet fall afternoon in her Cambridge, Massachusetts, apartment, that Jimmie had been a “male hustler” in Washington D.C. Shortly thereafter, Jimmie who was to become Sullivan's secretary, housekeeper, officemanager, and longtime companion, moved into Sullivan's surban Maryland home. Harry and Jimmie made a home together in Maryland and in New York City, for twenty-years, until Harry's death in 1949. Jimmie's place in Sullivan's life was complex and ambiguous; to Sullivan's colleagues, he was “Harry Stack's foster son,” although they had no official or legal relationship; among Sullivan's friends. Jimmie was known simply as “the man who came to stay” (Perry, 1983).” (Allen, “Sullivan's Closet: A Reappraisal of Harry Stack Sullivan's Life and His Pioneering Role in American Psychiatry,” p.9)

“Not all soldiers who experienced homoerotic feelings toward other soldiers or who even engaged in sex with other men were gay. Often heterosexual men engaged in “situational homosexuality,” having sex with other men only to attain a level of physical intimacy deprived by the war experience. It was not uncommon for men to dance together at canteens, to share beds at hotels when on leave, or to share train berths while in transit. The critical point is not the Second World War led to an increase in the number of homosexuals; such a statement can be neither confirmed nor denied. Rather, the war created a sexual situation where individuals with homosexual feelings or tendencies could more readily explore them without the absolute fear of exposure.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.23)

“The decisions of particular men and women to act on their erotic/emotional preference for the same sex, along with the new consciousness that this preference made them different, led to the formation of an urban subculture of gay men and lesbians. Yet at least through the 1930s this subculture remained rudimentary, unstable, and difficult to find. How, then, did the complex, well-developed gay community emerge that existed by the time the gay liberation movement explored? The answer is to be found during World War II, a time when the cumulative changes of several decades coalesced into a qualitatively new shape.

The war severely disrupted traditional patterns of gender relations and sexuality, and temporarily created a new erotic situation conducive to homosexual expression. It plucked millions of young men and women, whose sexual identities were just forming, out their homes, out of towns and small of cities, out of the heterosexual environment of the family, dropped them into sex-segregated situations as - GIs, as WACs and WAVEs, in same-sex rooming houses for women workers who relocated to seek employment. The war freed millions of men and women from the settings where heterosexuality was normally imposed. For men and women already gay, it provided an opportunity to meet people like themselves. Others could become gay because of the temporary freedom to explore sexuality that the war provided.” (D'Emilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity” p. 471-472)

“Men and women who were aware of same-sex attraction, but had not acted upon it, could explore it in a relatively safe environment. Individuals already aware of their homosexuality could meet others, embark on relationships, and build further ties to help foster the development of a gay community. The point is not that the war experience fostered homoerotic feelings and a rise in homosexuality. Rather, the disruption in the social environment caused by the war provided the opportunity for homosexuals to meet, to realize others like themselves existed, and to abandon the isolation that characterized the homosexual lifestyle of the pre-war period.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.23-24)

“The war functioned as an opportunity to promote homosexual visibility in a variety of ways. First, by asking recruits if they have had felt any erotic attraction for members of the same sex, the military ruptured the silence that shrouded a tabooed behavior, introducing some to the concept for the first time. Furthermore, the act of considering a homosexual unfit for service illustrates both a sharp shift in the language of military policy as well as a change in the common perception of the homosexual. Previously the sexual act was the problem; individuals discovered in sexual relations with a member of the same sex were punished accordingly through the military's criminal justice system. Yet, the drafting procedure initiated by the Second World War viewed the person as mentally ill. In an interesting parallel to Foucault's argument, the sexual act was not banned, rather the homosexual himself was banned. Second, the war functioned to bring previously isolated homosexuals together. Given that the recruits could merely lie about their sexual inclinations and that the draft preferred young and single men, it was likely that the armed forces would contain a disproportionately high percentage of gay men. Third, soldiers often resorted to antics which exaggerated common homosexual stereotypes to alleviate sexual tension.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.22)

“The Second World War coupled with the Kinsey studies of the late 1940s created the opportunity for men and women unsure of their sexual orientation or already aware of their homosexuality or bisexuality to meet others like themselves and realize their commonality.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.29)

“Nevertheless, the juxtaposition of the opportunity provided by the Second World War for gay men and lesbians to explore their identity and the subsequent repressive environment of the 1950s fostered a dissonant atmosphere from which the first politically active gay and lesbian organizations emerged.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.29)

It was as a result of this military response to homosexuality and after the war a similar response to homosexuality adopted by the federal government that led to homosexuals beginning to organize themselves. Harry Hay and other male homosexuals founded one such group, the Mattachine Society in 1951 in Los Angeles. The Daughters of Bilitis founded in 1955 was a similar organization of female homosexuals. The term ‘homophile' was chosen by the homosexuals who founded these groups to be used in describing these groups so as to de-emphasis the difference between homosexuals and other members of society, that is the difference of sexuality, i.e. who one had sex with.

“In November of the previous year, 1950, five men had met at the home of Harry Hay in Los Angeles, and out of that meeting grew the first substantial and lasting homophile organization in American history, the Mattachine Society.” (Edsall, Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World, p.269)

· Homophile Movement

“The emphasis on self-education, minority-group distinctiveness, and community organizing evident in the statement of missions and purposes prepared by the founders of the Mattachine Society stood in marked contrast to the ideas aired by Donald Webster Cory in The Homosexual in America. Cory argued that prejudice was responsible for negative stereotyping and discrimination, and he maintained that the public had to be taught that homosexuals were in important respects like heterosexuals and were therefore worthy of equal opportunity and a place in the mainstream. These ideas bespoke the world view of liberals and civil rights leaders who believed that America was an admirable melting pot and that progressives should be concerned with acculturating and integrating members of excluded minority groups. But Hay and his followers held the Marxist view that capitalism required the oppression of minorities. They believed that homosexuals had to organize so that they could explore their sexuality, become aware of how it equipped them to contribute to a more humane society, and prepare to join with other organized minorities in the struggle to replace capitalism with socialism.” (Moratto, The Politics of Homosexuality, p. 9-10)

“They had, in fact, what is here called the basic homophile outlook-the belief that prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination were the source of the homosexual's problems and that education, policy reform, and help for individual homosexuals would bring about the recognition of basic similarity, equality of treatment, and integration that were tantamount to social progress.” * (Moratto, The Politics of Homosexuality, p.11)

“*During the 1950s, the term homophile was used as a euphemism for homosexual by those who wanted to combat the stereotype that homosexuals were obsessed with sex. The suffix –phile was suppose to suggest that homosexuality was more an emotional than a sexual attraction and that homosexuals, like respectable heterosexuals, were interested in love more than sex. Early in the 1960s, Mattachine leaders in the east suggested that the word homophile be used to refer to their movement to secure rights and status for homosexuals. The term is used here both to identify the ideas about gay political activity that predominated before the gay liberation movement and to characterize the groups, leaders, and activities that were guided by these ideas.” (Moratto, The Politics of Homosexuality, p.11-12)

“Homosexuals begin to speak for themselves in the language of civil rights and social inclusion in the post-World War II period. Initially, the war spawned urban networks of among homosexuals; the antihomosexual politics of the 1950s and 1960s in the midst of general liberalization of society and the materialization of homosexual life in urban areas provided a favorable context for movements of homosexual empowerment. By the early 1970s a self-identified, self-accepting homosexual population had swelled, and a collective homosexual life developed in the exclusively gay bars, social clubs, friendship networks, and political organizations that cropped up across the urban landscapes of America. Skirmishes between a new militant, self-respecting homosexual and the guardians of heterosexual privilege broke out in bars, the courts, and in the worlds of science, literature, and art. In particular, these emerging gay subculture gave birth to a cultural apparatus that challenged religious and scientific-medical definitions of homosexuality as an illness or sin. Discourses issued forth the gay culture that projected new, affirmative identities: homosexuality was reconfigured as a natural human expression, as a basis for a new minority, as an alternative lifestyle, and as a political rebellion against patriarchy and heterosexism. Symbolic of this change was the substitution by the homosexual community of the term “gay” for “homosexual”. Whereas the latter term carried resonances of deviance, disease, and destruction, and gave the legal, medical and scientific institutions control over individuals' lives, “gay” signified dignity and personal integrity; it framed homosexuality as a social identity. Self-identification as gay symbolized a community that was intent on taking control of its own lives.” (Seidman, Embattled Eros, p.147-148)

