Re: Disturbing article

October 30, 2000

Hey all,

You have to take a look at this article I just read.

Who is this Shoen? Has anyone heard of him? Scary the

things that insurance companys can control

Hillary

http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/lymedisease.html

__________________________________________________

October 30, 2000

This is a great article! I think it was written about two years ago and

unfortunately not much has changed since then. Schoen and all the other

doctors in this article are well known for being on one side or the other on

this issue. I still send this article to friends and new Lymies to quickly

explain what is happening to me. Thanks for sharing it with us. It's

certainly worth reading again. And again.

Robynn

-OwnereGroups

Re: [ ] disturbing article

Hey all,

You have to take a look at this article I just read.

Who is this Shoen? Has anyone heard of him? Scary the

things that insurance companys can control

Hillary

http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/lymedisease.html

October 31, 2000

shoen is one of what i lovingly cll the " s - holes of lyme schoen...sigal

....and steere ...perfest together........lol....

Reid

October 31, 2000

Hillary.

That article "The Dirty Truth Behind Lyme Disease Research" is a shocker the first time you read it......but it has become the one most important writings I have found.....I give it to anyone who wants to know more about LD. It is shorter than reading a whole book for those casually interested......but tells all.

Happy (Maine)

February 12, 2004

Hello Lierre...this would also be disturbing to me, though admittedly I am

biased as a lesbian. I just spent a very sad 20 minutes reading about the

war on gay marriage, so this is just adding on to the theme of the day. I

would not be surprised if this was the way said organizations felt about

homosexuality. I love The Continuum Concept, but Liedloff tried to blame

homosexuality on cultural disfunction, though she later changed her tune a

bit on the website. I usually just read around this type of rationalization.

I figure it makes homophobic people feel safe if they can explain us. I am

finally in a very stable relationship, my first in five years, and

eventually I might want to get married, so I hope they work this all out.

take care,

Michele

_________________________________________________________________

Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up

Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

February 12, 2004

>I just got my Wise Traditions Winter 2003 and I'm disturbed by the

>review of the book " The Truth About Children's Health. " The reviewer

>writes:

>In his chapter on The Ancestry Factor he even talks about sexual

>preference and the biological and physiological reasons for the

>propensity towards homosexuality--as appeared in the Pottenger cat

>studies.

>

>So...being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by improper nutrition?

<snip>

>I'm writing to Sally Fallon with my concerns. Is this book

>representative of the WAP Foundation's ideas about gays and lesbians?

>I'm going to be really depressed if I'm the only one who finds this

>disturbing.

>Lierre

>

so i gather it was a thumbs up review, not a thumbs down? i haven't received

my journal yet, so haven't seen it. i would suggest not only contacting

sally, but writing a letter to the editor with your concerns - i'd imagine

the spring journal might be full of them regarding this review.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

February 12, 2004

yeah, what michele said.

and also, GRRRRRRRR!!

At 08:16 AM 2/12/2004, you wrote:

>Hello Lierre...this would also be disturbing to me, though admittedly I am

>biased as a lesbian. I just spent a very sad 20 minutes reading about the

>war on gay marriage, so this is just adding on to the theme of the day. I

>would not be surprised if this was the way said organizations felt about

>homosexuality. I love The Continuum Concept, but Liedloff tried to blame

>homosexuality on cultural disfunction, though she later changed her tune a

>bit on the website. I usually just read around this type of rationalization.

>I figure it makes homophobic people feel safe if they can explain us. I am

>finally in a very stable relationship, my first in five years, and

>eventually I might want to get married, so I hope they work this all out.

>

>take care,

>

>Michele

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Check out the great features of the new MSN 9 Dial-up, with the MSN Dial-up

>Accelerator. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

>

February 12, 2004

In a message dated 2/12/04 12:44:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> That isn't to say that some people (and animals) don't make fun (or sinful,

> depending on your take on things) sexual choices. In fact one article

> I read was about the differences between men who identify themselves

> as " gay " vs men who " like to have sex with men " but don't consider

> themselves gay.

