Publication NotesThis essay is published by Patrick Meehan and belongs to a collection of literary works accessible at
It is a copyrighted work and may not be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s permission.
The HIV-AIDS Hypothesis and the Fourth Estate
Copyright © P. Meehan July, 2001. All rights reserved.
We are assured by the nation’s reporters and by the editors and publishers whom they serve that we, the public, have a right to be informed. Which, in the collective judgement of these worthies, is a thing that should cause the courts, when haling these selfsame worthies before the bar of justice, to put aside the statutes forbidding disclosure of secrets of state and the use of jailing for contempt as a device to loosen tongues. Put plainly, these scriveners and their superordinates argue, often successfully, that they should be to a degree above the law, in order to preserve and protect the sources of information they employ in unearthing and making known to the public tidings of import and consequence–a mission they proclaim to be the sine qua non of the health of our democratic order. The democratic theory has it, after all, that the people decide all things that are of import and consequence, and uninformed decisions are not, it may reasonably be argued, sound decisions.
I must confess that I find these theorizings unpersuasive, knowing, in fact, of no actual right in law or in custom of the public to be informed, and, in any case, as a natural born American, being constitutionally incapable of even imagining a mere mortal who should properly be unbound by a law that binds me, let alone believing in the reality of so majestic a creature. It is, it seems to me, sufficient for the realization of the democratic theory that those of us who form the body politic be at liberty to search out the sorts of information that we may be moved to search out, jointly or severally, from whatever sources may take our fancies, not excluding the pages of the daily newspapers or the dismal announcements of the television news criers. But, above all, from the vast assemblage of electronic libraries and document troves that are as close to our kitchens and parlors as are the nearest internet connections.
But if the pretensions and the claims of privilege of these news gatherers and purveyors are, for argument’s sake, granted, what will they have to say for themselves when it becomes known that they have for years striven to keep from us certain tidings of profound import and consequence? And, in so doing, revealing their vaunted mission to be a barefaced sham?
They have, in fact, for seventeen years declined to make clear, forcefully, that there exists no proof that the virus known as HIV causes AIDS. That the expenditure of dollars by the billions and the toil of thousands of researchers have not served to prove what was taken by the public to have been proved at some point preceding the 1984 press conference that was staged to proclaim the existence of this virus, HIV, by the then serving Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler, and the physician, Robert Gallo, who was reckoned by all to have brought off the proof. Such announcements, it must be noted, are properly made through the device of peer-reviewed papers published in learned journals, not through political carnival acts and ex cathedra proclamations. The matter of Gallo’s presumed proof is summed with concision in a 1993 statement by the American biochemist and Nobel Laureate in chemistry, Kary Mullis, as reported by The Sunday Times of London:
If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.1
The better sort of British newspaper, it would seem, gives evidence of more interest in the things of the visible world affecting our well being than do our own newspapers of any sort. Have those who shape the news at The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post, sought an interview with Mullis concerning the statement quoted above? He is not, after all, some half anonymous science junkie, but is, among other things, the developer of the polymerase chain reaction technique, arguably among the most significant scientific advancements of the past three decades. Surely his understanding of a thing of great national import that relates directly to his field of special competence is newsworthy; more, the fact to which he points in this quote should electrify a news gatherer as the spoor of a rat electrifies a terrier.
There was no excitement in the pressrooms fourteen years ago, when a certain Peter Duesberg,2 an eminent American professor of molecular and cell biology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of an Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health, disposed of Gallo’s HIV hypothesis, beginning with the fact that the HIV virus does not meet the conditions, postulated in the nineteenth century by Jacob Henle and Robert Koch, and called Koch’s Postulates, that are the sine qua non for establishing a causal relation between a microbe and a disease; specifically, a given microbe is properly ruled the cause of a particular disease if, and only if:
Postulate 1: It is found in every patient displaying the symptoms of the disease, without exception, and in sufficient quantities and so distributed as to account fully for those symptoms.
Postulate 2: Samples of it may readily be isolated from the infected tissues of such a patient and grown in a pure culture, outside the human body.
Postulate 3: Following its introduction from this culture into a healthy, susceptible animal or human subject, that subject must, after a predictable incubation period, display the symptoms of the disease.
Postulate 4: Samples of it may be isolated from such a subject and grown in a pure culture, precisely as in the case of the primary samples.
Scientists, after all, do not search for truths; truths are sought by poets and mystics. Scientists devise models of what they conceive to be the structures of reality, shaping their models to serve as explications of the phenomena associated with these structures and to serve as phenomenological predictors. The germ theory of disease is clearly reflected in Koch’s Postulates; it is in fact obvious that these postulates serve as a formal expression of that theory in an operational, or clinical, sense.
From Duseberg’s papers, and from other papers found in the biomedical literature, there are summarized here the primary arguments demonstrating that the HIV hypothesis does not satisfy Koch’s Postulates:3
The aetiology of AIDS under the HIV hypothesis of causality varies according to which AIDS indicator disease is focused upon. The AIDS cellular indicator disease, immunodeficiency, for example, requires that the virus deplete the immune system’s CD4+ T cells, by killing them; another example, the AIDS neoplastic indicator disease, Kaposi’s sarcoma, requires that the virus affect the skin cells, in some way not specified by the hypothesis; and in the case of the AIDS degenerative indicator disease, dementia, that it affect brain neurons, in some way not specified by the hypothesis. But this virus is not in fact found in Kaposi’s sarcomas, nor in neurons of any human central nervous system, where, indeed, its presence would signal an event smacking of the miraculous; it is a retrovirus, and cannot, therefore, infect a non-dividing cell. In the systems of immunodeficiency patients the virus is expressed, if at all, in at most 1 in 10,000 CD4+ T cells, while approximately 1 in 20 of the body’s CD4+ T cells are regenerated during the two days the virus requires to infect a cell.:4
For no case of a neoplastic or degenerative AIDS indicator disease does the HIV hypothesis stipulate by what mechanism, or mechanisms, this virus produces its effects, and it stipulates a mechanism in the immunodeficiency case that flies in the face of fact: a retrovirus, upon infecting a cell, does not kill it, but integrates its own genetic material with that of this host cell. The point bears repeating: a retrovirus is parasitic in nature, not cytotoxic. Since there is posited no meaningful relation between HIV and the symptoms of the AIDS syndrome, this virus cannot, by definition, be said to account for those symptoms. It satisfies none of the conditions of Koch’s first postulate.
The HIV hypothesis fails to satisfy the conditions of Koch’s second postulate as well:
Duesberg notes that isolation of the virus is achieved in no more than 80% of AIDS cases, and in those cases is achieved with great difficulty, through reactivation of the latent form of the virus, the free virus being too rare in AIDS patients to serve the purpose. Samples of millions of white blood cells (lymphocytes) from the AIDS patient are cultured for weeks, freed from the virus-neutralizing immune system of the host and undergoing shocks from chemical stimulants that may in time activate a single intact virus, and, so, initiate the infection of the other cells. It is an enormous stretch to hold that what is described here meets Koch’s second postulate. Further, this process fosters the propagation of the virus through the methodology characterizing retrovirus replication, which is to say, the integration of its genetic information with that of its host cell, its host cell in this case being the very CD4+ T cell of the immune system which it is hypothesized to kill.
Finally, the tests of the HIV hypothesis against the conditions of Koch’s third postulate are inconclusive, which leaves the fourth postulate moot. The second and third postulates are in reality moot as well, since the hypothesis does not meet the conditions of the first postulate, but it is of more than academic interest to consider these postulates as they relate to HIV despite their moot character:
Duesberg reports that, since 1984, approximately 150 chimpanzees have been innoculated either with the blood of AIDS victims or with HIV cultured in vitro, and all, within a month of innoculation, tested HIV-positive; which is to say, they tested positive for the presence in their blood of HIV antibodies, from which it may be inferred that they are immunized against whatever disease is caused by the HIV virus, if in fact it actually causes one. As late as 1995, at the time of Duesberg’s report of this matter, none of the chimpanzees had been afflicted with AIDS, nor have any been so afflicted at the date of this writing (July, 2001). But HIV, as a causative agent of AIDS, could certainly be species-specific, and, so, from this outcome, nothing definitive can be concluded.
Prior to the screening of the nation’s blood supply, in 1984, some fifteen thousand hemophiliacs were, through blood transfusions, infected by the HIV virus, as determined by the detection in their systems of HIV antibodies. These infections clearly do not meet the conditions of the third postulate: they were not produced by the accidental introduction into these subjects’ bodies of HIV cultured in vitro. But they are subjects whose examinations reveal much that is of interest to the student of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, and of the movement it has created.
Using the HIV hypothesis as a predictor, half these victims of accidental infection should have died of AIDS by 1995. In fact, less than 2 % of them per year had by that time developed AIDS, a figure that matches the incidence of immune system deficiency and death among HIV-negative hemophiliacs. In this connection, it should be noted that hemophilia is commonly treated by scheduled injections of a blood component known as Factor VIII, which produces some clotting capacity in the blood; but unless the Factor VIII injected is of a highly purified form, immune deficiencies in time develop in its recipients, resulting in their being beset by opportunistic infectious AIDS indicator diseases, chiefly pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) and certain yeast infections.
An HIV-negative hemophiliac who becomes afflicted with one of these diseases is said to be suffering from precisely that disease, namely, PCP or one of the specific yeast infections of note; an HIV-positive hemophiliac who becomes afflicted with the selfsame disease is said to be suffering from AIDS. This convention is completely general: an HIV-positive patient, classified as a member of any population at all, who is afflicted with an AIDS indicator disease, is said to be afflicted with AIDS. An HIV-negative patient classified as a member of the same population and afflicted with the same AIDS indicator disease is not said to be afflicted with AIDS, but is said to be afflicted with the specific disease of note. In adopting this convention, it obviously becomes possible to state with indisputable accuracy, and with shameless mendacity, that everyone afflicted with AIDS, without exception, is HIV-positive.
It is in fact asserted by the governing bodies of the biomedical order of the United States–the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–that there is a 100% correlation between HIV and AIDS, which is, firstly, a brazen falsehood, since the correlation is between HIV antibodies and AIDS, not between HIV and AIDS, a distinction of the first importance; and is, secondly, wholly fraudulent, since the correlation between HIV antibodies and AIDS is not discovered to be–but is defined to be–100%: to reiterate what is stated above, a patient is defined to have AIDS if, and only if, that patient has an AIDS indicator disease and tests HIV-positive. It is a piece of circular logic devised, incredibly, by the leading members of an order in whose members perfidy should simply be unimaginable. And is uinimaginable to those of us who were nurtured on tales of Jenner and Lister and Pasteur and Reed.
Faced at the 1992 AIDS conference in Amsterdam with the unexpected airing in public by The Times of London–an airing not echoed by our American press–of the embarrassing intelligence that there exist all manner of HIV-negative victims of AIDS indicator diseases, functionaries of our public health agencies swiftly discovered a disease that covers such cases, a disease which they call Idiopathic CD4+Lymphocytopenia, or ICL. The crucial item in this instructive and amusing specimen of bafflegab is idiopathic, a word in the medical lexicon used to identify any pathological condition arising from within an affected organ, as distinct from one that is a consequence of some dysfunction external to that organ. There may by definition be no AIDS without HIV.
Have the hierarchs of the CDC, or those of the NIH, been asked by agents of The New York Times about this scandalous hoodwinking of a trusting public? Or by agents of The Wall Street Journal? Or of The Washington Post or The Los Angeles Times? Or of any metropolitan daily? And if not, why not? Does anyone imagine that the deceits of these shadowed and much diminished foes of pestilence could long remain unknown in the nation’s pressrooms? They are deceits that are visible to anyone who glances at the records accessible to the whole world. But they are not on display on the front pages of the nation’s public prints.
A sample of size 15,000 clearly constitutes a statistical universe. The question that must strike any sensible student of these matters is, Why do the members of this group of 15,000 HIV-positive hemophiliacs become afflicted with the AIDS indicator disease, PCP, or one of the AIDS yeast indicator infections, but not with the AIDS indicator diseases, Kaposi’s sarcoma, dementia, lymphoma and wasting disease, which are rampant among drug addicts and certain (but not all) classes of homosexual men. I submit that any rational medical investigator confronted by the facts evidenced in all this would, at least for the nonce, put from mind this alleged HIV pathogen and consider searching for an answer to the question, What characteristics are shared by drug addicts and AIDS-afflicted homosexual men that are not shared by hemophiliacs? A search that clearly should be pursued without dividing any of these AIDS risk groups into those who test positive for viral antibodies and those who do not.
Gallo has threatened for some years to refute Duseberg’s arguments relating to the HIV hypothesis, as have other doyens of the HIV movement, but, so far, they have, all of them, controlled the passions that impel them to do so. Gallo, however, has written a book. In it, he has this to say of Koch’s Postulates:
Koch’s postulates, while continuing to be an excellent teaching device, are far from absolute in the real world outside the classroom (and probably should not be in the classroom anymore except in a historical and balanced manner). They were not always fulfilled even in his time. Certainly, they did not anticipate the new approaches available to us, especially in molecular biology, immunology, and epidemiology, or the special problems created by viruses. They were, after all, conceived only for bacterial disease, and even here they often fail. Sometimes they are impossible to fulfill; many times one would not even want to try to do so; and sometimes they are quite simply erroneous standards. … It is important to emphasize again that these [postulates] were ideal guidelines for demonstrating a bacterial cause of disease one hundred years ago.[all emphases in the original] … The last one hundred years have also conclusively taught us that the underlying premise of Koch’s postulates is wrong: it assumes that there is one causative agent for each disease, and that any one disease has only one causative agent. We know better.5
The first sentence of this passage is plainly incoherent. How does a translation of the germ theory of disease into a well considered, logically unassailable procedure for the verification of hypotheses of pathogenesis lose its force when put into practice–cease to be “absolute”, in Gallo’s parlance? Further, the invidious nature of the relation between the terms real world and classroom reveals Gallo’s incomprehension of the enlargement of the mind’s powers of imaginative conception that derive from a mutually informing relation between theory and practice. Finally, Gallo’s muddled, self-contradictory apprehension of the classroom worth of Koch’s Postulates is properly dismissed as of no more significance than noise.
To say that these postulates were not always fulfilled in Koch’s own time is to say that there were scientists of that era who ignored the requirement for rigorous proof of a hypothesis of pathogenesis, even as Gallo has done. He has produced here a token of the logical subfallacy, tu quoque, of the logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem: “Others have done it too.”