“A historical sketch of American gay and lesbian movement reveals that the movement's guiding ideology exhibits a bipolar pattern exacerbated by gender-based rifts. Movement philosophy tends to swing between periods of moderation or assilimationism on one side and militancy and liberationism on the other. These seemingly oppositional ideologies have divided the movement throughout the post-war era. The homophile movement, initiated in 1951 with the formation of the first modern gay rights organization, the Mattachine Society, illustrates the effect of these conflicting ideologies on mobilization. The history of the Mattachine Society specifically, and of the homophile movement in general, follows a pattern of brief militancy followed by long period of assimilation and moderate leaders leading to a crescendo of renewed radicalism climaxed by the Stonewall riots.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.30)

“Founded by Harry Hay in April 1951 in Los Angeles, and modeled after the communist party, the Mattachine Society became the first organization of what would become the homophile movement. The secret hierarchical and cell-like organization adapted from the communist party was necessitated, according to the founders, by the oppressive environment fostered by McCarthyism. Yet, Mattachine drew on the communism for more than just a structural guide; Marxist ideology functioned as a means to mobilize a mass homosexual constituency for political action. Utilizing a Marxist understanding of class politics, that is, a class as merely a socioeconomically determined entity until it gains consciousness enabling recognition of its inherent political power, Hay and the other founding members theorized that homosexuals constituted a similarly oppressed minority group. Homosexuals, like members of the proletariat, were trapped in a state of false consciousness purported and defended by the heterosexual majority which maintained homosexuality to be a morally reprehensible individual aberration. Hence, the early Mattachine attempted to promote a measure of cognitive liberation and homosexual collective identity. During a time when both religion and law condemned homosexuality, and medicine viewed it as an individual psychological abnormality, the Mattachine Society was advocating the development of a group consciousness similar to that of other ethnic minority groups in the United States.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.30)

“Since not only Hay but two others of the original five had been Communist Party members, the society inevitably reflected party doctrine in its ideology and to some extent in its structure. They defined homosexuals as a distinct cultural minority schooled in the values of the dominant heterosexual culture but not, of course, able to fit into that cultural except at great personal and social cost. They therefore saw the first task f the new society as raising consciousness, not, as in the Communist Party, of class, and through increased self-awareness as a group to install pride and solidarity and ultimately to inspire political and social action.”(Edsall, Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World, p.273)

“By asserting that homosexuals constituted a minority comparable to other ethnic groups, Mattachine defined itself rather being defined by the dominant culture: homosexuality was distinct from and morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Self-definition is a recurring theme in the attempts to create a validating and positive collective identity, and the sexual minorities community continued the trend with the adoption of “gay” in the 1970s and less widespread adoption of “queer” in the 1990s. Furthermore, the comparison to ethnic minorities provided a model for action; homosexuals should follow the lead of other groups and politically organize for equal civil rights.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.31)

“In order to help develop the homosexual consciousness, the Mattachine Society coordinated public discussion groups. By late 1951, approximately twelve discussion groups existed throughout southern California; Mattachine billed these events as positive alternatives to the anonymous sexual encounters fostered by the bar and bathhouse subculture.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.31-32)

“In order to mitigate some of the growing dissension, the original five members called for a convention in April 1953 to convert the Mattachine Society into an above-ground organization. However, rather than ameliorating tension, the conference merely exacerbated the rift between moderate and militant perspective. Chuck Rowland and Harry hay were confronted by the demands of Kenneth Braun, Marilyn Reiger, and Hal Call. The former individuals stressed the need to build an ethical homosexual culture and to end prejudice that privileges heterosexuality as morally superior. Burns, Reiger, and Call took the opposite stance. They emphasized assimilation and suggested that homosexual behavior was a minor characteristic that should not foster a rift with the heterosexual majority.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.32)

“Even so, for the sake of unity and to free the society from the imputation of Communist ties, the founders as a body decided to bow out of the leadership. Gradually they drifted away as the moderates took over. Activism, the questioning of majoritarian values, and the raising of gay consciousness gave away to a policy of accommodation in which homosexuals were urged to adopt “a pattern of behavior that is acceptable to society in general and compatible with recognized institutions . . . of home, church and state” and to pursue a program of working with experts in the medical and scientific community to educate and change public perceptions and gain creditability.” (Edsall, Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World, p. 281)

“Abandoning its communist-based ideology, the post-convention Mattachine Society no longer sought to promote a homosexual culture or mass movement. Instead, it established an assimilationist tendency emphasizing homosexuality as primarily an individual problem, and it turned to psychology to provide theories on homosexuality. The new leadership proposed, and members endorsed, an elimination of any mention of “homosexual culture” from the statement of purpose. Indeed, the statement no longer even identified the Mattachine Society as a homosexual organization; the word “homosexual” was eliminated form the passage altogether.” (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.33)

It was this ‘homosexual' that was popularly known and accepted until the late 1960s when once again homosexuals themselves begin speaking for themselves and defining themselves. It is was this new generation of homosexual activists, who differed from the previous generation of homosexual activist who comprised the homophile movements of the 1950s and early 1960s. Stonewall is often cited as the beginning of this transition. Whereas members of the homophile groups worked together with the psychiatrists, this new generation of homosexual activists tactics were to protest and fight against psychiatrists. While homosexuals seemed to gain control of their lives and their destinies which was the commercialization of homosexuality and the adoption of gay and lesbian as defining terms/identities. The result was AIDS.

Bibliography

Allen, PhD. Michael S “Sullivan's Closet: A Reappraisal of Harry Stack Sullivan's Life and His Pioneering Role in American Psychiatry.” Journal of Homosexuality. 1995, Vol. 29 (1), p.1-18.

Archer, Bert. The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality). Thunder's Mouth Press. New York, 2002.

Burns, Kate. Editor. Gay Rights. Greenhaven Press/Thompson Gale. Farmington Hills, MI, 2006.

D'Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity, p. 467-476 in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove, Aine Barale, and David Halperin. Routledge. New York and London, 1993.

Edsall, Nicholas. Toward Stonewall: Homosexuality and Society in the Modern Western World. University of Virginia Press. Charlottersville & London, 2003.

Engel, Stephen M. The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK, 2001.

McKinney, Kathleen and Susan Sprecher editors. Human Sexuality: The Societal and Interpersonal Context. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Norwood, New Jersey, 1989.

Moratto, Toby. The Politics of Homosexuality. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, 1981.

Rosario, Vernon A. Homosexuality and Science A Guide to the Debates. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara, CA, Denver, CO & Oxford, England, 2002.

Seidman, Steven. Embattled Eros: Sexual Politics and Ethnics in Contemporary America. Routledge. New York, 1992.

Chapter 3 Alfred Kinsey

Larry Houston — 2009-11-29T17:16:00Z

The book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, by Alfred Kinsey published in 1948 is also historically significant in the development of the concept of the “modern homosexual”. Kinsey's study was once considered the "defining study of homosexuality" but which has now been shown to be otherwise. Kinsey in his study saw not a homosexual person, but homosexual acts. He wrote about the physical sexual acts a male did, and it was based on the orgasms he achieved. It was from Kinsey's study that the popular myth, 10% of the population is homosexual was taken from. Kinsey earned a PhD at Harvard and became a biology professor at Indiana University where he wrote biology textbooks and a book about gall wasps. He was an entomologist by training, a foremost authority on gall wasps. It was at Indiana University that Kinsey's interest in sex research arose after he was asked to participate in a sex education course. This course was to prepare students for fulfilling marriages. Kinsey's liberal attitudes and open support for contraception resulted in his being quickly replaced by the university administration in teaching the sex education class. Yet Kinsey's interest in sex research grew and he begins the research that eventually led to the formation of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University. It was through this institute that he published in 1948 the book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.