This is a great point. On the one hand, there's obviously something physical

going on. On the other, sexuality is clearly a continuum, and you aren't

either " straight " or " gay. " Maybe it can be both physical and (or) cultural,

and

both orientation or choice.

Chris

February 12, 2004

In a message dated 2/12/04 3:15:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I suppose there's some degree of choice, presumably inversely related to

> your distance from neutral (which I guess would mean purely bisexual) on

> the axis, but if you're attracted to men and not women, where's the

> choice?

I said perhaps it was for some people and not others. Some people can go

either way. Perhaps magnitude of rigidity is as genetically determined as the

qualitative value of rigidity.

> But to equate origins of that nature with immorality or sin

> or what have you is absurd;

Would you mind quoting where I did that?

Chris

February 12, 2004

@@@@@@@@@

> I just got my Wise Traditions Winter 2003 and I'm disturbed by the

> review of the book " The Truth About Children's Health. " The

reviewer

> writes:

> In his chapter on The Ancestry Factor he even talks about sexual

> preference and the biological and physiological reasons for the

> propensity towards homosexuality--as appeared in the Pottenger cat

> studies.

>

> So...being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by improper nutrition?

> Lierre

@@@@@@@@@

Lierre,

The false view that homosexuality is unnatural is one of the social

issues that most infuriates me, so I share your general concerns, but

I'm a little confused by your email. Is that a direct quote from the

review above? From that one sentence I can't infer anything

disturbing. I don't have a copy of the article myself, but I'm

curious about the exact statements that are disturbing. Unless it's a

long passage, perhaps you could clarify this? While it has no

bearing on the moral issue, which always has to be resolved in favor

the historical imperatives of pluralism, the idea that the genetic

component of homosexuality could be related to details of nutrition

(potentially more than just a proper/improper dyad) is an interesting

scientific possibility that can't be dismissed out of hand.

Mike

SE Pennsylania

February 12, 2004

>So...being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by improper nutrition?

>Haven't we already tried, and one would hope, abandoned, eugenics?

Sorry, but the mainstream scientists are tending to agree that

male homosexuality, at any rate, is likely nutritional or hormonal,

caused by something that goes awry in the mother's womb.

The most convincing data to date is an epidemiological study that was

in New Scientist a few months ago. It covered a lot of subjects,

and basically, the more BOYS a woman has, the more chance the

later-born ones will be gay. So in an Irish family with 14 kids, 7 boys,

the chances are really good that the last kid will by gay. Firstborn

sons rarely are.

Which jibes with what Price was saying too ... don't have too many

kids, don't space them too close together.

No one is really sure why this happens. However, studies on rats

(changing hormones in utero) show it's pretty easy to make them

homosexual, reliably. Also brain scans of homosexual men show

marked differences than straight men. So *something* physical

is going on, this isn't always merely a " lifestyle choice " .

What is really, really ironic about this data is that a lot of the families

who have a lot of kids like that do so for religious reasons, and

often they are Catholic. So that last son ends up in the priesthood.

So if there is good data that having too many kids causes homosexuality,

and if homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, does that mean it is sinful

to have too many kids?

That isn't to say that some people (and animals) don't make fun (or sinful,

depending on your take on things) sexual choices. In fact one article

I read was about the differences between men who identify themselves

as " gay " vs men who " like to have sex with men " but don't consider

themselves gay.

-- Heidi

>

February 12, 2004

At 12:40 PM 2/12/2004, you wrote:

>

> >So...being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by improper nutrition?

> >Haven't we already tried, and one would hope, abandoned, eugenics?

>

>Sorry, but the mainstream scientists are tending to agree that

>male homosexuality, at any rate, is likely nutritional or hormonal,

>caused by something that goes awry in the mother's womb.

>The most convincing data to date is an epidemiological study that was

>in New Scientist a few months ago. It covered a lot of subjects,

>and basically, the more BOYS a woman has, the more chance the

>later-born ones will be gay. So in an Irish family with 14 kids, 7 boys,

>the chances are really good that the last kid will by gay. Firstborn

>sons rarely are.

the real problem here, though, is that homosexuality becomes some kind of

" mutant genetic disaster " which i think is just totally bogus. i don't know

if i can buy the validity of any of these scientific arguments anyway,

since homosexuality has been around (and well documented) since ancient

times. (i guess that's two problems, isn't it?)