The announcement, in the passage quoted, that there are approaches available to us that were unanticipated in the genesis of Koch’s Postulates, is necessarily dismissed without comment of any sort, since these approaches are not described; they are not in fact even named. The special problems that are said in this passage to be created by viruses, also go undescribed and unnamed. In all likelihood, they have to do with the exacting nature of virus isolation. But these unidentified special problems, whatever they may be, are no more relevant to the validity of Koch’s Postulates than to that of pyramidology, Boyle’s law, or the theory of the leisure class. Here, Gallo has produced tokens of the logical fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Otherwise known as the red herring fallacy.
The assertion that Koch’s Postulates, in processes of verification of hypotheses of bacterial pathogenesis, often fail, is a substantive assertion accompanied by the citation of not a single example of the case histories upon which it is based, nor, in any event, is there offered an explanation of how the abstractions defining a methodology can fail. There could as plausibly be offered a notion that the rules by which one radix 10 number is divided by another can fail.
The assertion that Koch’s Postulates are sometimes impossible to fulfill is evidently a complaint that there are hypotheses which, tested against Koch’s Postulates, cannot be verified; which is to say, hypotheses which fall. Plainly, in such an eventuality another hypothesis must be formulated, if the pursuit of the genesis of the disease of interest is not to be abandoned. Alternatively, the formulator of a hypothesis that falls when subjected to the rigors of Koch’s Postulates could simply announce that the hypothesis holds by fiat, and the biomedical community could, if it cared to, accept the fiat. There is no law of nature that compels human beings to exercise the faculty of reason. Further, there is no law of any sort that compels the testing of a hypothesis before resorting to fiat. These observations, it should be pointed out, are not offered as specimens of hyperbole; they reflect the essential course followed in establishing HIV as the cause of AIDS.
Gallo’s assertion that “many times one would not even want to try to” test a hypothesis against Koch’s Postulates, seems a curious one. But since it has nothing to do with the logic of these postulates, but, rather, with a state of mind–presumably Gallo’s–it goes without further comment here. The assertion that “sometimes they [Koch’s Postulates] are quite simply erroneous standards,” palpably lacks an anchor point in an earthly domain.
Gallo’s attempt to particularize these postulates to the bacterial domain is wholly meritless. The distinction between the bacterium and the virus vis-a-vis Koch’s Postulates is relevant solely to the technics by which the stages of the proof are realized. The technics, for example, by which isolation is accomplished clearly differ between the bacterium and the virus, as do the technics for growing these microbes in vitro. What of that? What do these things have to do with the validity of Koch’s Postulates? Gallo has resorted here to another attempt to distract his reader with a token of the logical fallacy of irrelevant thesis.
As for his scandalized observation that Koch’s Postulates are a century old, it must be noted here that applications of the principles of logic do not deteriorate with age. Gallo would no doubt be stunned by the intelligence, should it reach him, that the Sieve of Eratosthenes, a schema for determining the primes not exceeding n, where n is any natural number greater than 1, confected more than twenty-two centuries ago by the late Eratosthenes of Cyrene, works as dandily today as at the hour in which it was minted, despite that we have made advances in mathematics that would have staggered Archimedes. A comic opera offering, all this of Eratosthenes, in response to the comic opera thesis that the immaterial ages. Which is far more attention than such hogwash deserves.
Gallo’s dismissal of the premise underlying Koch’s Postulates, first, misstates that premise and, second, proclaims as facts things that constitute the beliefs of what can only be called a sect within the biomedical order, and one that is apparently, and unbelievably, dominant. The premise underlying Koch’s Postulates is, of course, that there is a one-to-one correspondence between an infectious disease and some causative agent. Gallo, in neglecting the adjective, reveals through a slip of the tongue, as it were, a mode of thought that marks those belonging to the sect cited: they are constitutionally indisposed to remember that not all diseases are caused by microbes.
But of much greater import are certain of the shared beliefs of these sectarians: faith in the notion that a single virus can cause a multiplicity of diseases and in the notion that a single disease can be caused by the concerted actions of a multiplicity of viruses, possibly augmented by one or more bacteria. These notions are exemplified in certain widely accepted speculations concerning the nature of the Barr-Epstein virus:
The Barr-Epstein virus, in its active state, is said to cause mononucleosis; in the dormant state into which it passes upon being neutralized by the immune system of its host, it is said that, after a period of latency of some ten years, it can cause the growth of a tumor called Burkitt’s lymphoma. This virus is said to be implicated in the pathogenesis of Burkitt’s lymphoma because in the blood of many of those afflicted with this cancer there are found Barr-Epstein antibodies. Which is scarcely surprising, since these antibodies are found in the blood of a goodly portion of the dwellers on three continents. It is suggested that the Barr-Epstein virus causes Burkitt’s lymphoma through the agency of a malarial suppression of its host’s immune system, despite that the virus does not stir from its dormant state during sieges of malaria, nor does it do so at any time during the development of this cancer. Put in other terms, it is suggested that the several plasmodium protozoa which cause malaria are cofactors of the Barr-Epstein virus in the causation of Burkitt’s lymphoma. Since the suppression of the immune system, by any device, not excluding malaria, does not trigger a reactivation of the dormant Barr-Epstein virus, it is mystifying how this virus is thought to produce this cancer.
It is immediate that, aside from the question of mononucleosis causality, which could be (but has not been) tested, the question whether the hypothesis described here is a reflection of reality is in fact undecidable: since Burkitt’s lymphoma can afflict human beings who have never been infected by the Barr-Epstein virus, there exists at least one causative agent, say agent X, of Burkitt’s lymphoma that is distinct from this virus. And since there is postulated no mechanism by which the dormant Barr-Epstein virus causes the lymphoma, then, in considering the Burkitt’s lymphoma patient whose blood contains antibodies of the Barr-Epstein virus, it cannot be determined by any imaginable test whether the cause of the lymphoma is agent X, the features and lineaments of which are unknown, or whether the cause is associated with the dormant virus through some unknown, and therefore unobservable, physico-chemical property, or properties, of some combination of the dormant virus and a protozoan that is causative of malaria.
This hypothesis clearly belongs to the realm of speculation, not to that of rational inquiry. It is presented in the literature, generally, neither as speculation nor as hypothesis, but as fact. Further, it is suggested by some biomedical researchers that the Barr-Epstein virus should, as well, be considered a causative agent of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, a cancer of the nasal passage and throat, and of Hodgkin’s disease, a lymphatic cancer. What cofactors of the Barr-Epstein virus, if any, are suggested by these researchers as necessary to the production of either or both of these cancers is unknown to me; nor am I impelled to make an attempt to remedy my ignorance.6
As is known, HIV is said to be the causative agent of a multiplicity of distinct diseases. But some who say so, say so less adamantly of late than was their wont in the early years of the HIV movement, and have taken to their lucubratories, there to ruminate and to confer in subdued tones about HIV cofactors for these diseases, toying with such candidates as herpes viruses, parasites of one sort or another, mycoplasma, and this or that retrovirus. What has disheartened them belongs to the domain of speculation, and, so, is a matter not entered into here. It is factual, however, that it has formally been conceded by the leaders of the HIV movement that HIV does not, unaided, kill CD4+ T cells, but requires cofactors to do so. Luc Montagnier, the French investigator who actually discovered HIV, has long since begun a search for cofactors of some HIV indicator disease or other, and has in fact announced a find, but into his doings there is no purposeful reason to go. No more than into those of Gallo, who is now haring off after cofactors as well, although thirteen years ago his position was that HIV is a necessary and sufficient condition for AIDS. It was dogma then, and those who questioned it were sent to coventry by the rulers of the public health agencies. A coventry where Duesberg still languishes.
Alas, these biomedical researchers of the Gallo variety seem unaware of the overarching principle upon which scientific investigation and logical inquiry proceed, a principle formulated by the Invincible Doctor, William of Ockham, in so unenlightened an epoch as the high middle ages, at some point prior to the onset in 1347-1348 of the Black Death:
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. Multiplicity ought not be posited without necessity.
From so simple a hook hangs the material edifice of the greatest civilization the world has ever known, and hangs, as well, an orderly body of knowledge differing profoundly in kind and in magnitude from anything dreamed of in the chambers of thought of antiquity.
So, for Gallo’s defense of his failure to subject the HIV hypothesis to the rigors of Koch’s Postulates. And so, for the failure of the tribunes of the people on watch at The New York Times to take him to task him for that failure.
It is crucial, in assessing Duesberg’s hypothesis of the cause of AIDS, to consider the nature of the anti-HIV drugs:
These drugs, including and especially AZT, are cytocidal DNA chain terminators. Which is to say, they stop the synthesis of DNA in dividing cells, causing them to die through what is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. They arrest in this way the production in the bone marrow of CD4+ T cells, among others. In brief, they can seemingly do no other than aggravate or initiate immune system deficiency. It does not seem necessary that one be privy to the arcana of the biophysicist or the biochemist to nominate these drugs as probable causative agents of the AIDS cellular indicator disease, immunodeficiency.
The degree of toxicity of AZT may be judged by the content of the label found on bottles of this substance sold by the Sigma Chemical Company, a purveyor of AZT for laboratory use. It is a label that bears a skull and crossbones, no less, and the legend:
TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing [emphasis added].7
It is worth emphasizing that this warning label is for the benefit of laboratory workers who may come into proximity with the bottles of AZT to which it is affixed. These bottles, it should be noted, contain 100 milligrams of AZT. The amount prescribed as a medication against HIV is from 500 to 1500 milligrams a day.
There is nothing contained in the HIV hypothesis that enables a diagnostician, upon detection in a person’s blood of HIV antibodies, to predict which, if any, AIDS indicator disease this person will contract, or when. And the panoply of indicator diseases is from time to time extended in accordance with some logic that seems utterly impenetrable. How are these things decided upon? By a show of hands around a conference table in some privy chamber at CDC headquarters? Further, nothing in the hypothesis identifies the methods by which this virus destroys its victims or how it does so while lying dormant. Seventeen years, tens of thousands of papers published, thousands of scientists engaged, billions of dollars expended, and no one can say what mechanisms this virus employs to gnaw the life out of its victims, or what causes it, while lying inert in its slumber, to strike, or how it can do so without stirring from that slumber. All that is known about it, evidently, is its genetic code and its name.
An infectious disease, following its initial appearance, infects an exponentially increasing fraction of the general population, peaks, and then subsides, infecting an exponentially declining fraction of that population as it does so. The phenomenon is spoken of by epidemiologists as Farr’s Law of Epidemics. Further, an infectious disease strikes equally at the sexes and among the age groups; exhibits its symptoms after a predictable interval following infection; and visits its effects upon its victims through the agency of a particular, active, microbe. The course of the AIDS syndrome exhibits not a single one of these characteristics.
The graphs of AIDS death rates that can be seen at
show increases in deaths, with time, that are essentially linear, not exponential. The forecasts of deaths numbering in the millions, and even in the tens of millions, made by experts in the years immediately following the implied finding by press conference proceedings that the causative agent of AIDS is HIV, may be placed in some sort of sensible perspective by observing that the CDC has recorded that, as of June, 2000, there had been reported, over the course of the preceding nineteen years, a total of 753,907 AIDS cases in America, 433,296 of which had resulted in death. There were, according to the summary for 1998 of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, 46,247 new AIDS cases reported that year.
The great majority of those afflicted with this syndrome are males, almost all of them more than twenty years of age. The largest group afflicted with AIDS whose members are less than twenty years of age are infants, a group in which the sexes are equally represented.
The five risk groups to which the syndrome is essentially confined are: (1) psychoactive drug users of both sexes, especially intravenous drug users; (2) male homosexuals who use psychoactive drugs, especially nitrite inhalants, or whose promiscuous behavior causes them to contract numerous infections and to habitually medicate themselves with antibiotics, sometimes prophylactically; (3) hemophiliacs, who are, of course, all males, and whose bodily systems are insulted by frequent blood transfusions or impure injections of Factor VIII; (4) infants of both sexes who receive blood transfusions or foreign tissues, or whose mothers are drug users or habitual users of other poisons; and (5) those, of both sexes, who are afflicted with the syndrome after undergoing treatment with anti-HIV drugs following a determination that they test positive for HIV antibodies; that is, a determination that their bodily defenses have immunized them against HIV. This last group includes members of the general population, as well as members of the other four groups cited.
Plainly, the risk groups are characterized by the fact that the bodily systems of their members are, or have been, under siege by stressors. Equally plainly, the stressors that are introduced by the injection of cocaine differ from those introduced by frequent blood transfusions, while both differ from those introduced by nitrite inhalation, and all three differ from those introduced by ingesting AZT. Differing stressors may reasonably be hypothesized to author differing bodily disorders, a hypothesis that is obviously testable. Clearly, youngsters under twenty years of age may, and do, afflict themselves with such stressors; equally clearly, it requires time for these stressors to do significant damage. Such youngsters remain apparently unimpaired until they enter their twenties. Little ones born of mothers who poison themselves with cocain or heroin, or God knows what else, pass from conception to birth stressed by these poisons. For every such infant born, there were perhaps several others of the kind who were spontaneously aborted, and, so, are uncounted in the tally of those dead, sadly, of AIDS.
No one knows fully the effects on the human body of long term stressors of the sort described here. The matter has never been systematically investigated. And will not be by the public health agencies, the hierarchs of which are belligerently opposed to doing so; they are consumed with wrath at the mere hint that such a thing is in the public interest. A curiosity, at the very least, and one that should draw the investigative reporter as a bad smell does a wolverine. Why does it not? What possesses the press that it will not investigate and publicize what it is, precisely, that possesses the leaders of the NIH and the CDC to behave in this way?
Africa is a continent wracked by catastrophes, but they flow largely from simple human folly, not from HIV. The notion of a virus that causes one set of diseases in North America and Europe and another in Africa, seems beyond even the sectaries of the HIV movement to promote, but a fact is a fact and cannot be gainsaid. They do precisely that. Their apocalyptic whoopings about African HIV and their suspect statistics, drawn from totally unreliable sources, are given front page placement by their familiars of the press and are excitedly ballyhooed by the network news criers. Meantime, no sensible observer of the African condition can miss the vast disorders, the misrule, the poverty and the famines. The malnutrition and widespread incidence of parasitic infections deriving from the primitive sanitary conditions brought on by lapses of civilization are, together, enough to serve as sufficient cause for what is said to be an African AIDS epidemic, and is simply an example of the pestilences that follow in the train of massive havockings by brutal, ill disciplined armies and wandering bands of marauders.