Time has not served Kinsey and his study well. The criticism he initially received over the publication of his study has continued to grow over the years. Even in his day the study was questioned about its scientific value and the scientific standards he imposed in undertaking his study. It was believed at the time Kinsey was a scrupulous and disinterested scientist during sex research. Time and study of Kinsey, and of the Institute for Sex Research has shown other wise. Besides looking critically at his research and how it was conducted, there are question's about Kinsey's own sexually and sexual life. Questions are raised about Kinsey being a homosexual himself, and he has at least been labeled a bisexual. Two areas of Kinsey's study receiving closer attention is how he chose those who were to be apart of the study and the age of some of those included in the data.

Kinsey in his book, Sexual Behavior of the Human Male, was supposedly based on a representative sample of males in the US at the time. A contemporary of Kinsey's, renowned psychologist, Abraham Maslow, pointed out the concern of “sampling” when using individuals on a clearly “volunteer basis”. They are not a representative sample of the general population. Kinsey rejected Maslow's concern. But his sampling techniques based on today “sampling standards” have raised serious scientific concerns. The findings of his study were terribly flawed by the methodology that was used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population. His study had more college graduates, than was the normative for that period; most people were not college graduates at the time. He included more Protestants than Catholics; the latter were being less likely to engage in "unusual sexual practices.” Approximately 25% of the 5,300 participants in the study were prison inmates. Moreover, Kinsey especially sought out those prisoners who were sex offenders. Of this large percentage of the individuals studied, 44% of these inmates had their homosexual experiences while in prison. Kinsey, himself, admitted to including “several hundred male prostitutes.” Finally, he sought out "militant gays" and members of gay affirming organizations.

“The starting point for discussions of systematic sampling error in sexuality surveys is the studies by Kinsey and colleagues from the 1940s and 1950s (see Brecher & Brecher, 1986; Cochran, Mosteller, & Tukey, 1954; Laumann et al., 1994). In Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin's (1948) landmark survey of 5,300 males, there was no systematic random sampling. Rather, 163 separate groups were approached, including college students and staff, seven groups of institutionalized males, (juvenile delinquents, adult prisoners [including many male prostitutes], and one group of mental patients), and assorted others including high school students, speech therapy patients, conscientious objectors (for army service), hitch hikers, and people from three rooming houses. A serious limitation of the sample was the overreliance on college students. Kinsey estimated that about half of his personal histories were from people recruited following the attendance of “tens of thousands” of people at several hundred college and public lectures given by him and his colleagues (Cochran et. Al., 1954).” (Wiederman and Whitley editors, Handbook for Conducting Sex Research on Human Sexually, p.86-87)

“Once published, it elicited a number of critical reviews from statisticians and 1950 the National Research Council committee that had been funding Kinsey's research requested the American Statistical Association to evaluate Kinsey's methodology. After a long period of assessment, involving many meetings with Kinsey and his team, a detailed report by the review group of three-Cochran, Mosteller and Tukey-was published.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p.b)

“The more serious criticism centered on what were perceived as the three chief weaknesses of the research. They were the lack of an adequate sample, too broad projection from the date to a larger population, and the use of a mechanistic “orgasm-counting” approach to the sexual experience.” (Christenson, Kinsey: A Biography, p. 143)

The book, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male is the report published in its entirety of a American Statistical Association committee. Three of the authors were appointed as a committee of the Association's Commission on Statistical Standards. The committee had the cooperation of Kinsey, which included visits to the Institute of Sex Research, Inc. University of Indiana. Also the authors went through the interviewing process that Kinsey used in gathering the data for his book.

Sampling

“ There is now general agreement in the scientific community that Kinsey's method of obtaining a sample of Americans did not met today's standard of survey sampling.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p.b)

“The critics are correct in their statements about sample size. The implication that conclusions should have been drawn more hesitatingly is also sound.” (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.149)

“Many of KPM's findings are subject to question because of a possible bias in the constitution of the sample." (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.2)

“KPM had to choose the population to which this study should apply. This decision does not seem to have been made clearly. From the basis for the “U. S. Corrections” (p.105) we should infer it to be “all U.S. white males.” (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.10)

“The criticism is well-taken that KPM gave inadequate information about what was done. We cannot tell how big the samples were, what groups went into what cells, or just how the sampling was done, in fact we cannot even make a good stab at guessing the sampled population to which KPM's sample might reasonably apply.” (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.65)

“In the case of homosexuality, we are chiefly concerned about possible bias in the sample, although cover-up may also be a factor.” (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.150)

“The defects of this work are widely known: for example, respondents were disproportionately drawn the Midwest and from college campuses, and the research did not use probability sampling.” (Turner, Miller, and Moses, Editors. AIDS Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use, p.9)

“Both Jones and Gathorne-Hardy agree his sample was distorted with Indiana furnishing the greatest number of subjects, but he also had a disproportionate number of homosexuals.” (Bullough, The Kinsey Biographies,”p.20-21)

“It has long been recognized that one of the greatest faults of the Kinsey research was the way in which the cases were selected: the sample is not representative of the entire U.S. population or any definable group in the population. This fault limits the comparability and appropriateness of the Kinsey data as a basic for calculating the prevalence of any form of sexual conduct.” (Turner, Miller, and Moses, Editors. AIDS Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use, p.82)

Infant and young male child sexual behavior (Chapter 5, “Early Sexual Growth and Activity)

Three of Kinsey's books were reprinted at the same time, in 1998, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Of interest, printed in only one, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female was a new introduction by John Bancraft the current director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research. This introduction included a section about the information that was originally presented in Chapter 5 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. It was this chapter that Kinsey included information about infant and young male child sexual behavior.

Some of the data on the sexual response of children came from one individual who has now been identified, Kenneth Braun. His interview by Kinsey included the notes he recorded of his personal sexual experiences with family members, animals, male and female children as young as infants.

“I decided to check on the sources of this information and found that, without any doubt, all of the information reported in Tables 31-34 came from the carefully documented records of one man. From 1917 until the time that Kinsey interviewed him in the mid-1940s, this man kept notes on a vast array of sexual experiences, involving not only children but adults of both sexes. Kinsey was clearly impressed with by the systematic way he kept his records, and regarded them as of considerable scientific interest. Clearly, his description in the book of the source of this data was misleading, in that he implied that it had come from several men rather than one, although it is likely that information elsewhere in this chapter, on the descriptions of different types of organisms, was obtained in part from some of these other nine men. I do not know why Kinsey was unclear on this point; it was obviously not to conceal the origin of the information from criminal sexual involvement with children, because that was already quite clear. Maybe it was conceal the single source which otherwise might have attracted attention to this one man with possible demands for his identification (demands which now have occurred even though he is long dead). It would be typical of Kinsey to be more concerned about protecting the anonymity of his research subjects (and convincing the reader of the scientific value of the information) than protecting himself from the allegations that eventually followed.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p.k)

“Both Jones and Garthorne-Hardy point out the data was mostly dependent upon the notes taken by a pedophile although Kinsey tried to cover this up by attributing it to varying sources.” (Bullough, “The Kinsey Biographies.” p.22)

Time and time again it is most interesting to read what homosexuals and those advocating for homosexuality write in their numerous publications. The criticisms leveled against each other are far from what is presented in the more popular media. This may be seen now in the criticism of Kinsey, from a book by Bert Archer, The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality). Archer is a self-identified homosexual. Kinsey's sexuality

“Both Jones and Garthorne-Hardy believe that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.” (Bullough, “The Kinsey Biographies,” p.21)

“No one knew at the time, of course, Alfred Kinsey's impetus for embarking on his monumental and epoch-shifting study of human sexuality came from a desire to justify his own sexual thoughts and practices.” (Archer, The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality), p.116)

In his book Archer writes twice and with a footnote that Kinsey used his data gathering trips to have sex with other men. “Things were effected somewhat by the fact Kinsey used these trips to have sex with men.” (Archer, The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality), p.117) Archer uses a footnote, number 66, to support this statement. “Whether he had sex with any of the men he also interviewed is not entirely clear, but we do know, as of 1997, have testimony, albeit anonymous, from a contemporary friend of Kinsey that he did have sex with men on these trips.” (Archer, The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality), p.242) Archer on page 124 states this again, “Not only did he use his data-gathering trips to get sex . . .”