-katja

February 12, 2004

In a message dated 2/12/04 4:28:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

rawbabymama@... writes:

> I used to be a, um, phone actress, and 93%(actual %, I was bored) of the

> men

> I spoke with, of which 98% where white males, had fantasies about other men,

>

> but didn't believe they were gay, and often wanted a woman to force them

> into it. Many admitted gay bashing at one point or another, and their

> fantasies frequently included wanting the fantasy dominant male(usually

> black) to impregnate their wives, as they believed their own genetic

> material to be inferior.

I don't know what percentage of men " phone act " so I'm not sure how

representative this is, but that does seem reasonable to me... I suspect that

most

people have some sort of bisexual capacity.

What I was saying before was that some people might be gay or straight by

nature, but some people may have a genetic capacity to be either or both, which

then gets actualized by an interaction with culture and psychology to produce a

final trait.

Since it is strongly to one's advantage in our culture to be heterosexual,

most of these " bi-capable " folks would wind up heterosexual, either as a

conscious choice, or because they had a clear psychological benefit to not

believe

they have that capacity.

Personally, I don't have any kind of revulsion toward the idea of sex with

other men, so while I'm not gay, don't seek sexual relationships with men, or

even think about it 99.99999999999999% of the time, I'm not entirely convinced

that if I had no cultural and familial " training " to be heterosexual, I

wouldn't.

Natural selection would clearly favor people with heterosexual capabilities

over those without, and would additionally favor people with a *tendency* to

*prefer* heterosexual relations, but wouldn't for any reason select *against*

people who *could* engage in homosexual relations.

Chris

February 12, 2004

At 02:23 PM 2/12/04 -0500, you wrote:

>the real problem here, though, is that homosexuality becomes some kind of

> " mutant genetic disaster " which i think is just totally bogus. i don't know

>if i can buy the validity of any of these scientific arguments anyway,

>since homosexuality has been around (and well documented) since ancient

>times. (i guess that's two problems, isn't it?)

>-katja

As far as " mutant genetic disaster " , I have two words: population control.

While a " cause " is by no means fully established, I think enough has been

done to seriously support a biological factor, even if only a partial one.

I'd much rather people focused on that than the standard

religiously-based SIN!SIN!SIN! hysteria.

$01.5

Whose Name Is Not

But Which Does Begin With " M "

February 12, 2004

Heidi-

>It covered a lot of subjects,

>and basically, the more BOYS a woman has, the more chance the

>later-born ones will be gay.

What I'm really curious about (and I suppose some people will take offense,

but please believe I mean none) is whether this phenomenon is in any way

diet-dependent. IOW, what happens with women who are robustly healthy,

eating a rich, nutritious NT/WAPF-type diet, properly spacing children to

allow for recuperation, etc.? Not an easy study to conduct, especially

since the definition of " healthy " is so frequently distorted and nonsensical.

-

February 12, 2004

>> So *something* physical

is going on, this isn't always merely a " lifestyle choice " . <<

Heidi, what the hell are you talking about? I can't see how it's EVER a

" lifestyle choice. " My " lifestyle " and my lesbianism are not related. When I

lived in San Francisco and went to clubs every night and drank and did drugs,

that was a lifestyle. When I got older and moved to the country and got clean

and sober and became a fulltime writer and started raising dogs, that was a

lifestyle. My being a lesbian is just part of who I am, it influences my

lifestyle (such as my decision on where to live), but it isn't synoymous with

it!

I'm perfectly willing to believe that sexual orientation (gawd, I hate that

phrase!) is a function of genetics, development, nutrition, and all kinds of

biochemical and physical properties. Who cares? So is my hair color. It's just

part of you who you are. Saying this is the result of something going " awry " is

extremely insulting. Being gay is not a birth defect, for heaven's sake! It's

just a part of natural biological variation.

Christie

February 12, 2004

>> As far as " mutant genetic disaster " , I have two words: population control.