It may take twenty years of hard drinking to produce cirrhosis, or thirty years of heavy smoking to produce lung cancer, or to do serious damage to the cardiovascular system. Who knows how many years of nitrite inhalation is needed to produce Kaposi’s sarcoma? Or whether, indeed, nitrite inhalation does produce it? There are some pointers in the epidemiological record to a conclusion that it may do just that. Why not test the drug hypothesis of AIDS causality? As was proposed by Duesberg when he formulated this hypothesis some fourteen years ago. His is a well and closely reasoned analysis of the salient facts surrounding the AIDS syndrome, and an imaginative formulation of a plausible hypothesis of causality. For his pains, he lost his Outstanding Investigator Grant from the NIH, was denied further access to the pages of the prestigious learned journals, and was, and is, publicly ridiculed and called contemptuous names by a significant number of those who claim membership in the biomedical order, or who editorialize in the biomedical literature. It is a spectacle to make the angels weep, this one of professional thinkers, learned in the sciences, exhibiting behavior indistinguishable from that exhibited by a mob.
We are faced with the problem of public health agencies led by folk who in the search for the causalities of disease have descended into a mysticism not unlike that from which, in the dim abysm of the past, the notion of humors was confected by physicians and put into practice. These public health officials have subscribed to the ideas of intellectual bankrupts and medical adventurers, who submit none of their surmises to the scrutiny of reason or to the experimental technics from which sureties are born. What is to be made of those who, charged to stand watch over the public health of the nation, take seriously the cofactor theory of disease, a theory which, after decades of squandered resources, vain hopings, and absurd claims, remains a will-o-the-wisp, ever receding into the mists, ever dancing just beyond the reach of its pursuers? And who take seriously the notion that an epidemiological study can consitute a proof of causality? And who engage in intellectual fraud so brazen it is dubious whether it could delude a reasonably alert child of twelve years?
The press plainly colludes with this ungodly collection of psalmodists of unreason and self-serving placemen. In part, I suspect, because of the long-standing progressive belief in what is thought to be the practical advantage of rule by experts; but only in very small part. The scriveners of the press seem to apprehend in any rational analysis of the HIV hypothesis, or in any proposal to subject it to practical tests, the machinations of stealthy moralists bent on bringing homosexuality into disrepute. Instructively, it passes essentially unremarked in our oddly unfocused age, that the stealthy moralists in this case are, all of them, members of the press, and that their machinations are designed to bring homosexuality into repute. Honor, it seems to me, has a better claim to accolade than does morality, of any stripe, and honor clearly calls neither for bringing homosexuality into disrepute nor for bringing it into repute, but calls for moving to rescue those in peril of their lives. And to close the eyes of those who are beyond rescue, and to be close at hand for those who grieve.
How much weight our acts of morality and immorality are given when we face the eternal, is beyond knowing; but I suspect not much. God’s writs are, it is said, changeless, as are those of honor, and there should be cheer in holding close the faith that the two are interchangeable. If they are not, from whose heart did the notions of honor come and how are they known?
There is no legend of their origin; neither are they anywhere inscribed.
Publication NotesThis essay is published by Patrick Meehan and belongs to a collection of literary works accessible at
It is a copyrighted work and may not be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s permission.
The Anti-Cigarette Crusade
Copyright © P. Meehan September 2000. All rights reserved.
Cigarette smoking has long been judged by every right-thinking public-health zealot to be a mortal sin, although, instructively, the ruttings of sodomites elicit from these right-thinkers only cautionary twitterings against couplings by those male inverts who are careless about the prophylactic measures said to make sex safe, on the amusing theory that these paltry measures counter the propagation of what were once known as loathsome diseases–so known, at all events, to the judicious. Given this mockery of the mystery and sanctity of Woman, with public-health officers as inert before its pall of spiritual malaise and threat of contagion as is a goat before a bad smell, one is inclined to wonder what these officers would make of such a mockery were cigarettes smoked by its celebrants. Even inverts may be sinners.
Putting aside for the nonce this question of sin, it is taken here as a given that cigarette smoking is unhealthy; the fact indeed is so obvious that it is conceivable it is known even to the apes held captive in the nation’s medical laboratories, possibly accounting for the fact that no reports have come in of experiments upon these animals designed to probe the effects of inhaling cigarette smoke. It is of course possible that no public-health officer has yet thought to foster the smoking of cigarettes by apes, although, since chimpanzees have in fact been induced to smoke cigars, 1 the notion of wheedling or terrorizing simians into taking up the habit of cigarette smoking should seemingly have at some point danced in the head of this or that aspirant to the gaudy title of Nobel Laureate. But the ambitions of medical researchers notwithstanding, there has actually never been a need to insinuate cigarette smoke into the lungs of animals to discover what effects it has on these organs, since in a country so populous as ours some human beings who smoke cigarettes must in the course of any given day make their journeys into the shades, and some of these are bound to go under the pathologist’s knife. Seized by this insight, and blessed with competence and energy, a certain Dr Oscar Auerbach, a pathologist of East Orange, New Jersey, began in 1953 a meticulous study of lung tissue samples taken from the cadavers of subjects whose smoking habits were a matter of reliable record. Papers recording his observations were published in a series that began in 1956 and ended in 1965; they are definitive in establishing the cellular changes that take place in the lungs of cigarette smokers and the changes that take place in lung function. Deathly, is the word that comes to mind in reading of these things. His papers, it should be borne in mind, are not records of statistical studies, which are proofs of nothing; these papers are records of scientific studies. For those in search of knowledge there is, beyond Auerbach’s early findings, nothing at all that need be examined for an understanding of the effects of cigarette smoke on the lungs. There is in particular no need to examine into his disagreeable experiments begun in 1967 in which he taught beagles to smoke cigarettes through orifices introduced into their throats for the purpose. The dogs were said, perhaps truthfully, to have enjoyed the proceedings, while Auerbach in triumph duplicated in their lungs the lethal changes that he had found in his cadavers.
So, for the medical findings. There remains the question of sin. Those who war against the cigarette are much given to expounding upon its medical consequences, but their nuances of tone and their ways are those of evangelists fevered to unearth and root out evil; save for their deceits, which are many, they differ little in all this from those who soldiered in the first anti-cigarette crusade, which began to rage well before 1890 and continued unabated until our entry into the First World War, then lost its intensity, and, following the Armistice, sputtered on in small desultory skirmishes until 1930, and is now as lost to memory as is the tongue of the Mohicans or the place where Millard Fillmore lies entombed. Those who campaigned in this Ur-crusade ill deserved the oblivion that has been their lot, for in their great days they contrived to bring off a ban against the sale or possession of cigarettes in fourteen states and one territory. Further, they persuaded vast numbers of businesses to deny employment to all who smoked cigarettes, not excluding those who made shift to do so stealthily, closeted in their dwellings in darkened rooms behind drawn shades. In our age, by contrast, discrimination by employers against employees who smoke beyond the precincts of their workshops is forbidden by statute in fifteen states. The crusaders of yesteryear were, patently, movers and shakers of consequence.
Their doyenne was a certain Lucy Page Gaston, who founded and chieftained the Anti-Cigarette League of America, the premier lodge of the movement, and who was by the evidence available, including that of a photographic nature, less an actual human being than a Dickensian fairy tale figure, an artistically crafted incarnation of a mere temperament, or humor. It is doubtful whether she ever in her life laughed or felt a charitable pang, or, as a girl, skipped as she went her ways. The multitudes who clubbed together in her train were, most of them, animated by the progressive metaphysic; but more than a few were fetched by their understandings that men of parts smoked pipes or cigars, lesser men chewed plug tobacco or used snuff, and women who were not actual harlots simply did not use tobacco. The crusaders of this latter stamp took the cigarette smoker either to be a foreigner sprung from some such dubious locale as Bessarabia, Corsica or the Argentine, or, if a natural born American, to be of a criminal bent and possessed of depraved appetites. Thomas Edison, a militant of this flavor, believed that acrolein is produced by the combustion, not of tobacco, but of cigarette paper, and that it causes an irreversible degeneration of brain cells, bringing on a moral collapse of the cigarette smoker that leaves him prostrate in the power of his baser instincts. If there are anti-cigarette crusaders now active who incline to theories as extravagant as those of this enchanted ass, word of them has not appeared in the public prints nor been sounded by the network news criers. But one never knows.
It was, in any case, not the spirit of invincible asininity that gave birth to this first anti-cigarette crusade, but was the evangelizing spirit of those of progressive bent, who enlisted themselves in a bewildering kaleidoscope of loose associations to give birth to a vast farrago of projects collectively meant to effect a redesign and reconstruction of the civil order of the nation in detail: everything from enticing the rural populace to stage morris dances in their barnyards to the fragmentation of concentrations of great wealth, to the professionalization of child rearing to the prohibition of wagering, to conservation of the wilderness to hounding scarlet women out of their covens, to the prohibition of alcohol and drugs, to establishing a government watch over the purity of foodstuffs and medicines to the professionalization of social workers and schoolteachers, to banishing classical teaching methods from the classrooms of tots to a Constitutional amendment allowing the government to levy income taxes, to anything and everything that had ever been mooted during excited powwows of earnest young collegians or cried up by radicals, as is done in our own time at rallies of chanting, angry-eyed throngs shod in primitive sandles and costumed for masquerade balls or for imposturing as castaways. The enmity of these progressives for the cigarette had its essential origin in their craze for racial purification through scorched earth wars on disease waged by the public-health service, and through the extirpation by contraception or abortion, or by sterilization or even euthanasia, of genetic lines reckoned by them to be without worth. If some of this stirs a faint sense of recognition, it should be understood that progressivism was an international movement, and in Germany, in time, its largest body of votaries came to wear the swastika. Adolf Hitler’s belief in progressive ideas was unshakeable, although nothing is said of this in America, nor probably even thinkable here. Not, at all events, by the ideological heirs and assigns of the progressive movement. The Nazis upon taking control of Germany launched an anti-cigarette crusade and directed large energies into the investigation of the effects of cigarette smoking on health, finding the statistical link between this habit and lung cancer before the outbreak of the Second World War. Save for the widely reported fact that no one in Germany who valued his head ever lit a cigarette within smelling distance of the Fuehrer, these things are now forgotten, as things much too awkward to remember. In America, during the Ur-crusade, tobacco in all its forms was identified as race poison by the eminent progressive physician, cornflake king and luminary of the Race Betterment Foundation, Dr John H. Kellogg of Battle Creek, Michigan. There is more than a hint in the hortations of this race obsessed prophet, and in those of progressives generally, that one’s health is not precisely one’s own, but is something one holds in trust through a grant from the nation at large, or, in practical terms, from government. They were as set against the thesis of the commonwealth of the self-ruled as was Louis XIV or Pol Pot. Simply put, they were totalitarians.
As are the anti-cigarette crusaders of the moment. Their angry natterings against the cigarette smoker that are directed to the burdens that will in time be borne by the nation in treating his inevitable, tobacco induced diseases are demonstrations of a conviction that his health insurance policy and other assets are national properties. Or, if he is bereft of insurance and limited in means, that the state and federal excise taxes levied on him for the privilege of consuming the mountain of cigarettes whose effects now quicken his march to the grave were drawn on accounts not held by him in fee simple, but under a grant of use from some factotum serving as proxy for the assembled nation. The mentality is perhaps best demonstrated by a quote from a 1994 article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine by a certain Faith T. Fitzgerald, a professor at the Medical Center of the University of California at Davis:
Both health care providers and the commonweal now have a vested interest in certain forms of behavior, previously considered a person’s private business, if the behavior impairs a person’s health. Certain failures of self-care have become, in a sense, crimes against society, because society has to pay for their consequences.
This glimpse into the messianic, totalitarian mentality of a public-health missionary reveals attitudes that are found commonly enough in thumbing the texts of healers or of experts in the arts and sciences that lie in the penumbra of medicine, valid and bogus specialties alike. The distaste for liberty and fancy for the rule of experts that mark the scrivenings of these prideful advocates of governance by authoritarian hierarchies are echos of progressive sentiments noised repetitiously in the long age of reform which ran from the last quarter of the nineteenth century to the collapse of the Wilsonian flimflam. C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General of the United States under Ronald Reagan, and a pediatric surgeon, a fervent Christian, and a reformed cigar smoker, cheerfully brushed aside any consideration of restraint in fulfilling his mission to stamp out cigarette smoking. “[A]nything that stops smoking,” he told a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in 1996, “is good.” One fancies that, if the premises upon which this judgement is founded are accepted, it is a judgement that can as plausibly be made of anything that stops people from making themselves fat. A notion that is not introduced here as a specimen of whimsy; it is a notion now being toyed with in the ranks of the public-health missionaries and their familiars, and trial balloons for the launching of a movement have been floated,
Both crusades early raised the question of second hand smoke, but the present one trumped its predecessor in the use of this question to create public support for its onslaughts against the smoker and the tobacco interests. It is arguable that it was solely the noxious stench of cigarette smoke and the taint of it on the clothing of nonsmokers, and in their hair, that moved legions of them in the early years of the present crusade to lend moral support to the sin-killers. But when C. Everett Koop in 1986 noised abroad an assertion that second hand smoke afflicts those often exposed to it with the diseases of smokers, these alarmed nonsmokers became, many of them, militant auxillaries, and in some cases, foot soldiers, in the armies of the aforesaid sin-killers. And there followed an unedifying struggle between agencies of the tobacco interests and those of the anti-cigarette crusade concerning the scientific worth of Dr Koop’s assertion, which, alas, was founded upon evidence having little more substance than is to be found undergirding a belief in alien abductions or reincarnation. But it served to direct the public’s attention to Dr Koop, who contrived to keep it directed there. Costumed in his bully pulpit as an officer of flag rank in the United States Navy, he had the appearance and manner of a Nantucket sea captain fresh from the hunting and butchery of whales, whose vocation ashore is that of preaching brother in an order founded for the moral instruction of backward children. But it must be said of him that he had, and has, an uncompromising sense of duty where the protection of actual children is concerned. For that, he is surely worthy of being sung by angels to the place toward which we all fare.