“It is true that Kinsey himself experimented with sex and, among other things, engaged in considerable homosexual activity not only with his assistants, but with others.” (Bullough, “The Kinsey Biographies”, p.19)

“As a result of his own irregular sexual interests and practices, including being married to the one woman, having a long-term simultaneous affair with a man (upon whose death he took up with another), and a rather enthusiastic interest in the sadomasochistic sides of sex, he was not that fond of the sexual theorists of his day, not to mention popular opinion, all of which look disparagingly for one reason or another on the things he enjoyed.” (Archer, The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality), p.116)

Kinsey's interpretations and opinions

“But the fact that the complier of all this data (he eventually interviewed about twelve thousand white men) was out to make a point, was out, in fact, to bring the world's view of human sexuality more in line with his own (which of course was based in intuition, formed as it was before he began his study), is of enormous significance.” (Archer, The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality), p.117)

“The second, not unrelated point is that Kinsey was not merely presenting data in his first Report - he was making a point, a point he himself was clear about long before he handed out his first questionnaire. This colors things.” (Archer, The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality), p.124)

“The most visible trademark of the Kinsey style was an ostentatious avowal of both disinterestedness and incompetence wherever matters of ethics were at issue. “This is first of all a report on what people do,” he wrote of the Male Volume, “which raises no question of what they should do.” In reality, Kinsey held strong opinions about what people should and should not do, and his efforts to disguise those opinions were only too transparent.” (Robinson, The Modernization of Sex: Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, p.49-50)

“At the same time, heterosexual intercourse suffered a relative eclipse simply because of the prominence Kinsey assigned to masturbation and homosexuality, both of which were objects of his partiality.” (Robinson, The Modernization of Sex: Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, p.64)

“But though scientists may avoid explicit moral judgments, research is implicitly striated with values and biases. In fact, Kinsey's values permeate his work.” (Irvine, Disorders of Desire: Sex and Gender in Modern American Sexology, p.37)

“Although Kinsey was often critical of those who made assertions about sexual behavior without revealing the evidence on which their assertions were based, Kinsey indulged in a fair amount of this ‘editorializing' in the Male volume.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. n)

“Although Kinsey claimed to have been completely neutral and detached in gathering and tabulating his data and to have “avoid[ed] social or moral interpretations of the facts,” the Report is peppered with commentary and interpretation that reveal Kinsey's strong biases.” (Lewes, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, p. 125)

“Kinsey, however, did not limited himself to simply reporting his data, but readily offered interpretations and inferences. The Report includes a long section describing checks that performed on the sample and interviewing technique, and concluded that the figures on the frequency of homosexual activity “must be understatements.” (Lewes, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, 128)

Scientific value and scientific standards of Kinsey's work

“He was clearly a stubborn man with strongly held opinions. He needed to be in control, making it less likely that he would accept the advice of others, and this resulted in his taking some wrong directions.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, pg. p)

“Nevertheless, given the potential for selection bias that his method did involve, the review group were critical of his lack of caution in interpreting his findings, and his incorrect use of statistical procedures (e.g., the weighting procedure to produce ‘US corrections')." (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p.b)

“KPM's interpretations were based in part on tabulated and statistically analyzed data, and in part on data and experience which were not presented because of their nature or because of the of space limitations. Some interpretations appear not to have been based on either of theses. ... However, KPM should have indicated which of their statements were undocumented or undocumentable and should have been more cautious in boldly drawing highly precise conclusions from their limited sample.” (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.2)

“By the way of summary, the general statement that much of the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing seems justified.” (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.150)

“The critics are justified in their objections that many of the most interesting and provocative statements in the book are not based on data presented therein, and it is not made clear to the reader on what evidence the statements are based. Further, the conclusions drawn from the data presented in the book are often stated by KPM in much too bold and confident a manner. Taken cumulatively, these objections amount to saying that much of the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing.” “In the case of homosexuality, we are chiefly concerned about possible bias in the sample, although cover-up may also be a factor.” (Cochran, Mosteller, Tukey and Jenkins, Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p.152)

“In reality he limited his research to Americans and Canadians, and he also excluded black histories from his tabulations. Thus by his own admission his generalizations extended only to the white population of North America, despite his inclusiveness of his titles.” (Robinson, The Modernization of Sex: Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, p.53)

Homosexual: 10% Myth

“I think it worth noting two major points about the quoted section from the men's report. The first is that, as I've indicated, what Kinsey said and what we have come to believe Kinsey said are two different things, He did not say that 10 percent of the male population was homosexual. In fact , he said there was no such thing as a homosexual. He was quite explicit on the subject.” (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.123)

“From all of this, it becomes obvious that any question as to the number of persons in the world who are homosexual and the number who are heterosexual is unanswerable.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 650)

Kinsey and homosexuals

“It would encourage clear thinking on these matters if persons were not characterized as heterosexual or homosexual, but as individuals who have had certain amounts of heterosexual experience and certain amounts of homosexual experience. Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 617)

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual.”(Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 639)

“From all of this, it should be evident that one is not warranted in recognizing merely two types of individuals, heterosexual and homosexual, and that the characterization of the homosexual as a third sex fails to describe any actuality.” (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, p. 647)

Bibilography

Archer, Bert. The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality). Thunder's Mouth Press. New York, 2002.

Bullough, Vern L. “The Kinsey Biographies.” Sexuality and Culture. Winter 2006. Volume 10, Number 1, p. 15-22.

Christenson, Co rnelia V. Kinsey: A Biography. Indiana University Press. Bloomington and London, 1971.

Cochran, William G., Frederick Mosteller, John H. Tukey and W. O. Jenkins. Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The American Statistical Association. Washington D.C., 1954.

Irvine, Janice M. Disorders of Desire: Sex and Gender in Modern American Sexology. Temple University Press. Philadelphia, 1990.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Warren B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. W. B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia and London, 1968.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Warren B. Pomeroy, Clyde E. Martin and Paul H. Gebhard. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Indiana University Press. Bloomington & Indianapolis, 1998.

Lewes, Ph.D., Kenneth. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality. Simon and Schuster. New York, 1988.

Robinson, Paul. The Modernization of Sex: Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters and Virginia Johnson. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York, 1989.

Turner, Charles F., Heather G. Miller, and Lincoln E. Moses, Editors. AIDS Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 1989.

Wiederman, and Whitley editors. Handbook for Conducting Sex Research on Human Sexually. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Mahwah, NJ and London, 2002.

Articles and Journals

Larry Houston — 2009-11-28T07:00:00Z

Articles and Journals

Allen, PhD. Michael S “Sullivan's Closet: A Reappraisal of Harry Stack Sullivan's Life and His Pioneering Role in American Psychiatry.” Journal of Homosexuality. 1995, Vol. 29 (1), p.1-18.

The Science of AIDS: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York, 1989.

Bailey, PhD, J. Michael. “Homosexuality and Mental Illness.” Archives of General Psychiatry. October 1999, Vol. 56, 883-884.

Bailey, J. Michael and Kenneth J. Zucker. “Childhood Sex-Typed Behavior and Sexual Orientation: A Conceptual Analysis and Quantitative Review.” Developmental Psychology 1995, Vol.31, No.1, 43-55.

Bailey, J. Michael. PhD. & Richard C Pillard, MD. “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation.” Archives of General Psychiatry. December 1991. Vol. 48, 1089-1096.

Baldwin, John D. Ph.D, and Jannice I. Baldwin. “The Socialization of Homosexuality and Heterosexuality in a Non-Western Society.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1989, Vol.18, No.1, 13-29.

Bancroft, John. “Homosexual Orientation The search for a biological basis.” British Journal Of Psychiatry. 1994, 164, 437-440.

Bancroft, M.D., John, Erik Janssen, Ph.D., David Strong, M.A., Lori Carnes, B.S., Zoran Vukadinovic, B.A., and J. Scott Long, Ph.D. “Sexual Risk Taking in Gay Men: The Reverance of Sexual Arousability, Mood, and Sensation Seeking.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. December 2003, Vol.23, No. 6, p.555-572.