<<

Actually, the theory of kin survival might support a certain proportion of

homosexual family members as increasing, not decreasing, population. In social

species, let's say wolves for example, only one female in the pack reproduces.

All the rest of the pack members contribute to the survival of her offspring. In

the same way, having non-reproducing members of a human family or community

could contribute to the survival of those children who are born, by providing

childcare, reducing birth rates which can INCREASE survival of the children who

are born even to the point of a net population gain, and replacing reproducing

family members if they die or are otherwise unable to raise their offspring.

Christie

February 12, 2004

Chris-

>Maybe it can be both physical and (or) cultural, and

>both orientation or choice.

I suppose there's some degree of choice, presumably inversely related to

your distance from neutral (which I guess would mean purely bisexual) on

the axis, but if you're attracted to men and not women, where's the

choice? Aside from those who believe in the fiction of reeducation, I

suppose some religious types would say the decision to indulge homosexual

desires is the " choice " , but that position assumes that homosexuality or

homosexual behaviour is sinful. I have extremely little conscious,

volitional control over which *women* I find attractive; I can't imagine

being attracted to men, let alone " choosing " to be attracted to them, so

how on earth are gays and lesbians supposed to " choose " to reverse the

polarity of their sexuality? And if we discard the notion that

homosexuality is sinful, then even the choices (whether imagined by

external observers or actually real) made by people with more malleable,

middle-of-the-spectrum sexuality have no inherent morality or immorality,

desirability or undesirability, at least as far as gender goes.

Perhaps homosexuality is the result of some kind of nutritional deficiency,

hormonal alteration or immune response on the part of the mother. If so,

presumably improved health and diet would reduce the incidence of

homosexuality. But to equate origins of that nature with immorality or sin

or what have you is absurd; as well we might insist that short people

shouldn't be allowed to marry, or chubby people shouldn't be allowed to

ride the subway -- or we could pick any of an infinitude of other arbitrary

and unfair rules.

-

February 12, 2004

Chris-

> > But to equate origins of that nature with immorality or sin

> > or what have you is absurd;

>

>Would you mind quoting where I did that?

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you did; sorry about that. I was just talking

generally.

-

February 12, 2004

>. Saying this is the result of something going " awry " is extremely insulting.

Being gay is not a birth defect, for heaven's sake! It's just a part of natural

biological variation.

>

>Christie

Well, perhaps the word " awry " shouldn't be used then. How about

" something happens differently " ? My use of " lifestyle choice " was

quoting others who say that (judgmentally and otherwise)

-- I haven't the slightest idea where

choice ends and biology begins for these things (look at the obesity

issue for a confusing example). So when you say " being a lesbian

is part of who you are " do you mean it is more biological than

psychological or a choice?

In any event, your hair color could good be a good thing or a bad

thing, depending on how you view it, but in any case you won't get sent

to jail for it and probably won't even face any discrimination because of

it, and the science of hair color is pretty well understood and you

really can't choose your " natural hair color " .

I think the possibility there is a biological component is a BIG deal to

those folks whose religion is incompatible with their sexuality.

They're being told they can change, and some of them feel they

SHOULD change. If it's just " natural biological variation " but it

IS provably biological, that helps end the debate.

-- Heidi

February 12, 2004

>What I'm really curious about (and I suppose some people will take offense,

>but please believe I mean none) is whether this phenomenon is in any way

>diet-dependent. IOW, what happens with women who are robustly healthy,

>eating a rich, nutritious NT/WAPF-type diet, properly spacing children to

>allow for recuperation, etc.? Not an easy study to conduct, especially

>since the definition of " healthy " is so frequently distorted and nonsensical.

>

>-

Well, that is kind of what I was getting at. I can't see how a woman with 10

closely

spaced kids (as some of the women in the article had) could be terribly healthy

unless she was some sort of superwoman. If you nutrition levels go down, your

hormones get messed up too. There is all kind of data that firstborn kids

do better in multiple ways, which is often said to be how they are treated,

but it may be nutritional/hormonal too.

I think it was who noted that the Amish women with lots of kids

also had thin hair.

-- Heidi

February 12, 2004

>Actually, the theory of kin survival might support a certain proportion of