Of the undertaking to determine the degree of danger presented by second hand smoke, all that can be said of it with certainty is, first, that the question it was to settle was settled by fiat in a 1993 EPA report that called such smoke a serious and substantial health risk that kills 3,000 victims a year by afflicting them with lung cancer; second, that the entire undertaking was marked by intrigue, defamation, mendacity and political machination on the part not only of those serving the tobacco interests, from whom such things are to be expected, but, as well, of those in the public-health community and their familiars; and, third, that nothing of a definitive character was actually determined, despite the announcements to the contrary by the EPA, which are so transparently fraudulent that upon their publication some of the house scientists of the anti-cigarette crusade were impelled to make uneasy warning coughs behind their hands and small, timorous sounds that came perilously close to actual objections. But precisely what health hazards may actually lie in second hand smoke seem at this point to be of academic concern; smoking outside the home has long been banned in every locality in the nation save the open spaces in which tobacco smoke attenuates into the sky, and in bars, whose proprietors and customers are not easily moved to make war on those who fancy ingesting things that reformers itch to ban; further, the latest campaign mounted against smokers by the crusaders is a demand for the prohibition of smoking even in those sanctuaries, and their demands will in time undoubtedly be met. The progressives, who dominated the first crusade, sought the redemption of cigarette smokers; those who dominate this second one evidently want them immured. Which has an aspect that no doubt raises sour mirth in certain of the observant among us, for if the crusaders speak of smokers as violent assailants of innocents, through the effluvia they spawn, these same crusaders simultaneously charge the tobacco companies with having effected the transfomation of innocents into smokers, accomplishing this through such artifices as the addictive character of cigarettes, advertisements aimed at children and concealment of the true dangers in smoking.
The tobacco magnates may have qualities of mind other than those suitable for running factories, and very likely do, but a knack for thinking critically about received wisdoms is not among them. Nor is such a knack to be found, evidently, among their house experts, and certainly not among their adversaries. The notion that something carried in cigarette smoke is addictive, e.g., nicotine, may be disposed of by observing that this word addictive has no meaning save in the domain of the mythopoeic, in which it is synonymous with possession. Discourses found in the pharmacological literature that treat of substance addiction do not describe that condition in physico-chemical terms, nor do they treat of the physico-chemical processes by which substances said to be addictive are said to addict, but, mirabile dictu, these discourses consist of nothing more than descriptions of the behavior patterns that characterize the addict. It is in these behavioral terms that the adepts in the arts and sciences that undergird the Pharmacopeia define the word addiction, something that can only be appraised, figuratively speaking, as a windmilling of the arms serving to divert the inquirer’s attention from a vacuity. Meantime, the progressives of the Ur-crusade accurately identified, in an unwitting way, what underlies the word, addictive, when they spoke of the cigarette as a little white slaver: a belief in the notion of the addictive substance is a belief that there are agents dwelling in such a substance having the arcane power to incarnate themselves in the central nervous system of an incautious human being and assume sovereignty over the mind found there. If the pharmacological adepts have assigned a meaning other than this–i.e., possession–to the word addictive, it is the best kept secret of the age, for there is no trace of it to be found anywhere in their literature. The word, addiction, has acquired through this unearthly belief a sense that it denotes a medical condition, which is a sense that does not appear in its Oxford English Dictionary entry, where its recorded meaning is synonymous with that of habituation. Plainly put, the cigarette smoker is habituated to smoking, and maintains the habit through choice. It is an incontrovertible fact that there are approximately as many former smokers in the country as smokers, and the great majority of these onetime smokers did not rid themselves of the cigarette habit through listening to the psychoprattle of counselors or through submitting themselves to the harpoonings of acupuncturists or through introducing daily nicotine rations into their bodies by means of arm patches or through other such devices of quackery, but by not smoking cigarettes. It is noted here in passing that the habit of critical thinking is as easily formed as is the habit of smoking cigarettes, but it seems that to form either it is necessary to begin young.
It is a commonplace of observation that those of mature years do not take up the practice of smoking cigarettes. It is a habit that is established in a person’s nonage, or slightly later, or not at all. This, the anti-cigarette crusaders assert, is a consequence of a stratagem of the tobacco magnates, who direct their advertising agents to so fashion their cigarette razzledazzle that it catches and holds the eyes and ears of children. This charge against the magnates may well be true, but, if so, they, with the crusaders, ascribe to the hooey-weavers of Madison Avenue a wizardry that seems dubious. That advertising serves to fix in one’s mind, by repetition, a product name, and, possibly, a phantasmal vision of this sort or that, is not sufficient to fetch one to the marketplace fevered to buy. This inquirer has himself been importuned from early childhood by all manner of breakfast food barkers to eat such stuff, but is no more inclined to do so than is a squirrel inclined to sup on hay or a cat on marshmallows. The vast hullabaloo that erupted over Joe Camel, which included solemnly received charges that this cartoon camel’s features resemble the male genitalia–lodged by some professor inclined to a serious view of the gonad obsessed mentality of Sigmund Freud–offered a spectacular glimpse of the incoherence, ignorance and downright silliness standing at the center of modernist thought. While this preposterous camel was insinuated, over a five year span, into the consciousness of some 98 percent of the nation’s youngsters of high school age, as measured by pollsters, the market share of Camel cigarettes rose from 3 percent to 4 percent, and a year later fell somewhat below this latter figure. Meantime, it should be obvious to anyone who has the capacity to recall being young that nonards take up smoking for the same reason that they take up drinking, which is to demonstrate to their colleagues and associates, and perhaps to themselves, that they are are grownups. Which has to do with nothing more mysterious than making note of what it is that grownups do that distinguishes them from children.
There are certain usages of language that need no explication; they are as direct and as unsusceptible of being misunderstood as is a punch in the nose or a traffic signal displaying a red light. For example, coffin nail and gasper, both in use in the common speech for over a century, and both signifying cigarette; albeit, gasper is no longer much heard save in Britain. Both give evidence of an unambiguous understanding, born of common sense, that there is mortal peril in cigarette smoking. And since the publication of Auerbach’s papers, this common sense understanding rests on a solid scientific foundation, a fact that is available to all. Further, if statistical findings are proofs of nothing, they are pointers to things that should be taken seriously or studied in detail. That lung cancer, an affliction so rare at the turn of the twentieth century that it was not then included in the International Classification of Diseases, began its alarming rise with the rise of cigarette smoking, does not require the special gifts of an epidemiologist in order to arrive at an appreciation of its significance. Children of ten years can do so. And its significance is amplified by the fact that the rise of this disease among women began well after it began to rise among men, in precise correspondence with the lag between the respective rises in cigarette smoking by the two sexes. It is suggested here that the anti-cigarette crusaders, in arguing that the public was long in ignorance of the true dangers of the cigarette, and that this ignorance was perpetuated through adroitly contrived deceits of the tobacco interests, demonstrates either that these crusaders are every bit as observant as so many moo-cows or that they imagine the audience for which they concoct their pasquinades to be composed of human blanks. The evasions and denials and dabblings in feigned or half-hearted research that were staged for decades by agencies of the tobacco interests gave no evidence at all of being the work of adroit tricksters, but seemed akin, rather, to the lame bumblings exhibited by a person disoriented. These people resembled, at times, a herd of deer caught in a sudden glare of headlights, and, at times, a troop of caged bears, dazed by merciless bouts of baiting and half immobilized by imaginings of what might next be in store for them. They plainly did not know what to do about their plight beyond issuing attorney-scripted bulletins seriatim consisting of puerile hogwash that they must have known would be met with sardonic laughter by everyone in the country save its attorneys, apparently on the dumbfounding theory that–faced with the rising antagonism of a large part of the nation, faced in fact with a looming flood of Noachian dimensions that promised to sweep away their entire world–all that counted was that hostile counsel be unable to discover a word ever put to paper or uttered outside a bedchamber from which it could be inferred that anyone connected with a tobacco company knows, or knew, or could possibly know, what is known to everyone on the planet, save infants in arms and the inhabitants of the Kalahari Desert. They simply made fools of themselves, a thing which for them did not appear difficult. It seems to go with the asocial mentality.
The anti-cigarette crusaders, through their kindling and nurturing of popular wrath, opened the way for, and abetted with jubilation, an extortion in 1997 of enormous sums that hinged on threats by a shifting number of state attorneys general to make lawless use of the authority of their offices to ruin all those associated with the tobacco industry. It was stipulated by these extortionists that the money to be paid them in return for staying their hands against this industry should be wrung from the smoker, through elevating the price of cigarettes; that is to say, the tobacco companies were not given leave to shift the burden to the smoker, they were obliged to do so. This coup de main against smokers was guised as a levy purposed to defray the cost to the states of medical treatment of the cigarette induced diseases of the aforesaid smokers, but this fable was lent grave ears only by those who hold title deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge or investments in Paraguayan pearl mines. The actual purpose was to profit from sin while punishing and excoriating its perpetrators, with the several governments involved focused in part on preserving unbroken the flow of excise taxes into their vaults–taxes anciently adapted to the dual purpose of profiting from and punishing sin–and focused, as well, on exacting extra-legal levies from smokers in the form of annuities aggregated for the purpose by the tobacco companies, a punitive act, plainly, and a vastly profitable one, since these levies clearly have in the minds of politicians and their familiars the heady, unfettered quality of riches snatched from a treasure trove found in a cave. And no one to say nay to any of this, save it be the smokers. But pariahs have no standing at all in the court of public opinion, and fare in the courts of law as did, in 1942, natural born Americans of Japanese ancestry and, as well, the Minneapolis devotees of Leon Trotsky’s notions, and as did naturalized Americans of German birth in 1917 and anarchists and socialists in 1920, and as did the Mormons in the nineteenth century, and as have other such assorted misfortunates, addlepates and cranks whose fates have been decided by the judges during periods when the witches of crowd folly were riding. Plainly, the mentality of the anti-cigarette crusader of the moment is marked by impatience with, and at bottom, contempt for, the rule of law.
Given that second hand smoke no longer plagues the nonsmoker, the effrontery of the anti-cigarette crusaders in co-opting the powers of government to hector those adults who smoke cigarettes is unconscionable. If smokers have opted for the cigarette rather than for length of years, the years they lose are their own. And they may, after all, lose fewer of them than is commonly supposed: the 400,000 smokers reported by the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as annually dying prematurely of smoking induced diseases, do so at an average age of 72 years. Why any of the 400,000 who may have died this past year, say, chose not to stop smoking when young–knowing the consequences of their choices–and as a result lost several years of old age, or even many such years, may be a mystery to the sitting Surgeon General, or to the whole world for all of that, but their choices brought consequences to no one but themselves and their families, and, so, call for no hysterical tirades from presumptuous right-thinkers who obsessively strive to force their worldviews on others. Perhaps some of the 400,000 found themselves in accord with Mark Twain, who opined that those who so organize their lives as to perpetuate the bodily health with which they were born, are akin to the singular man who invests his entire fortune in a cow that he never milks. Or perhaps they found themselves in no accord at all with such analogical japery, but were simply taken with the small, elaborate theatrics of the smoking habit. But all such speculations are better left to the ponderers whose energies are given to adducing the inner springs of the human spirit. To poets, mystics and storytellers.
Meantime, the country needs neither scolding nor schoolmastering from medical busybodies, nor does it need these things from a self-appointed moral constabulary, but needs, rather, tranquility. And more of the simplicity, humility and wonder that mark the small child and the true saint.
The meaning of tonsilith is a tonsil stone that appear in the back of the mouth and look like a small or big popcorn in a white or yellow color.
The Tonsilith is more commonly appear in adults but also can be effected teenagers and children.
Tonsil stones have a lot of side effects and symptoms which make any sufferer feel anxious,fear and embarrassment about is awful condition.
The symptoms are:
- Bad Breath
- Hard swallow
- Sore on throat
- Bad taste on mouth
The causes of tonsiliths are:
- Sensitive Allergy to some diary products.
- Smoking habits without a filter.
- Bacteria in mouth or oral area.
There are treatments for tonsil stones that can eliminate the stones permanently and can make any tonsiliths sufferer feel a live again…
The Psychological issues of tonsiliths
Tonsiliths is well-known as a psychological problem for many sufferers.
The symptoms of bad breath,hard swallowing,terrible taste food in mouth because of the stones and much much more awful symptoms and side effects that can make any sufferer desperate and frustrated about this terrible condition.
The bad breath in mouth can be a real embarrassment for the sufferers and can effect in many ways, when it comes to a closer situation with a sole mate it can be frustrated and can get to a lot of misunderstanding.
For example when you have a girlfriend that you get out for more than a year and your love life is so good you can find yourself in a situation that you don’t want to get to an intimacy with your girlfriend because of your terrible condition in your mouth and the bad odor breath.
The fear,anxious and the loneliness is huge and because of that any tonsiliths sufferer must find a solutions to those side effects and symptoms that come across with tonsiliths.
Tonsils Stones have a cure and this is a good news for the tonsiliths sufferers.
The Treatments for this problem are:
- Laser Tonsillectomy
- Natural and Healthy Treatment
Medications is one of the treatment that can help the sufferers but not all the medications can help for the long-term and eliminate those stones completely.
For example: Antibiotics can help the patients for the short-term but for the long-term it is not effective.
Laser Tonsillectomy is a treatment that can remove the stones with a simple procedure.
It is useful and can be an effective way to get rid of them.
The healthy and natural treatment is the most effective way for sufferers and for sure can eliminate the root of tonsil stones and vanish them forever.
The best way to treat tonsilloliths in a natural way is by understanding why do you have got this condition? what kind of food you should prevent in your diet to stop the growing stones in your mouth. Natural and healthy treatment is not a non-effective antibiotics,magic pill or a surgery that can make you feel uncomfortable and worry about the results and the circumstances after the procedure.
Cure tonsilith permanently!
Finally, any sufferer can find an effective treatment that can solve the problems and the side effects of tonsils stones once and for all!
Publication NotesThis essay is published by Patrick Meehan and belongs to a collection of literary works accessible at
It is a copyrighted work and may not be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s permission.
The Kinsey Report: Modeling a Frankenstein Man
Copyright © P. Meehan March, 2002. All rights reserved.
The report of the nine year study in sexology that treated of the white American male’s sexual behavior, mass marketed in 1948 by adroit press agentry under the rubric, The Kinsey Report,1 was arguably, in its ultimate effects, the most significant of all the instruments of reform deriving from beliefs of the Progressive Era, an epoch of reformist clamorings, the echos of which continued to sound long after those clamorings were themselves stilled in the catastrophe of the First World War and the consequent collapse of order in czarist Russia and in her imperial dominions. They sounded well into the middle years of the twentieth century, fixating the principal investigator of this sexological study and primary author of its associated report, Dr Alfred C. Kinsey, a professor of zoology at Indiana University seized by a vision of a sexual utopia having at its center the celebration of the homoerotic, and with its prophet, Kinsey himself, acclaimed a scientist ranking with Darwin, to whose wraith, it is to be suspected, he prayed at least thrice daily.2 The disclosure that Kinsey was a homosexual can scarcely be a surprising one, given the nature of his utopian vision. But he was, as well, a voyeur, an exhibitionist, and a sadomasochist, descending at times in his masochistic moods into outright lunacy, thrusting the bristled end of a toothbrush deep into his urethra and pulling with force on a rope tied around his scrotum; on at least one occasion he noosed his scrotum in this way, looped the free end of the rope across an overhead pipe and wrapped it around one of his hands, and then, gripping the rope tightly, stepped off a chair, suspending himself in midair for a period that seems to have gone unrecorded, and which, incredibly, left him in one piece, albeit hospitalized.