Barber, Nigel. “Ecological and Psychosocial Correlates of Male Homosexuality A Cross-Cultural Investigation.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. May 1988, Vol.29, No.3, 387-401.

Baumrind, Diana. “Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy Implications.” Developmental Psychology 1995, Vol.31, No.1, 130-136.

Beatu, Lee A. “Identity Development of Homosexual Youth and Parental and Familial Influences on the Coming Out Process.” Adolescence. Fall 1999, Vol. 34, No. 135, 596-601.

Bem, Darly J. “Exotic Becomes Erotic: A Development Theory of Sexual Orientation.” Psychological Review.1996, Vol.103, No.2, 320-335.

Bem, Daryl J. “Is EBE Theory Supported by the Evidence? Is It Androcentric?” A Reply to Peplau et al. (1998).” Psychological Review. 1998, Vol.105, No.2, 395-398.

Bieber, Irving. “ A Discussion of “Homosexuality : The Ethical Challenge”.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1976, Vol. 44, No.2, 163-166.

Billingham, Robert E. and Stewart L. Hockenberry. “Gender Conformity, Masturbation Fantasy, Infatuation, and Sexual Orientation: A Discriminant Analysis Investigation.” The Journal of Sex Research. August 1987, Vol.23, No.3, 368-374.

Bocklandt, Sven, Steve Horvath, Eric Vil ain, and Dean H. Hammer. “Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men.” Human Genetics. 2006, 118:691-694.

Bolton Jr., F.G. & Ann E MacEachron.. “Adolescent Male Sexuality: A Developmental Perspective.” Journal of Adolescent Research. 1988, Vol.3, Nos. 3-4, 259-273.

Brookmeyer, Ron. “Reconstruction and Future Trends of the AIDS Epidemic in the United States.” Science. July 5, 1992, Vol.253, No. 5015, 37-42.

Byne, William MD, PhD, and Bruce Parsons, MD, PhD. “Human Sexual Orientation The Biological Theories Reappraised.” Archives of General Psychiatry. March 1993. Vol.50, 228-239.

Cameron, Paul, Kirk Cameron and William L. Playfair. “Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?” Psychological Reports. 1998, 83, 847-866.

Cameron, Paul, Kirk Cameron and Kay Proctor. “Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order.” Psychological Reports. 1989, 64, 1167-1179.

Carballo-Dieguez, Ph.D., Alex and Jose Bauermeister, MPH. “Barebacking”: Intentional Condomless Anal Sex in HIV-Risk Contexts. Reasons for and Against.” Journal of Homosexuality. 2004, Vol.47, No. 1, p. 1-16.

Cass, Vivenne C. “Homosexual Identity Formation: Testing a Theoretical Model.” The Journal of Sex Research May 1984, Vol. 20, No.2, 143-167.

Catania PhD, Joseph A. and et. al. “The Continuing HIV Epidemic Among Men Who have Sex With Men.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6, 907-914.

Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. 1999; 48: 45-48. “Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea Among Men Who Sex With Men-San Francisco, California, 1994-1997.”

Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. 2001; 50: 113-117. “Primary and Secondary Syphilis-United States, 1999.”

Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. 2001; 50: 430-434.”HIV and AIDS – United States, 1981-2000.”

Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. 2001; 50: 922-926. Shigella sonnei Outbreak Among Men Who Have Sex With Men-San Francisco, California, 2001.”

Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report. 2000; 49: 465-470. “HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex With Men and Inject Drugs-United States, 1985-1989.”

Centers for Disease Control. “Suicide Among Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults – United States, 1980-1992.” MMWR Weekly April 21, 1995/44(15); 289-291.

Committee on Adolescence. “Homosexuality and Adolescence.” Pediatrics. October 1993, Vol. 92, No. 4, 631-634.

Cox, BSc (Hons), Morg Psych, Stephen and Cynthia Gallois, PhD. “Gay and Lesbian Identity Development: A Social Identity Perspective.” Journal of Homosexuality. 1996, Vol. 30, (4), 1-30.

D'Augelli, Anthony R. and Scott L. Hershberger. “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth in Community Settings: Personal Challenges and Mental Health Problems.” American Journal of Community Psychology. August 1993, Vol. 21, No. 4, 421-448.

D'Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity, p. 467-476 in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove, Aine Barale, and David Halperin. Routledge. New York and London, 1993.

Dailey, Timothy J. “ Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk.” Family Research Council website. www.frc.org/get/is01j.cfm.

Daily, Timothy J. “The Negative Heath Effects of Homosexuality.” Family Research Council website. www.frc.org/get/is01b1.cfm.

Daily, Timothy J. “Boys Will Be Boys: How a Scientific Cover-Up Led to Gender as a Social Construct.” Family Research Council website. www.frc.org/get/is01a1.cfm.

Daily, Timothy J. “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse.” Family Research Council website. www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm.

Davison, Gerald C. “Homosexuality : The Ethical Challenge.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1976, Vol. 44, No.2, 157-162.

De Cecco, John P. “Confusing the Actor With the Act: Muddled Notions About Homosexuality.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1990. Vol.19, No.4, 409-412.

Delamater, John D. & Janet Shibley Hyde. “Essentialism vs Social Constructionism in the Study of Human Sexuality.” The Journal of Sex Research. 1998, Vol. 35, No. 1, 10-18.

Diamond, Milton. Ph.D. “Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1993, Vol. 22, No. 4, 291-31.

Dube, Eric M. “The Role of Sexual Behavior in the Identification Process of Gay and Bisexual Males.” The Journal of Sex Research. Vol. 37, No. 2, May 2000, p.123-132.

Durby, Dennie D. “Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services. 1994, Vol. 1, No. 3-4. 1-37.

Dykes, Benjamin. “Problems in Defining Cross-Culture “Kinds of Homosexuality” – and a Solution.” Journal of Homosexuality. 2001, Vol. 42 (2), 1-18.

Edwards, Willie J. “operating within the mainstream: copying and adjustment among a sample of homosexual youths.” Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1996, 17, p. 229-251.

Ehrhardt, Anke A. & Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg. “Effects of Prenatal Sex Hormones on Gender-Related Behavior.” Science. March 20, 1981. Vol. 211, No. 4488, 1312-1318.

Elizur, Yoel Ph.D & Michael Ziv, M.A. “Family Support and Acceptance, Gay Male Identity Formation, and Psycholigical Adjustment: A Path Model.” Family Process. Summer 2001, Vol. 40, No. 2, 125-144.

Ellis, Lee & M. Ashley Ames. “Neurohormonal Functioning and Sexual Orientation: A Theory of Homosexuality-Heterosexuality.” Psychological Bulletin. 1987, Vol. 101, No. 2, 233-258.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne, and Evan Balaban. Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science. September 1993, Vol. 216, 1257.

Fay, Robert E., Charles F. Turner, Albert D. Classen, and John H. Gagnon. “Prevalence and Patterns of Same-Gender Sexual Contact Among Men.” Science. January 20, 1989, Vol. 243, No. 4889, 338-348.

Fergusson, PhD, David M., John Horwood, MSc, Annette L. Beautrais, PhD. “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry. Oct. 1999, Vol. 56, 876-880.

Fineberg, Harvey V. “The Social Dimensions of AIDS.” p.111-121 in The Science of AIDS: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York, 1989.

Finnis, John. “Law, Morality, and Sexual Orientation””, p.31- 42 in Same Sex Debating the Ethics, Science and Culture of Homosexuality, editor John Corvino. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lanham, Maryland, 1997.

Floyd, Frank, J. Ph.D. and Roger Bokeman Ph.D. “Coming-Out Across the life Course” Implications of Age and Historical Context.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. June 2006, Vol. 35, No. 3, p. 287-296

Fox, Kimberly K. MD, MPH; Carlos del Rio, MD, King K Holmes, MD, PhD, Edward W Hook III, MD, Franklyn N Judson, MD, Joan S Knapp, PhD, Gary W Procop, MD, MS, Susan A Wang, MD, William L H Whittington, AB, and William C Levine, MD,MSc. “Gonorrhea in the HIV Era: A Reversal in Trends Among Men Who Have Sex With Men.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6, 959-964.