As for his sadism, in the course of his sexological studies he was an accessory to the torture and sexual violation of infants, toddlers and prepubescent children of tender years. His culpability is on open display in chapter 5 of the Kinsey Report, a chapter that treats of the responses to sexual assault of infants as young as two months of age, as reported to Kinsey by their assailants, who, it should be noted, were subjects of his sexological study; a study presumably directed to the investigation of the sexual behavior of the representative American male. The content of this chapter is for the most part presented in the remote, almost offhanded manner that Kinsey, with studied ostentation, affects throughout the report; but this affected manner abruptly vanishes, and there is evidenced a barely restrained excitement, in his descriptions, redacted from those of pedophile and pederast subjects of his study, of what he styles infantile orgasm, and which, to anyone not patently insane, have in them nothing of the sexual, but are quite plainly graphic depictions of children in agony. They make very difficult reading.3
In his attic, acts of sexual congress between members of his research staff and spouses of other staff members were recorded on film and watched live by an audience composed of Kinsey, his staff, their spouses and, sometimes, visiting libertines and sexual deviants who were subjects of the study; homosexual acts of every description were filmed and watched as well; as were acts of a sadomasochistic nature; and as were solo masturbatory performances, including not a few by Kinsey himself. These shows were staged at Kinsey’s command on the theory that “the direct observation of biological phenomena is one of the most reliable ways to get [scientific data].”4 A theory, I daresay, with which few would find themselves at odds. Still, it does not require the special gifts of a Darwin to understand that the naturalist gains precious little insight into the behavior of wildlife by watching circus animals perform, although, as pure spectacle, he may find it entertaining, should his fancies run in that direction.
Save for his perverse private behavior, which was long unknown to the world at large, Kinsey was as characteristic a progressive of the more radical stamp as was Margaret Sanger or Upton Sinclair; he was, among other things, a devotee of the eugenics cult, as much a hallmark of the progressive mentality as was a belief in the professionalization of child rearing, opining at one point that for the preservation of the racial health of the nation one of every ten Americans should be sterilized. The thesis of the Kinsey study, which Kinsey deceitfully and rather brazenly asserted is without one, is constituted in its essentials of (1) a promotion of those articles of faith of the Progressive movement that pertain to human sexuality, with modifications relating to the perverse that were embraced in part or in whole only by the movement’s lunatic fringe, and of (2) the assertion of the irrationality, from a progressive perspective, of the laws governing sexual behavior in place at the time of the study. Kinsey’s assertions in his report to the effect that he restricts himself in it to the dispassionate presentation of uncolored facts, gathered or observed, is belied by what lies plain in its open text; text that stands, generally, as a model of simplicity, clarity and concision; an exemplar, in the main, in fact, of fine expository writing. There can be no mistaking his thesis.
Although he neither used the word normal nor cared to hear it used by others, it is clear that Kinsey had a sense of the normal; for him, the normal was the natural. And, for him, the Victorian definition of the natural was a fairy tale that brought in its train serious social dislocations; nor did he believe that in their privy chambers the generality of Americans hewed to this Victorian line of the natural, despite the sense of guilt with which they might afflict themselves by departing from it. His sexological study was undertaken, at least in part, to produce a proof that this latter belief was founded in reality, and to do so by recording precisely what in fact Americans did do in the privacy of their bedchambers. And, in so doing, to reveal the natural to the world, for it was an implicit article of faith with him that what the multitudes actually did had to be natural. He had no doubt of what the natural would turn out to be; he did not approach his subject with an open mind, but with a will to find what he wanted to find, and, unsurprisingly, find it he did. For Kinsey, the natural expression of human sexuality was the expression Alfred C. Kinsey gave to his sexuality.
A clear understanding of what that portended begins of necessity with the thesis of human sexuality to which progressives of the early twentieth century generally subscribed:
The human animal, a term not uncommonly used by these Advanced Thinkers in referring to the prototypical member of the human race, is possessed, they argued, of what they styled a sex drive, a biological pressure cooker of sorts that requires relief from time to time through the operations of what they called a sexual outlet, much as the processes of digestion produce a pressure that is relieved by defecation. What they spoke of as the repression of this sex drive, imposed by Victorian custom and law upon the unwed moieties of the hapless populations of the civilized nations was, they asserted, unnatural and unhealthy, and led to all manner of social evils: to prostitution, with a consequent spread of what were in the early years of the twentieth century still known as loathesome diseases; to the breeding of rapists and child molesters; and to such sicknesses of mind as bestiality, fetishism and voyeurism. And to other such evils, the lot of them responsible for a goodly portion of the human wreckage with which the jails, the hospitals and the insane asylums of the time were infested.
There is included in the thesis of the progressives nothing of the concept of the procreative act as a communion of two spirits, a coupling of human hearts through a mutual giving of self and a putting aside of defenses. A making of a circle of magic within which two souls linger for a time wholly defenseless and almost wholly one. A concept which, if not quite incomprehensible to progressives generally, despite their public endorsements of palpable imbecilities, is one which to Kinsey would have been as incomprehensible as is the theory of least squares to a cow. His vision of the male half of the human race was one of so many biological mechanisms moving to and fro in want of objects suitable for use in triggering sexual outlets, his sexological study report–in the words of the scandalized (and not unprogressive) anthropologist, Margaret Mead–“suggest[ing] no way of choosing between a woman and a sheep.”5 Interestingly, he speaks of such an object as a source, in relation to a sexual outlet, rather than as a sink, thus turning the scientific notion of source and sink on its head. But the nomenclature that sexologists use to describe their phantasms evidently suits them well enough, and finds favor with their dupes, and, so, receives no further comment here; source, let it be.
As a matter of record, Kinsey carried the notions of the human animal, the sex drive, the sexual outlet and repression to what is clearly a logical conclusion of sorts; albeit, one that can be accepted only by those among the culturally impoverished who consciously or unconsciously apprehend the faculty of reason not as instrumental but as sovereign: from the Kinseyan perspective, if the sex drive of the adult male human animal needs an outlet triggered, there is nothing in logic that rules against the use of: masturbation, a farm animal, another adult male human animal, an adolescent boy, an infant or prepubescent child of either sex, an adolescent girl, or, for that matter, a handy adult female human animal. There may be something in aesthetics that stands against at least four of these choices, and–in the things born in the blood and bone of the ancient race of man–much that stands against all of them save one, but there is certainly nothing in the Kinseyan logic that stands against any of them. In particular, not against the use of an infant or a child, for Kinsey, with the Freudian wing of the Progressive movement, was persuaded that the human animal is a sexual animal from birth. In the Kinseyan metaphysic, as in that of the present day sexologist, it is beneficial to the development of a prepubescent child to serve as the source of sexual outlets for adult or adolescent male human animals, so long as there is no force used and no pain inflicted. Whether in imposing these latter constraints on the pedophile, Kinsey was simply laying a protective smoke screen, is, I think, a question properly answered in the affirmative. His attitude toward the torment of children is imperishably recorded in chapter 5 of the Kinsey Report.
As for Woman, Kinsey considered her to be an undersexed moralist and natural agent of social control, who evidences too meager a sex drive to serve Man as his primary source of sexual outlets, and, so, in the natural order revealed by Kinsey, a man properly uses another man as his primary source of sexual outlets, and a woman uses another woman. Homosexuality stands at the center of the Kinseyan natural order. The Greek vice redivivous, and extended to embrace Woman.
It is not implied here, of course, that, because there is a logic in Kinsey’s metaphysic, it was formulated by a process of orderly thought. It is plainly nothing more than the belligerent, malignant, anguished, self-pitying expression of a monomaniacal deviant, obsessed by sexuality and driven by a need to elevate his witless, pathetic sense of the nature of man to exalted estate. The progressives, in their hubris, with their assertive airs of intellectual superiority and enlightenment, in making respectable the notion of assailing as unnatural the laws and customs designed to sanctify the marital state and safeguard childhood’s sanctuary of love, obtusely prepared the way for this assassin of grace to reach the public forums, there to imposture as an archetypal middle American, and, feigning to serve as a dispassionate dispenser of facts, to cry down the cultural expression of a People and to cry up the advent of a Frankenstein man.
Kinsey’s study, methodologically, is pure nonsense, and its findings are meaningless; the litany of his departures from the canons of sense begins with his sampling technic. He asserted, without foundation, that the technic he used was that of stratified sampling, which, briefly, is one in which the population of interest is partitioned by some prescribed characteristic, or characteristics, into a collection of subpopulations, with a sample drawn from each subpopulation by a randomized process, the ratio of its size to that of the total sample being equal to the ratio of the subpopulation size to that of the population. Some critics have likened the selection technic that he actually used to that of cluster sampling, a technic in which a homogeneous population is partitioned into groups, or clusters, with a randomized selection process of clusters and with the study sample formed by aggregating the selected clusters.
But in fact the technic Kinsey actually used was very much akin to that of quota sampling, which is a technic in which the investigator searches out a sample of a predetermined size and composition, by any means that may prove convenient and in any place within practical reach. Clearly, it does not require the special knowledge of a professor of mathematical statistics to understand that this technic is asinine: only through divine revelation can it be determined whether a sample gathered in this way is representative of the population from which it is drawn.
It should be noted at this point that the Kinsey study’s statistician, Clyde E. Martin, had neither training nor competence in this discipline, nor the capacity, evidently, to acquire it, nor did Kinsey himself betray more than a tenuous grasp of a few of its rudiments. He was in fact rather dismissive of the discipline. When the methodological criticisms of the Kinsey Report began to come in, he complained, in a note to Dr George W. Corner of the Carnegie Institution, that, “A number of [the objections] call for additional work on our part which would turn us into a group doing research on statistics rather than research on sex.”6 Given the nature of the criticisms of which he was complaining, it must be said that the phrase, “research on statistics,” in this quote should have read, “classroom work in the remedial study of statistics 101.” Kinsey had only a small capacity for coping with abstractions and no liking at all for doing so. He plainly hadn’t the vaguest idea, for example, what is meant by random, nor what is meant by that term in the context of probabilistic modeling, which in that context should be taken to mean, pseudo-random, a technical term into which it is needless to go here. For an insight into Kinsey’s grasp of the matter, consider this, from page 93 of the Kinsey Report:
[It is not] feasible to stand on a street corner, tap every tenth individual on the shoulder, and command him to contribute a full and frankly honest sex history.
Making full allowance for the fact that this assertion was meant as hyperbole, it is not the way a thinking scientist, even writing in a jocular, or deliberately light, vein, would make the point Kinsey was trying to make; not, at all events, in the body of a major scientific paper, which is precisely what he considered the Kinsey Report to be. Nothing in Kinsey’s hyperbolic event sequence can be said to be of a random character nor is it a description of a pseudo-random process.
The samples he collected were taken, a good many of them, from individuals whom he encountered by happenstance or design, socially, professionally, collegially, casually, formally, who yielded to his importunings to make themselves parties to his study; but for the most part they were taken from volunteers belonging to groups marked by special characteristics; groups which he sought out, and to which he contrived to find access, seeking from them participation en bloc. In fine, he sought out groups associated by some organizing principle that was sometimes of interest or import to him; sometimes, as with imprisoned felons or institutionalized mental defectives, a convenient one. Acquiring access to such a group, he used no randomized selection process in appealing to its ranks for volunteers; he appealed to the entire membership; and after recording the sexual histories of those who responded favorably to his appeal, he enlisted them if possible as foot soldiers in extended campaigns of persuasion aimed at moving their reluctant colleagues to volunteer their own histories. He seems seldom to have gotten 100% of any group to volunteer, however persistently pressed.
From this catch-as-catch-can sampling technic he assembled a substantial number of case histories, from which he assertedly selected for the male study some 5300 subjects, a number which is consistent with nothing in the tables and figures appearing in the Kinsey Report; the actual number is probably 4120, as is touched upon in the sequel. But in either case, the number was not large, nor was the makeup of the subjects disclosed. That they were a representative collection of American males is a Kinseyan fiction, a matter of crucial import that is treated in the sequel. These case histories were developed through a series of questions that are still closely held by the Kinsey Institute for Sex, Gender and Reproduction. The Kinsey study on these grounds alone is without scientific meaning; without these questions, it cannot be repeated. This institute still closely holds, as well, the case histories, and since these formed the database of the study, the study is, again, on these grounds alone, without scientific meaning; it cannot be verified. The protocol Kinsey established for the questioning is of interest for what it reveals of the Kinseyan mentality and the worth of his study. The crucial passages in this protocol are found on pages 53 and 55 of the Kinsey Report:
Placing the burden of denial on the subject. The interviewer should not make it easy for a subject to deny his participation in any form of sexual activity. … We always assume that everyone has engaged in every type of activity. Consequently we always begin by asking when they first engaged in such activity. … [Emphasis in original.]
Proving the answer. If it becomes obvious that the subject’s first answer is not correct or sufficient, one should ask for additional information, and re-phrase the original question in a way that will make him prove his answer or expose the falsity of his reply. In a rapid fire of additional questions, it is difficult for a dishonest subject to be consistent. With uneducated persons, and particularly with feeble minded individuals, it is sometimes effective to pretend that one has misunderstood the negative replies and ask additional questions, just as though the original answers were affirmatives … [Emphasis added.]
Forcing a subject. There are some persons who offer to contribute histories in order to satisfy their curiosities … As soon as one recognizes such a case, he should denounce the subject with considerable severity, and … should refuse to proceed with the interview.
This charming protocol begins with the presumption that the subject’s expression of his sexuality is the Kinseyan definition of the natural; if he denies it, a heavy handed adversarial interrogation follows; if the subject cannot be browbeaten or entrapped into yielding to the interrogator what he wants, he is dismissed. Excluded from the sample. Can there be much doubt about the outlines of the natural that can adduced from the histories completed and filed by Kinsey and his research assistants?