Friedman, Richard C. M.D., and Jennifer I Downey, M.D. “Homosexuality.” The New England Journal of Medicine. Oct. 6, 1994, Vol. 331, No. 4

Friedman, MD, Richard C. “Homosexuality, Psychopathology, and Suicidality.” Archives of General Psychiatry. Oct. 1999, Vol. 56, 887-888.

Friedman, Robert M. “The Psychoanalytic Model of Male Homosexuality: A Historical and Theoretical Critique.” The Psychoanalytic Review. Winter 1986, Vol.73, No.4, 483-519.

Gabriel, Phillips, M. Psych. And Ray Over, Ph.D. “Adult Sexual Orientation in Relation to Memories of Childhood Gender Conforming and Gender Nonconforming Behaviors.” Archives Of Sexual Behavior. 1992, Vol. 21, No. 6, 543-558.

Gadpaille, Warren J. MD. “Cross-Species and Cross- Cultural Contributions to Understanding Homosexuality Activity.” Archives of General Psychiatry. March 1980, Vol. 37, 349-356.

Gamson, Joshua. “Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct?” p.515-537 in Sexualites: Critical Concepts in Sociology Volume II. Edited by Ken Plummer. Routledge. London and New York, 2002.

Garofalo, MD Robert; Cameron Wolf, MS; Shari Kessel, ScB; Judith Palfrey, MD; and Robert H. DuRant, PhD. “The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents.” Pediatrics. May 1998, Vol. 101, No. 5, 895-902.

Gauthier, DeAnn K. and Craig J. Forsyth. “bareback sex, bug chasers, and the gift of death.” Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1999, 20, p. 85-100.

Ghaziani, Amin. “The Circuit Party's Faustin Bargain.” The Gay & Lesbian Review / Worldwide. July-August, 2005, Volume XII, Number 4, p. 21-24.

Gonsiorek John C PhD, Randall L. Sell, ScD, and James D. Weinrich, PhD. “Definition and Measurement of Sexual Orientation.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 1995 Supplement, Vol. 25, 40-51.

Graaf, Ronde, Ph.D., Theo G. M. Sandfort, Ph.D., and Margreet ten Have, Ph.D. “Suicidality and Sexual Orientation: Differences Between en and Women in a General Population-Based sample from the Netherlands.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. June 2006, Vol. 35, No. 3, p. 253-262.

Green, Adam Isaiah. “chem friendly”: the institutional basis of ‘club drug' use in a sample of urban gay men.” Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2003, 24, p.427-447.

Gross PhD, Michael. “The Second Wave Will Drown Us.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2003, Vol. 93, No. 6, 872-879.

Grov, Christian. “make me your death slave”: men who have sex with men and use the internet to intentionally spread HIV.” Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2004, 25, p.329-349.

Gudel, Joseph P. “Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction”. Christian Research Journal. Summer 1992, page 30. (See also CRI Journal web site, article, crj0107a).

Gudel, Joseph P. “Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture”. Christian Research Journal Winter. 1993, page 8. (See also CRI Journal web site, article, crj0108a).

Haaga, David A. “Homophobia?” Journal of Social behavior and Personality. 1991, Vol. 6, No. 1, 171-174.

Haldeman, Douglas C. “The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1994, Vol. 62, No 2, 221-227.

Haldeman, PhD. Douglas C. “The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversation Theraphy. Angels. December 1999, Vol.4, No. 1, 1-4.

Halleck, Seymour L. “Another Response to ‘Homosexuality: The Ethical Challenge'" Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1976, Vol. 44, No 2, 167-170.

Hammer, Dean H., Stella Hu, Victoria L Magnuson, Nan Hu, & Angela M. L. Pattatucci. “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation.” Science. July 16, 1993, Vol. 261, No.5119, 321-327.

Herrel, Richard, MS, Jack Goldberg, PhD, William R True, PhD, MPH, Visvanathan Ramakrishman, PhD, Michael Lyons, PhD, Seth Eison, MD, Ming T Tsuang, MD DSc, PhD. “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality: A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men.” Archives of General Psychiatry. Oct. 1999, Vol. 56, 867-874.

Hershberger, Scott L. “A Twin Registry Study of Male and Female Sexual Orientation.” The Journal of Sex Research. 1997, Vol. 34, No. 2, 212-222.

Hersberger, SL, NW Pilkington, AR D'Augelli. Predictors of Suicide Attempt Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth. Journal of Adolescent Research. October 1997, Vol. 12, No. 4, 477-497.

Hewitt, Christopher. “Homosexual Demography:Implications for the Spread of AIDS.” The Journal of Sex Research. 1998, Vol. 35, No. 4, 390-396.

Hockenberry, M.S., Stewart L. and Robert E. Billingham, Ph.D. “Sexual Orientation and Boyhood Gender Conformity: Development of the Boyhood Gender Conformity Scale (BGCS)”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1987, Vol. 16, No. 6,

Hogan, John. “Gay Genes, Revisited.” Scientific America. November 1995, Vol. 273, No. 5, 26.

Hooker, Evelyn. “Parental Relations and Male Homosexuality in Patient and Nonpatient Samples”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1969, Vol.33, No. 2, 140-142.

Horowitz, Janna L. MS Ed, PH.D. and Michael D Newcomb Ph.D. “A Multidimensional Approach to Homosexual Identity.” Journal of Homosexuality. 2001, Vol. 42, (2), 1-19.

Hudson, W. and Ricketts, W. “A Strategy for the Measurement of Homophobia.” Journal of Homosexuality, Summer, 1980Vol. 5 (4), 357-372.

Imperato-McGinley, Julianne, Luis Guerero, Teofilo Gautier, & Ralph E. Peterson. “Steroid 5 a-Reductase Deficiency in Man: An Inherited Form of Male Pseudohermaphroditism.” Science. December 12, 1974, Vol. 186, No, 4170, 1213- 1215.

Imperato-McGinley, M.D., Julianne, Ralphe E. Peterson M.D., Teofilo Gautier M.D. and Erasmo Sturla, M.D. “Androgens and the Evolution of Male-Gender Identity Among Male Pseudohermaphrodities with 5 a-Reductase Defiency.” New England Journal of Medicine. May 31, 1979, Vol. 300, No. 22. 1233-1237.

Keating, B.A., James and Ray Over, Ph.D. “Sexual Fantasies of Heterosexual and Homosexual Men.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1990, Vol. 19, No. 5, 462-475.

King, Michael & Elizabeth McDonald. “Homosexuals who are Twins.” The British Journal of Psychiatry. March 1992, Vol. 160, 407 - 409.

LaBarbera, Peter, “The Gay Youth Suicide Myth”. The Journal of Human Sexuality.

LeVay, Simon. “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men.” Science. August 30, 1991, Vol. 253, No. 5023, 1034-1037.

Linn, Ph.D., Lawrence S. James Sinden Spiegel MD, MSPH, William Christopher Mathew MD, Barbara Leake Ph.D., Robert Lien MPH, Scott Brooks. “Recent Sexual Behaviors Among Homosexual Men Seeking Primary Medical Care.” Archives of internal Medicine. December 1989, Vol. 194, No. 12, 2685-2690.

Lumby, M. “Homophobia: A quest for a Valid Scale.” Journal of Homosexuality, Fall 1976, Vol. 2, (1), p. 39-47.

Logan, PhD, Colleen R. Homophobia? No, Homopredjudice. Journal of Homosexuality. 1996. Vol. 31(3), p. 31- 53.

Mann, Jonathan M., James Chin, Peter Piot and Thomas Quinn. “The International Epidemiology of AIDS.” p. 51-61 in The Science of AIDS: Readings from Scientific American Magazine. W. H. Freeman and Company. New York, 1989.

Manosevitz, Martin. “Early Sexual Behavior in Adult Homosexual and Heterosexual Males.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1970, Vol. 76, No. 3, 396-402.

Mansergh, Gordon, Gary Marks, Grant N Colfax, Robert Guzman, Melissa Rader and Susan Buchbinder. “ ‘Barebacking' in a diverse sample of men who have sex with men.” AIDS. 2002, Vol.16, No. 4, 653-659.