Defending himself in a number of venues over his failure to use random sampling technics, he argued that in studies of sexual behavior it is simply not feasible to sample randomly, since subjects chosen at random frequently refuse to take part in such studies. One can only stand agape before this illuminating announcement of the successor to Darwin. He offers us the notion that a scientific investigator who finds it infeasible to proceed in accordance with a fundamental methodological canon of science, for what is said to be a practical reason, should, in consequence, simply ignore the canon, thus overruling a mandate of reason by shouting up a rainspout the divine edict that the meaningless be meaningful. A notion that it is difficult to believe could seriously be offered or received by anyone sufficiently advanced intellectually to count telephone poles and sound the names of things seen along the roadway from the windows of a moving car.
Reversing the perspective adopted by Kinsey in speaking of a random sampling technic, it is evident that those randomly selected for studies of this sort who actually participate in them, do so only because they choose to–they are in fact volunteers. The distinction between a random selection technic and the selection technic practiced by Kinsey does not turn upon the question of volunteerism, but upon the differing representativities–with respect to the population under study–of the aggregated groups derived by means of these technics. To emphasize this crucial point, given two such aggregated groups, or statistical universes, formed for the purposes of statistical study, one formed through a randomized selection process and the other through a selection process of directed choices, the merit of either statistical universe for the purposes of statistical study is a reflection, directly, of how representative it is of the population of interest. A treatment of volunteerism, which does present a problem in a study of sexual behavior, is deferred here to the sequel.
The individuals and the groups, in part or in whole, incorporated in Kinsey’s case studies in hand included: four groups of conscientious objectors (World War II), large numbers of imprisoned criminals–the categories preferred by Kinsey being sex offenders and psychopaths–the inmates of an institution for the feeble-minded, a group of delinquent male high school students, the members of large, male homosexual communities in Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Indianapolis and St Louis, male prostitutes–those serving homosexuals and those serving women–pimps, pedophiles, pederasts, rapists, dope addicts, alcoholics, thieves, armed robbers, professional gamblers and God knows what other categories of unearthly human flotsam through whose haunts in the half worlds and the underworlds of aberrancy Kinsey was frequently guided, in Chicago, Peoria (Illinois), Indianapolis, New York City and Gary (Indiana). The sizes of the non-participating portions of these groups and categories were not recorded by Kinsey, which of course makes his findings based on the participating portions essentially impossible to evaluate. Kinsey classified the sexual deviants in his samples as representative American males, since in the natural order that was revealed to him, or that he revealed to us, there is no such thing as sexual abnormality. Save for chastity.
How many aberrants–criminals and sexual deviants–are included in the sample upon which the findings recorded in the Kinsey Report are based is specified neither within the report itself nor by the institute. Judith Reisman, an indefatigable investigator of Kinseyan misdeeds, who has studied in depth the large body of literature associated with the Kinsey study, and, as well, the contradictions, confusions and deceptions associated with the text, tables and graphs in Kinsey’s report, piecing together understandings of the realities that underlie them, estimates aberrants to constitute 86% of that sample, and she may well be right.7 If she is not, she is probably not far off the mark. That there certainly are criminals in the sample is verified by Paul Gebhard, a research associate under Kinsey and his successor as director of the institute. That there are deviants can scarcely be doubted: the chapter on homosexuality is the longest by far in Part III of the Kinsey Report, a Part that is titled, “Sources of Sexual Outlet”. Aberrants were deliberately included in this study, and their inclusion and distributions in the tables and figures undisclosed. It is the case in fact that the constituent subject categories of none of the tables and figures are disclosed. The subject makeup of this study is a mystery. And even among the constituent subject categories themselves, no one can say what, precisely, is meant by the classification, “college level”. That it was devised for purposes of deceit can be doubted only by the sort of lost soul who pens letters to Elvis Presley with a scheme to dynamite the walls of the dungeon in which Presley lies chained. It is plainly not possible for the findings of the Kinsey study to be validated. Its qualitative worth is zero.
Nevertheless, we proceed. There are other discordancies in the Kinseyan canticle to the goat god. Kinsey made no attempt to measure the bias introduced by the volunteerism inherent in collecting information of a sexual nature from free populations, despite that he was warned by an early associate, Abraham Maslow, a psychologist of some note, that in a study of sexual behavior this bias is significant. Maslow in fact went beyond simply informing Kinsey of the significance of the bias. At his suggestion, he and Kinsey collaborated in an investigation of the phenomenon, an investigation that indicated, as Maslow had predicted, that volunteers for studies of this sort tend to have high so called dominance scores, and that those with such scores tend to show high incidences of promiscuity, homosexuality and other behaviors that were at the time generally disapproved. But such behaviors are precisely the kind that Kinsey wanted to find in the population he was assertedly studying; and, so, as those who have a well developed sense of this truth-seeker’s mentality will doubtless find entirely expectable, Kinsey silently cut his ties with Maslow and included in the report of his sexological study the assertion that “the first volunteers [of any group sampled] seemed to be [its] more extrovert[ed] and assured individuals (although how that affects a sexual history is not yet clear).”8. (Almost any of the sixteen million American males of the time, boys and men, who had served in barracks or field or aloft, or on board a ship of war, could have told Kinsey just how much faith should be placed in the reality of the sexual experiences claimed by a man who voluntarily informs others of them. A matter not addressed by Maslow, and a question that goes to the underlying futility of conducting sex studies.)
A determination of the representativity of the statistical universe, or sample, that Kinsey assembled for his statistical study, should presumably begin with a consideration of the number of case histories of which it was comprised. A number of some importance, it may reasonably be adjudged, and a number the attempted discovery of which, through a reading of the Kinsey Report, is not unlike pitting one’s wits against those of the grease-painted impresario of a sideshow shell game. On page 6 of the report, it is noted that:
[A]bout 12,000 persons have contributed histories to this study. … Of the histories now in hand, about 6300 are male, and about 5300 of these are the white males who have provided the data for the present publication.[Emphasis added.]
There is included an acknowledgement on page vii “to the 5300 males who have provided the data on which the present volume is based.” In a table displayed on page 29, which lists the published (American) studies in sexology that are said by Kinsey to be of a taxonomic character, the number 6200 is entered under a heading signifying that it is in fact the sample size of this (Kinsey) study. On page 10, the number of case histories in hand is said to be 12,214. However, Reisman asserts that the number of cases in hand was in fact 21,350.9 This number is derived from a map of the United States found on page 5 of the Kinsey Report upon which there appear dots, geographically distributed, each dot representing 50 case histories. Reisman asserts that there are exactly 427 such dots on this map. A glance at the map and its mass of dots disinclines me to undertake a verification of her count. But I give my affidavit that there are a great many of them, and that their distribution reflects a definite bias in favor of the northeastern quadrant of the country running east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line, which rules out any claim that the sample is representative of the population of the United States, a claim that is found in a good many tables in the Kinsey Report. (See, for example, Table 138, a rather crucial one in terms of the homosexual question.) But in the context of Kinsey’s egregious violations of the canons and norms of scientific investigation and logical inquiry, this problem seems one of small moment. The study is essentially, and for all practical purposes, a mirthless farce.
To attempt to relate any information of a statistical nature found in the report to any one of the several numbers referred to above, is an exercise in futility; nor does a close examination of the report’s statistical information illuminate matters, but darkens them: it is difficult in examining any of the data presented in tabular form to find anything relating to the number of case histories upon which that data is based, and where something is in fact found, it introduces confusion. Table 41, for example, displayed on page 208, shows distributions of the study sample by educational level, by occupational class, by religion and by age at the onset of puberty; but summing each of these distributions produces sample sizes, respectively, of 4102, 4940, 4120 and 4069. There is, as well, a distribution by age, but this seems to have been constructed by means of the so called cumulative incidence technic; assuming this to be so, and decomposing the elements of the distribution into the values that went into its construction and summing them, yields a sample size of 4072; summing the elements of the undecomposed distribution yields a sample size of 11,587, which clearly is bogus.
The cumulative incidence technic was heavily used by Kinsey to artificially inflate the number of subjects in his sample showing a history of any behavior that should by definition be widespread in the natural order that he meant to discover. The process is straightforward:
Consider a behavior of interest, say coitus with a prostitute, and an ordered enumeration of the states into which some subject-characterizing category breaks down; say, the category, marital-state, with the Kinseyan enumeration of states,
Given for example a subject who has exhibited this behavior, and whose marital-state is post-marital, then another subject exhibiting this behavior is added to the distribution under each of the marital-state enumerants,
And it was by judicious use of this legerdemaine that Kinsey fabricated the data demonstrating that 37% of white American males have at least some overt homosexual experiences, to the point of orgasm, during their lifetimes.11 An invention so fantastic that I suspect even some psychiatrists of the Freudian persuasion were suspicious when intelligence of the thing came in. But one never knows.
Alas, little that can be adduced from this unearthly stew of dupery smacks of surety; it is plain that those in search of the sample size of the Kinsey study are well advised to look for it elsewhere than in the Kinsey Report. Turning to critical reviews of the report, the number that seems the most likely candidate was teased out of the veritable architectonic of incoherence in which it lies concealed by W. Allen Wallis, a noted University of Chicago scholar and statistician and sometime president of the American Statistical Association, who conducted an exhaustive review of the Kinsey Report in 1949, concluding, with admirable restraint, that “The inadequacies in statistics are such that it is impossible to say that the book has much value beyond its role in opening a broad and important field,” and finding the sample size to be, in all likelihood, 4120.12 Wallis was a notable scholar, but at the time that he reviewed Kinsey’s report he was ill informed concerning the state of sexological knowledge. There existed at the midpoint of the twentieth century an enormous trove of sexological research and scholarship, chiefly European, the extent and depth of which greatly surprised the factotums of the American Statistical Association, by whose researchers it was discovered through a standard literature search. The status of Kinsey as a pioneering sexologist was established through the bullying nature, native cunning and natural born skill in the art of razzledazzle possessed by Alfred C. Kinsey, who could have taught the impresarios of the foofaraw factories of Madison Avenue a thing or two.
The descriptions of the so called sexual behavior of infants and children found in chapter 5 of the Kinsey Report are of violated innocents, children whose specters can only turn stilled faces to us and watch with a fright in their eyes that damns us. For this book of Kinsey’s was published a half century ago, and to this day no agency of law has required that the Kinsey institute account for these children, or that those of its functionaries do so who were accessories to these crimes and who still live. Kinsey and his research associates went well beyond simply witholding their hands against the pedophile subjects of their study: they requested that these monsters, during their future assaults, pay special attention to certain reactions of their victims and that they keep the institute informed of their continuing observations. Kinsey’s biographer, James H. Jones, ascribes to “a huge moral blind spot,” the delight with which Kinsey received reports from these pedophile subjects of his study describing the effects of their assaults on children, a blind spot that was in Jones’s view a consequence of Kinsey’s rage for scientific fact.13
I fear that it is Mr Jones who exhibits a huge blind spot in this matter. To read the descriptive passages, in chapter 5 of the Kinsey Report, of what Kinsey chooses to call an infantile orgasm, is to feel the sickly aura of a mentality seized with a barely restrained state of excitement at the agonies of helpless, terrified innocents in the grip of monsters. These passages are the gabblings of a madman transfixed by fascination in a chamber of horrors:
Extreme tension with violent convulsion: Often involving the sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body. Descriptions supplied by several subjects indicate that the legs often become rigid, with muscles knotted and toes pointed, muscles of abdomen contracted and hard, shoulders and neck stiff and often bent forward, breath held or gasping, eyes staring or tightly closed, hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching, sometimes synchronously with throbs or violent jerking of the penis. … A gradual, and sometimes prolonged build-up to orgasm, which involves still more violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children) … [Emphasis added.]14
Do any of the social scientists who cite the findings of the Kinsey Report, with the certitude of preachers citing holy writ, ever read it? Any part of it at all? A book presented as a record of a scientific inquiry into the sexual habits of American men by an author who demonstrates in the passage quoted above that he is insane; an author who gathers psychopaths, rapists, pedophiles, sexual deviants, criminals of every stripe, and specimens of the feeble minded, and presents their sexual behaviors as those of representative examples of American manhood; who extorts from his subjects, where necessary to his purposes, bogus histories of deviant behavior; who sweeps under the rug evidence of a serious flaw in his methodology; who refuses to reveal the content of his database or the content of the questionnaire from which he developed it; who concocts subjects and data out of thin air, preparing tables and figures designed not to inform but to obfuscate, mislead and confuse.
An author who could not cope with an idea that touched upon an abstraction, and who simmered with impatience when confronted by one; who had difficulty in fact comprehending how to formulate a systemic description save in terms of counting state transitions: considering the human male in function as a sexual being, he characterized him in terms of his orgasm (outlet) count per unit time, with a breakdown of this count in terms of the outlet inducing sources. Kinsey was, it seems to me, a simpleton who possessed an animal cunning, a slow, heavy, limited intelligence, and an overweening sense of self-esteem, and who made a career of counting things in the belief that this was the stuff of scientific research. Tangible or observable things. The only word for the man is numerant.
It is dubious whether anyone of balanced mind can read the Kinsey Report without concluding that it records a study driven by hidden and shadowed purpose or by witlessness, manifesting itself, in either case, in a protocol of unreason that is a compelling demonstration of what is possible in the absence of peer review, which the study did not receive, and without proper oversight by the funding authority, in this case the Committe for Research in the Problems of Sex (CRPS), a standing committee of the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. This standing committe received its major funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, and, from first to last, Kinsey effectively controlled, with the arts of a gifted, and very secretive, natural born humbug, the functionaries of the CRPS and the Rockefeller Foundation whose responsibilities were to evaluate the progress and worth of his study. The shared characteristic of these watchmen, of which Kinsey took full advantage in his gulling of them, was an enthusiasm for a study of human sexual behavior of the sort he had undertaken, for they were believers in the power of science to illuminate the nature of man, and, so, to point the way to a revision of law and custom that could bring in the millenium.
There is an immediacy for us in the questions of how and why this shabby essay into the meaningless turned out by Kinsey came to loom large in the national consciousness and to lodge there as scientifically determined truth, causing it to weigh heavily among the things that brought us the so called sexual revolution. Despite the denial of the reality of evil that is the mark of modernity, the real and malevolent works fashioned by those who move in darkness are everywhere evident in our age. And nowhere more so than in the disparagement of the marital bond that now plagues the nation and in the desolation visited upon the little ones born of the transient unions that are its consequence. A state of things brought to being by the triumphal advances won by a mentality still in function in the shadows, still driven by revolutionary fervor, for its victory is by no means complete. Kinsey’s heirs and assigns are with us, and their most pressing object of the moment is the normalization of pedophilia; which is to say, the force of their onslaught against the order of civilization is now directed to the dismissal and abandonment of children, whose fates are of no more concern to these celebrants of the orgasm than are those of so many gerbils.
Shopping is one of the most adorable things to do in San Diego. Within budget and sometimes outside your budget! The different districts have a uniqueness when it comes to this art of exquisitry. There are many shopping malls and places to get great deals and offers.
Fashion Valley Mall is among the best malls to visit. It has everything you could wish for in a mall. With upscale, trendy stores, it offers a very delightful shopping experience. It appeals to all age groups, to the fashion-conscious and conservative alike. Be sure to be getting quality from the various shops. JC Penney, Bloomingdale’s, Nieman Marcus, Nordstrom, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Tiffany & Co., A/X Armani Exchange are some of the department stores in this shopping complex. It has nice restaurants which make the shopping even more delightful.
Westfield Malls are made up of the:
– Horton Plaza
– Parkway Plaza
– Plaza Bonita
– Westfield Plaza Camino Real
– Westfield North County
– Westfield Mission Valley
– Westfield University Town Center
Horton Plaza is an attraction for tourists because of its structure. There are over 200 stores within the plaza. It has numerous department stores and restaurant, a food court and a movie theatre. Some of its signature stores include BCBG, Louis Vuitton, Levi’s Store, Nordtrom, Bebe and Steve & Barry’s. There is also a 24-hour gym facility. During the period of March to October, it has a farmers market.
Parkway Plaza, the teens hang-out central’ is a nice place to take your own teens too. Shops like Forever 21, American Eagle, Hot Topic and Hollister for example, cater for the young adult population. It has a big food court and plenty of parking space.
Grossmont Centre is in La Mesa District. It generally attracts more conservative shoppers. It has a mixed flavour to add to the shopping experience because it has quite a number of independent retailers. Stores like Wal Mart, Barnes and Nobles, Macy’s, Sports Authority and Target are found in here. Its restaurants include Olive Garden, Claim Jumper, Fuddruckers, BJ’s Restaurant, Casa de Pico, Shakey’s Pizza among others. It also has a Pacific Cinema which is an attraction for young people. With plenty of parking, it is worth your while, checking this place out.
Chula Vista Center is smaller than most malls in San Diego. Signature stores to be found include Mervyn’s, Macy’s, Sears store (the only one in the South Bay area). It is also has the ULTRAStar Cinema. It is very unique form other malls and is not an indoor mall.
Otay Ranch Town Center has about 150 stores. It has a great view and relaxation atmosphere to chill out or watch others shopping. It is divided into the:
– Lifestyle row which has chic lifestyle shops and boutiques
– Entertainment court which has first-class restaurants, a 12-screen AMC Theatre complex and
a book store
– Garden court where the traditional retailers are
– Centre court where the fashionable retailers are.
The Seaport Village which is located in Downtown San Diego has close to 70 shops and restaurants. The shopping centre and dining area overlooks the bay with a recreated historic “seaside village” look. It also has an antique carousel.
Plaza del Pasado is located in the Old Town District. Bazaar del Mundo, is a renowned group of restaurants and shops. It usually has special fun events for children.
Johnson House, also in Old Town District is based in an 1869 style house and has Victorian books, hats and similar items from the Victorian era.
San Diego Gaslamp Quarters is famous for its entertainment and fun. What is more it has numerous shops, restaurants, galleries, cafes and bars. It is a very bubbly shopping quarters.
Have fun shopping!
Philadelphia is one of the world’s great sport cities, one of the few that can boast professional teams in all four major sports: baseball, basketball, football and ice hockey. Philadelphians love their teams; all four make their home in South Philadelphia, where an ever-improving sports complex has developed, devoted almost entirely to them. On game days, the north/south subway line that bisects the city runs express trains that end at the stadium complex, filled with riders wearing Phillies’ red, Eagles’ green, Flyers’ orange, or Sixers’ red, white and blue.
Basketball: The Philadelphia 76ers play in the Eastern Conference of the National Basketball Association, and have a long history highlighted by the play of some of basketball’s greatest players. Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Dr. J Erving, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley and Allen The Answer Iverson are just a few of the star players who have led the Sixers through the years. Now playing at the Wachovia Center, the 76ers have struggled over the last few years, winning a playoff berth in the 2008 season, but suffering early elimination.
Ice Hockey: The Philadelphia Flyers play in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference of the National Hockey League. They have the 2nd best all-time winning percentage in the entire NHL, and are perhaps best known for their play in the mid 1970s, when they not only won the Stanley Cup, but also defeated the Soviet Union’s Central Red Army. Their aggressive style of play and their long time arena location (first at the Spectrum, now at the Wachovia Center) on Broad Street earned them the nickname
The Broad Street Bullies. Team leaders and legends over the years have included Bernie Parent, Bobby Clark, and Bill Barber. In recent play, the Flyers made it to the playoffs in 2009, but suffered early elimination.
Football: The Philadelphia Eagles play in the Eastern Division of the National Football Conference at Lincoln Financial Field, a new, state-of-the art stadium. Though the team has never won a Super Bowl, their fans are known as some of the best, most loyal in the league; they are also known as the fans who threw snowballs at Santa Claus. The team is highly regarded for their extensive charity work, most notably through their philanthropic branch, the Eagles Youth Partnership, which provides low income children throughout the region with books and eyeglasses. Eagles’ greats through the years have included Chuck Bednarik, Mike Ditka, Reggie White and Randall Cunningham. In recent play they have been lead by Donovan McNabb; they have won five NFC championships in the last eight years and played in the 2004 Super Bowl, where they were defeated by the New England Patriots.
Baseball: The Philadelphia Phillies play in the Eastern Division of the National League of Major League Baseball. The team dates back to 1883, and is the oldest continuous single-city, single-name team in all of professional sports. Their most recent home is Citizens Bank Park, a new, state-of-the-art venue in the South Philadelphia Sports Complex. The team boasts one of the most popular mascots in all of professional sports, the Phillie Fanatic, as well as a long list of Hall of Fame players including Jim Bunning, Mike Schmidt, and Steve Carlton. In recent play, the Phillies are the 2008 World Series champions and clinched the 2009 National League Eastern Division title.
A good education is one of the best things you can provide to your child. Once the high school days are near, finding a quality school is even more crucial to the success of your child. Finding the right school in which your child can excel can have major impact on the future of your child. There are 17 high schools located in Clark County. Here are the best of the best!
Valley High School, located at 2839 South Burnham Street, is one of the best high schools Las Vegas has to offer. Ranked #5 out of the 17 high schools in the city, Valley offers supportive teachers and faculty who go out of their way to provide all the necessary tools for your child. There are many activities taking place in the school throughout the year, including a chess club, Beatles Fan Club, Sci-Fi Fantasy Book Club, and more. Athletics are an important part of the school. The Valley Vikings offer sports for every taste-football, soccer, basketball, and more.
Another excellent high school is Las Vegas High.Home of the Wildcats, this school is located at 315 South 7th Street, and ranks 9 out of the 17 Las Vegas High schools. This is the oldest school in the city, opening in 1931, but relocating to a downtown location in 1993. This school offers many classes and programs to ensure the success of every child in the school.
Western High School, located at 4601 Bonanza Road, is ranked #10 out of the 17 schools. Clark High School, ranked 6 out of 17, is located at 4291 West Pennwood Avenue. Both schools offer a diverse education with plenty of academics and extra course classes. Faculty and staff are always open to, and welcome suggestions to improve the school, and stress the importance of parental involvement with their children.
The best high school Las Vegas has to offer is Advance Technologies Academy, located at 2501 Vegas Drive. It is ranked #1 among all Las Vegas High Schools. Students attending this magnet school choose from 1 of 8 specialized programs, including English, Science, Math, Social Studies, Health Education, Physical Education, humanities, and foreign languages. Students are chosen for the school based on academic scores. To maintain parental involvement, Advance offers a Parenting Project, with educational programs for all family members. The goal of the school is to have 100% of students to attend college. Students are offered many opportunities to tour colleges and more.
Looking for new cheap thrills and chills in or around Vegas? Ever wondered what else lies out there in the desert? Afraid of withering away the rest of your vacation spending cash in a casino with only a cheesy t-shirt to bring home? Well, the next time you’re in Sin City, crank it up a notch with a day trip to a rarely explored local hot spot. Or try adding a twist to one of the most popular tourist haunts, like Hoover Dam, and explore its inner workings. Trek out through the striking surrounding scenery of Lake Mead or the Grand Canyon by helicopter or jeep. Away from the glittering allure of the Las Vegas strip, lies a world of fun and adventure waiting to be explored.
What better way to nurture your inner sci-fi geek (or lure a trekkie away from a convention), than by taking the tour that will expose those ugly truths hidden by the government to the harsh light of day. If you’re lucky, you just might spot some little green men trying to hitch a ride back to Vegas.
LEE SKI CANYON
Less than an hour from Vegas, Lee Ski Canyon is a quaint little hideaway nestled inside of the Toiyabe National Forest. Although it lacks the amenities of a posh ski resort, you can rent your ski equipment and spend the day swooshing down the slopes for about a hundred dollars. You can also bring your own gear and buy a season pass for under $600 and come as often as you like. Most of the slopes are steep and not the best place for beginners to get their feet wet, but seasoned veterans will find the no-frills ski experience enticing enough.
An alternative to spending the day at the slot machines – get your adrenalin rushing while rafting down the Colorado river.
GOLD MINE AND GHOST TOWN
Revisit the old southwest before the bright lights of the strip were ever lit, by taking a tour through the ghost town of Oatman, Arizona and nearby gold mine.
Looming high above the hustle and bustle of the strip, Mount Charleston’s cooler, tranquil climate lures both thrill-seekers and nature-lovers with it rock climbing and skiing facilities, as well as its startling scenic backdrop. Explore the alpine trails of the mountain and nearby Kyle Canyon without breaking a sweat by taking a tour by jeep.
VALLEY OF FIRE
Not only nature buffs will marvel at the colorful, eye-popping vistas of the Valley of Fire, even city folk will be enchanted by the rock formations you get to explore in this tranquil yet fiery landscape.
Before planning your next vacation in Vegas, shop around (there are hundreds of travel packages offered by travel agents and sites alike) and spice things up with a little side adventure.
Starting on December 1, 2009 Christmas comes to Las Vegas with all the sparkling glitter and glitz of a city that loves lights, laughter and excitement. The Christmas holidays are not usually cheap in Las Vegas so this guide will attempt to share some free Christmas activities hosted by the local libraries. Experience everything from snow and sugar plum fairies to making gingerbread houses.
On December 1, 2009, the West Las Vegas Holiday Tree Trimming Party will happen at the West Las Vegas Library at 951 W. Lake Mead Blvd in Las Vegas, Nevada. This event is completely free of charge and it will begin at 10:00 AM. Children will be able to help decorate the West Las Vegas Library!
If you love flute music, then come out on December 2, 2009 to the Las Vegas Library from 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM to see the Quadrivium Flute Quartet. The Quartet will play traditional Christmas songs as well as songs to celebrate Hanukah. The cost of this Christmas/Hanukah event is absolutely free. The Las Vegas Library is located at 1401 E. Flamingo, Las Vegas, NV.
Does your family love crafting? What about making gingerbread houses? Well, get your stuff together and head to the Enterprise Library at 25 E. Shelbourne Ave, Las Vegas, Nevada. From 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM, you can make a fine gingerbread house. The cost is free.
If that isn’t enough on gingerbread, the Whitney Library at 5175 E. Tropicana Ave, Las Vegas, NV is hosting a history and traditions of the gingerbread house and will tell you how to make one of your own. It’s free! Class begins December 5, 2009 from 4:00 – 5:00 PM. Join in and make this Vegas Christmas holiday especially fun.
Another great December 5 event in Las Vegas is the Tree Lighting Ceremony on Fremont Street at the Fremont Street Experience. The time is yet to be announced, but it’s free and you can add a note to your holiday calendar.
Do you like Mariachi Music? The Clark County School District Mariachi Music Instructional Program is presenting a holiday concert. Head over to the Clark County Library at 1401 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas at 7:00 PM. It is free.
On December 9, 2009 you can play in the snow and eat a treat. Rumor says these treats are made by the Sugar Plum Fairy. This free event is also being held by the Clark County Library at 1401 E. Flamingo Road in Las Vegas. It starts at 11:00 AM and ends at Noon.
Happy Holidays to all!
There is one word in Las Vegas nightlife, literally! The last few years an erotic force of one word ultra lounges have taken over Sin City with pounding music, dark corners with over-sized couches and long lines vying to pass entrance across a velvet rope. Places like Lure, Pure, Ice, Jet, Tao, Light, Krave, Mix and Tryst are single syllable magnets for the movers, shakers, beautiful people and celebrities with their “Crews” who flock to where skin is flaunted, liquor flows and we little people fight for a glance at the rich and famous. A whole raft of VIP rooms, private booths and sky bars at many of the nightclubs command hundreds of dollars for access.
Many of these places actually pay famous party animals fees to come and be seen, and notorious naughty girls Lindsay Lohan and Jessica Simpson reportedly get up to $10,000 for rounding at some top clubs.
Here are four places that are ultra hot ultra cool and ultra everything else you could want in the one word in a Las Vegas ultra bar.
Caesar’s Palace, 702-73107837
This insanely popular ultra club was actually launched by a group of Hollywood personalities. It receives a steady stream of celebrities who draw locals and tourists in vast numbers. Inside is a 14,000 square foot Terrace that you can only reach through a shoulder squirming, bottlenecked staircase, but which offers a magnificent view of the strip.
One of the hot new nightclubs, the 36,000sq ft (1,215sq m) nightclub offers three distinct areas over two stories. The cream, white and silver decor of the main room contrasts sharply with the VIP-only Red Room with its plush fabrics, chandeliers and upholstered walls. A glass lift will then take you up to the terrace with its dance floor, private cabanas and tables that offer spectacular views of the Strip. Open FriSun 10pm4am.
Skin Pool Lounge, The Palms, 702-942 7777
By day a luxurious outdoor lounge with two pools, a lavender-shaded swimming pool and the Mermaid Cove an elevated pool with portholes where mermaids swim after dark plus private cabanas and fibre-optically lit water salons, four bars, billiard tables, outdoor swings, poolside blackjack, trampolines, massages and other spa services.
Come night-time in the summer, the lounge is transformed into one of the most spectacular outdoor nightclubs and concert venues in Vegas. It has a concert stage, two dance floors, including Plexiglass dance platforms where aqua go-go girls emerge from the depths of the lavender pool. An elevated pool-top dance floor allows you literally to dance on water. Atmosphere is added with amazing lighting and fog effects.