Mansergh, Gordon, PhD, Grant N Colfax, MD, Gary Marks, PhD, Melissa Rader, MPH, Robert Guzman, BA, & Susan Buchbinder, MD. “The Circuit Party Men's Health Survey: Findings And Implications for Gay and Bisexual Men.” American Journal of Public Health. June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6, 953-958.

Marshall, Eliot. “NIH's “Gay Gene” Study Questioned.” Science. June 30, 1995, Vol. 268, No. 5219,1841.

Mattison, Andrew M., Michael W. Ross, Tanya Woldson, Donald Franklin and HNRC Group. “ Circuit Party Attendance, Club Drug Use, and Unsafe Sex in Gay Men.” Journal of Substance Abuse. September 2001, Vol. 13, Issues 1-2, p.119-126.

McConaghy, DSc, MD, Nathaniel. “ Biologic Theories of Sexual Orientation.” Archives of General Psychiatry May. 1994, Volume 51, 431-431.

McConaghy D.Sc., M.D., Nathaniel. “Unresolved Issues in Scientific Sexology.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 199, Vol. 28, No. 4, 285-318.

McIntosh, Mary. “The Homosexual Role.” Social Problems. 1968, 16, 182-192.

McNall Miles PhD, Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH. “Relationship of Amphetamine and Other Substance Use to Unprotected Intercourse Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Nov. 1999, Vol. 53, 1130-1135.

Mesholam, Uriel, Ph.D. “Bem's Theory of Sexual Orientation: Implication for Treatment and Prevention.” http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bem.html.

Milham, J., San Miguel, C., and Kellogg, R. Fall, Factor Analytic Conceptualization of Attitudes Towards Male and Female Homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 1976, Vol. 2 (1), 3-20.

Mills, John K. “The Psychoanalytic Perspective of Adolescent Homosexuality: A Review.” Adolescence. Winter 1990, Volume 25, No.100, 913-922.

Money, John. “Sin, Sickness, or Status?” American Psychologist. April 1987, Vol.42, No.4, 384-399.

Moscicki, Eve K. ScD, MPH, Peter Mueher, PhD, Lloyd B. Potter, PhD. “Recommendations for a Research Agenda in Suicide and Sexual Orientation.” Suicide and Life -Threatening Behavior. 1995 Supplement, Vol. 25, 82-88.

Muehlenhard, Charlene L. “Categories and Sexuality.” Journal of Sex Research. May 2000, Vol. 37, No. 2, 101-107.

Muehrer, PhD, Peter. “Suicide and Sexual Orientation: A Critical Summary of Recent Research and Directions For Future Research.” Suicide and Life -Threatening Behavior. 1995 Supplement, Vol.25, 72-81.

Nicolosi, Joseph, Ph.D. “A Critique of Bem's E.B.E. Theory.” http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/critique.html.

O'Carroll, MD, MPH, Patrick W., Alan L. Berman, PhD, Ronald W. Maris, PhD, Eve K. Moscicki, ScD, MPH, Bryan L. Tanney, MD, and Morton M. Silverman, MD. “Beyond the Tower of Bable: A Nomenclature for Suicidology.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. Fall 1996, Vol. 26(3), 237-252.

Olson MD, Eva D. and Cheryl A. King, PhD. “Gay and Lesbian Self-Identification: A Response to Rotheram-Borus and Fernandez”. Suicide and Life -Threatening Behavior. 1995 Supplement, Vol.25, 35-39.

Patterson, Charolette J. “Sexual Orientation and Human Development: An Overview.” Developmental Psychology.1995, Vol. 31, No.1, 3-11.

Paul, Jay P., Ron D. Stall, G. Michael Crosby, Donald C. Barrett, & Lorriane T Midanik. “Correlates of sexual-risk taking among gay male substance abusers.” Addiction. 1994 89, 971-983.

Payne,Tony. “ ”. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Vol. 5, No. 2. Fall 2000, 17-19.

Peplau, Letita Anne, Linda D. Garnets, Leah R. Spaulding, Terri D. Conley, and Rosemary C. Veniegas. “A Critique of Bem's “Exotic Becomes Erotic” Theory of Sexual Orientation.” Psychological Review. 1998, Vol.105, No.2, 387-394.

Perkins, Daniel F. and Glen Hartless. “An Ecological Risk – Factor Examination of Suicide Ideation and Behavior of Adolescents.” January 2002, Vol. 17, No. 1, 3-26.

Peterson Anne C .Phd, Leffert, Nacny PhD, and Barbara L. Grham, BA “ Adolescent Development and the Emergence of Sexuality.” Suicide and Life -Threatening Behavior. 1995 Supplement, Vol. 25, 4-17.

Pillard, Richard C. MD, & J Michael Bailey, PhD. “A Biological Perspective on Sexual Orientation.” The Psychiatric Clinics of North America. March 1995, Vol.18, No.1, 71-84.

Phillips, Gabriel M. Psych & Ray Over, PhD. “Adult Sexual Orientation in Relation to Memories of Childhood Gender Conforming and Gender Nonconforming Behaviors.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1992, Vol. 21, No. 6, 543-558.

Proctor, Curtis D. and Victor K. Groze. “Risk Factors for Suicide among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youths.” Social Work. 1994, Vol. 39, No. 5, 504-513.

Remafedi, Gary MD, MPH, “Male Homosexuality: The Adolescent's Perspective.” Pediatrics. March 1987, Vol.79, No. 3, 326-330. Remafedi, Gary MD, MPH. “Adolescent Homosexuality: Psychosocial and Medical Implications.” Pediatrics March 1987, Vol.79, No. 3, 331-336.

Remafedi, MD, MPH, Gary, James A Farrow, MD and Robert W Deisher, MD. “Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth.” Pediatrics. June 1991, Vol. 87, No. 6, 869-875.

Remafedi, MD, MPH., Gary, and S. French M Story, M. Resnick, R. Blum. “The Relationship Between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study.” American Journal of Public Health. January 1998, Vol. 1998, Vol. 88, No. 1, 57-60.

Remafedi, MD, MPH., Gary. “Suicide and Sexual Orientation.” Archives of General Psychiatry. Oct. 1999, Vol. 5, 885-886.

Remafedi, Gary, MD, MPH. “Sexual Orientation and Youth Suicide.” Journal of the American Medical Association. October 6, 1999, Vol. 282, No.13, p. 1291-1292.

Rice, George, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, George Ebers. “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28.” Science. April 23, 1999, Vol. 284, No. 5414, 665-667.

Rich, MD, Charles L., Richard C. Fowler, MD, Deborah Young, MD, and Mary Blenkush, MD. “San Diego Suicide Study: Comparison of Gay to Straight Males. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. Winter 1986, Vol. 16(4), 448-456.

Rind, Bruce. “Biased Use of Cross-Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Male Homosexuality in Human Sexuality Textbooks.” Journal of Sex Research. November 1998, Vo. 35, No. 4, 397-407.

Rogers, Sy. “Questions I'm Most Asked About Homosexuality.” Exodus North America web site, Library.

Rondeau, Paul E. “Selling Homosexuality to America.” Regent University Law Review. Spring 2002, Vol. 14, No. 2, 443-485.

Root-Bernstein, Robert S. “Agenda for U.S. AIDS Research is Due for a Complete Overhaul.” The Scientist. Philade;phia, PA. April 4, 1994, Vol. 8, No. 7, p. 1,11,14.

Rosenberg, PH.D. Philip S., Robert T. Biggar, M.D., James T. Goedert, M.D. “Declining Age at HIV Infection in the United States.” New England Journal of Medicine. March 17, 1994, Vol.330, No. 11, 789-790.

Ross, Michael W. and B.R. Simon Rosser. “Dimensions of Sexual Behavior in Homosexual Men: Replicability Across Time and Country.” Psychological Reports 1991, 68, 607-612.

Rotheram-Borus, PhD, Mary Jane and M Isabel Fernandez, PhD. “Sexual Orientation and Developmental Challenges Experienced by Gay and Lesbian Youths.” Suicide and Life - Threatening Behavior 1995 Supplement, Vol. 25, 26-34.

Rotheram-Borus, Mary J. Joyce Hunter, and Margaret Rosrio. “Suicidal Behavior and Gay Related Stress Among Gay and Bisexual Male Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescent Research. October 1994, Vol. 9, No. 4, 498-508.

Safren, Steven A. and Richard G. Heimberg. “Depression, Hopelessness, Suicidality and Related Factors in Sexual Minority and Heterosexual Adolescents.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1999, Vol. 67, No. 6, 859-866.

San Miguel, MS., Christopher L. and Jim Milham, PhD., “The Role of Cognitive and Situational Variables in Aggression.” Journal of homosexuality. Fall 1976, Vol.2 (1), 11-27.

Savin-Williams, Ritch. “An Ethological Perspective on Homosexuality during Adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research. 1987, Vol. 2, No. 3, 283-302.

Savin-Williams, Rich C. “ Verbal and Physical Abuse as Stressors in the Lives of Lesbian, Gay Male, and Bisexual Youth: Associations With School Problems, Running Away, Substance Abuse, Prostitution, and Suicide.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994, Vol. 62, No. 2, 261-269.

Savin-Williams, Ritch C. “Suicide Attempts Among Sexual – Minority Youths: Population and Measurement Issues.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001, Vol. 69, No. 6, 983-991.

Savin-Williams, Ritch C. Ph.D. and Geoffrey L. Ream, Ph.D. “Pubertal Onset and sexual Orientation in Adolescent National Probability Sample.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. June 2006, Vol. 35, No. 3, p. 279-286

Schneider, PhD, Stephen G., Norman L. Farberow, PhD, and Gabriel N. Kruks. “Suicidal Behavior in Adolescent and Young Adult Gay Men.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. Winter 1989, Vol. 19(4), 381-394.

Schaffer, David. “Political Science.” The New Yorker. May 3, 1993, Vol. 69, 116.

Schaffer, David, FRCP (Lond) FRCP Psych (Lond), Prudence Fisher, MS, R H Hicks, Michael Parides, PhD, and Madelyn Gould PhD, MPH. “Sexual Orientation in Adolscents Who Commit Suicide.” Suicide and Life -Threatening Behavior 1995 Supplement, Vol. 25, 64-71.

Scmidt, Thomas E Ph.D. “Searching for Truth in Lifestyles: Homosexuality and Christian Morality.” Leadership University Reprint (web www.leaderu.com) . The Veritas Forum Lecture at University of North Carolina at Asheville. October 2, 1996.

Schneider, Margaret S., Laura S. Brown, Judith M. Glassgold. “Impolementing the Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation: A Guide for the Perplexed.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2002, Vol.33, No.3, 265-276.

Schreier, Barry A. “Of Shoes, and Ships, and Sealing Wax: The Faulty and Specious Assumptions of Sexual Reorientation Therapies.” Journal of Mental Counseling October 1998, Volume 20 (4), 305-314.

Schuklenk, PhD (cand.), Udo and Michael Ristow, MD. “The Ethics of Research into the Cause(s) of Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality. 1996. Vol. 31(3), p.5-30.

Seidman, Stuart M.D. & Ronald Rieder, M.D. “ A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States.” American Journal of Psychiatry March 1994, 151:3, 330-341.

Sell, ScD, Randall L. and Christian Petrulio, BA. “Sampling Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Gays and Lesbians for Public Health Research: A Review of the literature from 1990-1992.” Journal of Homosexuality. 1996, Vol. 30, (4), 31-58.

Shaffer, David. “Political Science.” The New Yorker. May 3, 1993. Vol. 69, p. 116.

Shernoff, Michael. “The Sociology of Barebacking.” The Gay & Lesbian Review /Worldwide. January-February 2005, Volume XII, Number 1, p.33-35.

Shernoff, Michael. “Crystal's Sexual Persuasion.” The Gay & Lesbian Review / Worldwide. July-August, 2005, Volume XII, Number 4, p. 24-26.

Smith, K. “Homophobia; A Tentative Personality Profile.” Psychological Reports, 1971, 29, 1091-1094.

Socarides, Charles W. “Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality.” The Journal of Psychohistory Winter 1992, 19 (3), 307-329.

Sophie, PhD Joan. “A Critical Examination of Stage Theories of Lesbian Identity Formation.” Journal of Homosexuality. 1985-1986 Winter, Vol. 12 (2), 39-51.

Spitzer, M.D., Robert L. “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation.” Archives of Sexual Behavior October 2003, Vol. 32, No. 5, 403-417.

Spitzer, M.D., Robert L. “Reply: Study Results Should Not be Dismissed and Justify Further Research on the Efficacy of Sexual Reorientation Therapy.” Archives of Sexual Behavior October 2003, Vol. 32, No. 5, 469-472.

Stacy, Judith and Timothy J. Biblarz. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matters?” American Sociological Review. April 2002, Vol. 66, No. 2, p.159-183.

Steyn, Mark. “There's No Stopping Them Now.” Chicago Sun-Times. July 13, 2003. p.35

Stoller, Robert J. MD, and Gilbert H. Herdt, PhD. “Theories of Origins of Male Homosexuality.” Archives of General Psychiatory April 1985, Vol. 42, 399-404.

Storms, Michael D. “Theories of Sexual Orientation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1980, Vol.38, No.5, 783-792.

Storms , Michael D. “A Theory of Erotic Orientation Development.” Psychological Review 1981, Vol. 88, No. 4, 340-353.

Strickland, Bonnie R. “Research on Sexual Orientation and Human Development: A Commentary.” Developmental Psychology 1995, Vol.31, No.1, 137-140.

Tewksbury, Richard. “bareback sex and the quest for HIV: assessing the relationship in internet personal advertisement of men who have sex with men.” Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2003, 24, p.467-482.

Thompson, Norman L., David M Schwartz, & Boyd R. Mcandless. “Parent-Child Relationships and Sexual Identity, In Male and Female Homosexuals and Heterosexuals.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1973, Vol. 41, No.1, 120-127.

Throckmorton, Warren PhD, “Attempts to Modify Sexual Orientation: A Review of Outcome Literature and Ethical Issues.” Journal of Mental Counseling October 1998, Volume 20 (4), 283-304.

Troiden, Richard R. “Becoming Homosexual: A Model of Gay Identity.” Psychiatry. November 1979, Vol. 42, 362-373.

Valeroy, PhD Linda A. (corresponding author) “HIV Prevalence and Associated Risks in Young Men Who Sex With Men.” Journal of the American Medical Association July 12, 2000, Vol. 284, No.2, 198-204.

Van Wyk Paul H. Ph.D, and Chrisann S.Geist, PhD. “Psychosocial Development of Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual Behavior.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 1984, Vol.13, No. 6, 505-543.

Westhaver, Russel. “ ‘Coming Out of Your Skin': Circuit Parties, Pleasure, and the Subject.” Sexualities. July 2005, Volume 8, Number 3, p. 347-374.

Whitman, Ph.D., Frederick L., Milton Diamond, Ph.D., James Markin, B.A., “Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets.” Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1993, Vol. 22, No. 3, 187-206.

Wickelgren, Inggrid. “Discovery of ‘Gay Gene' Questioned.” Science. April 23, 1999, Vol. 284, No. 5414, 571.

Wolitski, Richard J. MA, Ronald O Valiserri, MD, MPH, Paul H Denning, MD, MPH, and William C Levine, MD, Msc. “Are We Headed for a Resurgence of the HIV Epidemic Among Men Who Have Sex With Men?” American Journal of Public Health June 2001, Vol.91, No.6, 883-88.

Worthen, Frank. “Ex-Gay: Fact or Fantasy?” Exodus North America web site, Library.

Yoder, Kevin A. “Comparing Suicide Attempters, Suicide Ideators, and Nonsuicidal Homeless and Runaway Adolescents.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. Spring 1999, Vol. 29(1), 25-36.

Zera, Deborah. “Coming of Age in a Heterosexist World: The Development of Gay and Lesbian Adolescents.” Adolescence. Winter 1992, Vol. 27, No. 108, 849-854.