Along with the rest of The Palms’ venues, this has become a fast hit with locals and visitors alike a true haven of voyeurism for adults. And if you’re hungry, poolside dining is provided by Nine Steakhouse and includes specialties such as sashimi and ceviche.
During the day, Skin is only open to hotel residents, but in the evening it is open to the public. Cover charges vary depending on the entertainment, while the beach party element is only on during the summer.
The Venetian, 702-492 3960
Tao is not only a top restaurant but it has also hosts what has become the hottest and sexiest ultra lounge in Vegas. It is an odd mix of Oriental spirituality with sensitive rock gardens, candles and waterfalls, with New York Modernism in the clean lines and colors. Just see the modernistic bar surrounded by hundreds of tiny Buddha statues and you will understand. It is also a hands down favorite with celebrities and home to some of the most raucous parties in Sin City. Open Thu-Sun, 10.30pm-5.30am.
The Venetian, 702-414 3200
One of the coolest nightclubs in town, it is based on both the trend-setting supper club Lotus in New York and Los Angeles’s swanky Sunset Room. An upscale lounge, it has opaque glass walls, double-sided leather chaises-longueurs and subdued lighting. The focal point is a custom-designed oversized bed made of pearlised silver leather and hollowed in the center to allow space for a table holding a selection of exotic cocktails. Top DJs spin wide range of heart pumping tunes. Open daily 6pm4am.
New York City has something of interest for anyone at any age or season. If you don’t have a destination, why not pick up a copy of the New Yorker and explore the many cultural happenings to see which is most appealing to you or your traveling companion. Once I visited the Big Apple during a snowstorm. Meandering through Central Park took me back to childhood times when my parents took us children to Radio City to go ice skating. Afterwords we went to Hamburger Haven and later lit a candle in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. If one is properly dressed for the weather, it is no real chore to find one’s way to a favorite museum. At the time, I was lucky to attend the Miro exhibit on the last day. There were no crowds to fight and I thoroughly enjoyed taking my time with each new painting. Afterwords I did visit St. Patrick’s Cathedral and lit a candle as my parents had taught me to do. Fifth Avenue can be wondrous with the snow falling everywhere. Dinner was in an inexpensive, upstairs restaurant in Chinatown which served brown rice instead of the traditional white. Afterwords on my way to a show, I did a little shopping. Luckily, Chinatown stores are open late and staples such as quality green tea and exotic vegetables are also very reasonably priced. If you cannot afford to stay in a hotel, then hop aboard a casino bus to Atlantic City and you will be reimbursed for you trip, and may even qualify for a comp. when you arrive there. You’ll also have a return ticket to the Big Apple for your next show, exhibit, or concert.
When Reverend Horace Bushnell proposed what has become known as Bushnell Park in 1853 he described his vision as “an opening in the heart of the city… a place where children play… a place for holiday scenes and celebrations… where rich and poor will exchange looks and make acquaintance through the eyes… a place of life and motion that will make us more completely conscious of being one people,”.
His proposal came in a time of drastic change for the town of Hartford, Connecticut. Hartford’s population doubled from 1850 to 1860 as it experienced the benefits of the booming industrial revolution economy. These benefits were accompanied by crime, crowded housing, poverty, pollution and poor sanitation, which fueled the concern of community leaders. In response to the growing need for open space in Hartford, Reverend Horace Bushnell proposed the creation of the first public park in any city in America to be paid for through public funds.
The suggested area for the park was incomparable to the scenic, serene, green space it would become. At the time of Bushnell’s proposal the suggested site contained two leather tanneries, pigsties and other livestock, a soap works and a garbage dump. Industrial waste polluted the Park River, which was also lined on both sides with overcrowded tenements whose outhouses dumped directly into the river’s waters. Reverend Bushnell described the location as “hell without the fire”.
Despite the unappealing condition of the site, Bushnell’s presentation in October 1853 convinced the Hartford City Council to unanimously approve the park in November of the same year. The City Council approved spending $105,000 in public funds to purchase the land that would become Bushnell Park. On January 5, 1854 Hartford residents voted to approve the City Council’s decision to purchase the park 1,687 to 683. This made Bushnell Park the first municipal park in the country to be conceived, constructed and financed by citizens through popular vote.
By 1860 the park was still yet to come together and it was becoming clear that new direction was necessary. Reverend Bushnell asked his life-long friend Frederick Olmsted, a Hartford native and famous designer of New York’s Central Park, to design the park. Olmsted, who was in the middle of designing Central Park and could not fulfill Bushnell’s request, suggested Jacob Weidenmann. Weidenmann was a Swiss born architect and botanist.
The 1861 plan, created by Weidenmann, was marked by an uncommonly natural style. Smooth boarders enclosed the park, which was decorated with several walking paths. Clusters of trees, both evergreen and deciduous, were used to pull the curtain on the sights and sounds of the city. Weidenmann chose 157 different species of trees and shrubs from North America, Europe and eastern Asia to be included in the park. All together, 1,100 individual pieces of greenery were planted to transform an area that was once described as “hell without the fire” into a lush green paradise in the heart of Hartford.
In the 1870’s Bushnell Park nearly became the home of the state’s capital building. Connecticut citizens voted Hartford the capital of the state in 1873, a role the city had previously shared with New Haven. The west side of Bushnell Park was set to be the home of the new capital building. Reverend Bushnell’s last minute protest coupled with a suggestion from the editor of The Hartford Times newspaper, Alfred E. Burr, resulted in the selection of an alternate site for the capital building, which opened in 1878.
The Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Arch was designed by Hartford architect George Keller, whose ashes were buried in the east tower upon his death in 1935. The Arch was dedicated on the anniversary of the Battle of Antietam, September 17, 1886, to honor the 400 Hartford citizens who gave their lives fighting for the Union and the 4,000 Hartford citizens who fought in the Civil War. Brownstone from Portland, Connecticut was used to construct the arch. A terra cotta frieze on the monument depicts scenes from the Civil War. Midway below the frieze, eight foot tall statues portray the different kinds of residents who left their homes to fight in the war including a farmer, student, stone mason, freed slave, blacksmith and carpenter.
As part of a $1.5 million restoration project the original terra cotta angels that crown each tower, Gabriel and Raphael, were replicated in bronze and replaced in 1987. In the same year, research by a seventh grade Hartford student, Airron Bethea, resulted in the addition of a bronze plaque which honors the 128 African American Hartford residents who fought for the Union.
Bushnell Park saw another addition just before the turn of the century. The Corning Fountain was constructed in 1899 and was presented by John Corning as a tribute to his father, a Hartford businessman who ran a grist mill on the site. James Massey Rhind of New York designed the sculpture using a Native American theme. The 30 foot tall, marble and stone monument portrays a hart, for Hartford, surrounded by the city’s first inhabitants, the Saukiog Indians.
In 1940 one of the parks oldest features, the Park River, was removed. The waters that were once polluted by industrial waste were frequently flooding, taking lives and destroying property. In response to the high toll floods were taking on human life and property, city officials looked to the Army Corps of Engineers for help. The process of channeling the Park River underground began in the 1940’s. A 30 foot tall, 45 foot wide tunnel stretching 9 miles was constructed to push the waters underground and connect the Park River to the Connecticut River.
Another attraction came to the park in 1974 in the form of the Carousel. Bushnell Park’s Carousel is one of three Stein and Goldstein carousels still in existence. The Knox Foundation brought the vintage 1914 carousel to Hartford. Jack Dollard, the Knox Foundation director at the time, thought the Carousel would symbolize the restoration of the city. Today, visitors to the park can still take the three and a half minute ride for only one dollar, from May through October, Tuesday through Sunday.
The newest addition, the Performance Pavilion, was dedicated in October 1995. Located on the west side of the park, the pavilion blends the permanent stage masterfully with the beauty of its surroundings. A total of 3,200 square feet of stage is used for music, theater, and dance performances by local artists, community organizations and performing groups.
Much has changed since Reverend Bushnell’s time but Bushnell Park remains a sanctuary in the heart of Hartford. Bushnell Park has lost some landmarks, such as the Park River, but the addition of monuments celebrating Hartford residents and the stage for arts and music truly makes the park “a place of life and motion that will make us more completely conscious of being one people”.
Here are my five nominations for the best vegetarian restaurants in Manhattan. If I included all of New York City, I wouldn’t be able to get through them for days and months. Incidentally, all of those I named are very clean, reasonable and offer delicious food.
B & H Vegetarian is not strictly vegetarian, but offers a large selection of veggie items on its menu. It is small, but the food is cooked fresh and the veggie salads are to die for. Lots of students and young professionals eat there or rush in and rush away with take out.
Better Burger is a chain of joints that offer all-natural veggie burgers, but also serve meat and fish dishes. When my daughter lived in the Chelsea area, we often dined in the neighborhood BB. Such mouth-watering treats as their famed soy burger, soy dogs, smashed potato dishes and others are treats for the locals and visiting parents.
Hangawi is strictly vegan, if that’s what your looking for with a Korean menu. A bit pricey, but the ample servings make it worthwhile to share and mix’n’amatch platters. And you’d better be in good shape to eat here, because customers shed their shoes and squat on cushions.
Jubb’s Longevity has a name that seems to promise Methusalah years to anyone who comes in to dine. Most of the items on the menu are served raw and the tiny place caters mostly to regular Korean and Korean-food lover take-out clients. However, after you’ve made your raw selections for lunch or dinner there, the friendly staff will cook it for you and serve with an exotic tea.
New York Dosas is not a come in and sit down restaurant, but a guy in the park with a food cart. Sounds a bit chancy, and I don’t think most cousine experts would recommend dining at such a place, but students at New York University and hundreds of other food fans flock daily to this famed Dosa Man cafe on wheels at Washington Square. Tired of paying big money for the famed tourist-trap restaurants in Manhattan, my student daughter took us to this gem of an eatery and we’ve been back several times.
The food is Southern Indian fare, spicy and strictly vegan. You’d better get there during his very short hours from about 11 am to 3 pm. On the many days when he runs out of food early, and you show up at 2 pm, sorry. If you ain’t tried his vegan chicken $1 drumsticks, you’ve missed a great experience of both eating al fresco and trying to figure out how to clean your fingers before you go back to class or office.
First of all, understand that Vegas is famous for its big and varied buffets. Some of the most elegant are in the posh resorts on the Strip (Las Vegas Boulevard). Of course there are some Mom and Pop cafes that have veggie meals on their menus in other parts of the city, but for the typical vegan tourist, the most convient are within short taxi rides or walking distance of the most popular hotels.
I’m in Vegas a dozen or more times a year, and all buffets I’ve visited there have, along with the usual meat, poultry and fish dishes, enough varieties of veggie dishes available for anyone to make a complete, nutritious meal, whether breakfast, lunch, dinner or midnight snack. A few are open 24-7.
There used to be an all-nighter in the Boardwalk Hotel with some halfway decent veggie selections, but that closed a year or so ago. In Vegas, old is 25 years or more, and must come down. The Boardwalk was demolished to make room for a huge new mega-resort, condo, shopping combination called the City Center. Let’s hope somewhere in that city within a city there will be a dining refuge for vegans.
I’m not a vegan, but some members of my family are, but as I get older, I tend to confine much of my eating out to veggie dishes. I’ll list a number of Vegas restaurants that, in my opinion and personal experience, offer some attractive veggie dishes. I usually get my Vegas veggie dining at the buffets, primarily because I no longer have the patience to wait in long tourist lines at sit-down restaurants, and then wait at a table for a harried waiter to show up.
1. Canyon Ranch Cafe at the Venetian Resort is operated by the famous spa to the rich and famous stars, and has branches in Tucson and the Berkshires. The Vegas eatery is modest, but elegant, and offers what can be expected at a health spa. Lots of fruit and veggie juices and dishes, with emphasis on fresh, organic and totally natural. Convenient if you’re already a guest at the resort and are doing the health routine at Canyon Ranch. Don’t expect to drop in at the Cafe for a late supper. It closes at six p.m.
2. Veggie Delight at the new Wynn Hotel is as its name implies a place catering to the non-meat eaters. Lots of fresh raw and creative combination veggie dishes. There are some non-veggie items on the menu, particularly foods with milk and cream ingredients. If you’re lactose no-no, make sure you watch what you order.
3. Komol Thai at the Commercial Center prides itself on its Oriental veggie menu, but it turned me off because too many of the dishes are deep-fat fried and much too spiced up. However, iron-stomached friends with me were impressed by the freshness and cooked-to-order crispness of its veggie and meat selections.
4. Long Life Vege on Flamingo Road is an excellent Chinese restaurant, but I couldn’t help making lame jokes that the name was ironic for those of us who remember that the Flamingo, the first luxury resort built on the Strip, was managed by the late mobster Bugsy Siegal. When the Mob thought he was cooking the books, his life became very short. Sorry, Bugsy, but the Long Life is famous for its great family atmosphere and enormous portions of excellent Oriental dishes. Whenever we eat there, we always take doggie bags back to stash in our hotel room’s little refrig. Nothing tastier than a breakfast of leftover Chinese food while watching the desert sun rise over the city skyline.
5. Meskerem on Convention Center Drive near the Riviera Hotel is Ethiopian. I’ve been there several times because a family member who lives in Los Angeles near the Ethiopian shopping neighborhood loves the food. It isn’t really a veggie restaurant, but one of its dishes, called the veggie combo, is an enormous platter of all kinds of fresh and pickled veggies. It is plopped family-style on a big circle of dough, called an injera, that looks like it is waiting for the pizza sauce. Everyone sits around dipping injera into sauces and the family-sized veggie combo. Lots of fun, laughter and clothing stains.
6. Chin Chin in the New York New York Hotel sits along a cute fake little Manhattan neighborhood. While most of the ethnic cafes on the cobblestone streets are nothing more than holes in the wall tourist traps, Chin Chin manages to offer good Chinese food in a comfy, sit-down, watch-the-tourists area. The dishes are made to order and are served steaming hot, and the menu includes many veggie specials. Sort of taking you back to New York, but on a fake, air-conditioned street full of tourists, rather than muggers.
7. The Border Grill in the huge Mandalay Resort serves a lot of Mexican veggie dishes, including a torrid Chile Relleno, consisting of hot peppers, rice, black beans, tomato sauces and panela. If you’re a strict vegan, tell them to hold the cojita cheese. Another veggie specialty is portabello mulitas, consisting of pickled mushrooms and onions, tomato sauce, fried greens and guacamole. I can’t go near the stuff, my two family members love it. Incidentally, Mandalay Bay has its own beach and wave pool, so after eating such spicey stuff, it may be necessary to jump in.