Anti-Vaxxer Website Suggests Link Between Vaccines And Being Gay
A recent Facebook post by the website Vactruth.com suggested a link between being vaccinated and homosexuality. Conspiracy theorists within the anti-vaxxer set are a special group of people.
“Do you think vaccinating a child with vaccines, that are made up of endocrine disrupting chemicals, can affect the outcome of a person’s sexuality? Homosexuality is found in nature in other species and has occurred in populations long before the advent of vaccines. Some believe vaccines affect sexuality and some don’t. It is known that vaccines do disrupt hormonal function and can cause fertility and thyroid problems, so this is a legitimate question some people want to learn more about.
“Below is a link discussing what some doctors have to say on the issue but not in relation to vaccination status. Many people are afraid to bring this topic up and write about it. We know this is on some people’s minds, so please respectfully share your experience.”
Outbreak News Today reports:
They link to the following site Born Gay? Pros and Cons.
Really? Truly pushing the limits of absurdity on this one don’t you think?
But it should come as no surprise from the website run by a rescue swimmer in the United States Navy with no real medical or scientific background. The site routinely pushes the idea that vaccines are unsafe, ineffective and are linked to the debunked idea of being the cause of autism and numerous other conditions.
The European gay news service, Pink News writes: “To date, there is no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism or a change in sexual orientation.”
The American Psychological Association states: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.“Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
When asked for a statement about the Facebook post by Vactruth.com, infectious disease expert and Kent State University professor, Dr. Tara Smith told Outbreak News Today:
Just looking at the post (and that site is pretty horrible), they’re assuming many facts not in evidence to begin with, and so their question is circular. There’s no evidence vaccines are “made up of endocrine-disrupting chemicals” or “disrupt hormonal function and can cause fertility and thyroid problem,” so the basis of their question is like asking “have you stopped beating your wife?” –it’s biased in its initial assumption.
The website, The Spudd, writes:
As expected, many people responded in the comments section with outrage and anger. Most of these comments were quickly deleted and the posters banned. This is a familiar trick employed by anti-vaccine advocates – create an echo chamber on their websites and Facebook pages to make it appear as though everyone agrees with what they are saying.
Aside from that, the question suggests that having a gay son or daughter would be a bad thing. The only problem I would have with having a kid that’s born gay would be that he or she would grow up in a world still populated with homophobic arseholes.
You know who else is an anti-vaxxer? Don’t Trump. I rest my case.
H/T: The incomparable @CarlaAkins with thanks.
Image: AATTP
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 16:02
I don’t understand why it is controversial to suggest that chemicals injected into the body might directly or indirectly affect the brain, and thereby affect behavior. Lots of chemicals affect the brain; some temporarily and some permanently.
Proving that vaccines have a specific effect is another matter. But I don’t see anything wrong with asking the question. I have seen numerous articles about “gender bender” chemicals in streams affecting fish and amphibians. Some people have suggested that girls might be entering puberty earlier due to estrogens in the environment or in food.
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 16:21
“I don’t understand why it is controversial to suggest that chemicals injected into the body might directly or indirectly affect the brain, and thereby affect behavior”
.
Because homosexuality is NOT a learned behavior. Your argument makes no sense. That’s like saying vaccinations may cause one to turn from Irish descent to Puerto Rican descent.
.
Girls are entering puberty earlier because of all the hormones injected into the meat they ingest. It is a known fact that hormones have an impact on one’s growth, but only in regards to their reproductive systems, not their height, for example.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 16:40
“Because homosexuality is NOT a learned behavior.”
But sexuality is affected by chemicals. If you expose a pregnant female rat to bright lights at specific times during her pregnancy, her male offspring will exhibit homosexual behavior. Bright light causes the mother to be stressed. She secretes adrenaline. Her adrenaline crosses the placenta and enters the bloodstream of the fetus where it essentially neutralizes testosterone. Certain parts of the brain will develop differently depending upon whether testosterone is present or absent when those parts are forming. The net result is that if you stress out a pregnant rat at the right times, you can cause her to produce male offspring that allow themselves to be mounted by males.
“In a paper published almost a quarter of a century ago, a research psychologist at Villanova University was also puzzled about gender. Dr. Ingebog Ward was studying the sexual behavior of rats, years before the role of the hypothalamus was even suspected of gendering human brains. Dr. Ward divided some pregnant rats into three groups. Suspecting that something special might be happening in the early stages of pregnancy, she subjected the first group to stress during the first ten days of gestation by irritating the mother rats to bright lights, noise and annoying vibrations. Ten days in a rat’s pregnancy corresponds to the first trimester (3 months) of a human pregnancy. The second group was subjected to stress towards the end of their pregnancy, just before birth. The third group was comprised of male offspring from both prenatal stressed mothers and unstressed mothers. These babies were subjected to the same stress producing stimuli. Dr. Ward then allowed all the males to grow to adulthood without further interference. She then placed each group of males in cages with healthy females to observe their ability and desire to mate with normal adult females. Here is what happened:
“Abstract: Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatally stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding (i.e. “lordotic” refers to mounting behavior which usually occurs during mating). Postnatal stress had no effect. The modifications are attributed to stress-mediated alterations in the ratio of adrenal to gonadal androgens during critical stages of sexual differentiation. Specifically, it appears that stress causes an increase in the weak adrenal androgen, androstendione, from the maternal fetal adrenal cortices, or both, and a concurrent decrease in the potent gonadal androgen, testosterone.”
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
If the presence or absence of androgens can cause these effects, why is it verboten to ask questions about the possible effects of vaccines?
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 16:54
From the article’
There’s no evidence vaccines are “made up of endocrine-disrupting chemicals” or “disrupt hormonal function and can cause fertility and thyroid problem,” so the basis of their question is like asking “have you stopped beating your wife?” –it’s biased in its initial assumption.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 17:30
I suspect that there was a point in time when there was no evidence that Thalidomide caused birth defects. Even if the drug’s manufacturer did have such evidence and kept it from the public, the question is whether a member of the public, who had no such evidence, would have been justified in wondering about and asking about the possible effects of Thalidomide.
Everyone is biased in their initial assumptions. I am biased against taking unnecessary medications or injecting anything into the body that is not absolutely necessary. My wife and I made sure our kids got all recommended vaccinations. But when I got a colonoscopy a few years ago, I remained conscious for the entire procedure because of a concern about the dangers associated with general anesthesia.
The unintended side-effects of drugs and even dietary advice are sometimes not understood for many decades. When I was a kid, the experts recommended that people eat liver because it was known to be packed with vitamins. It wasn’t until many years later that people began to think about cholesterol.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 17:40
” the question is whether a member of the public, who had no such evidence, would have been justified in wondering…”
You can speculate about anything and everything without evidence, that’s why conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are so rampant.
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 17:43
I understand your concern about the side effects of drugs, and it’s understandable, but a drug turning someone gay? C’mon. That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 18:17
Yes, it does seem a stretch. I took a neuroscience elective in college, and my wife is a nurse who has shared a lot of information with me over the years. Based upon my very limited knowledge, I don’t know what the causal link would be.
However, I think that, in general, it is a good thing for people to ask questions and to be inquisitive about the world. This is a double-edged sword. Some people are inclined to trust their gut to such a degree that they ignore science.
I understand the annoyance with anti-vaxers. I have a neighbor who insists that somebody invented a carburetor in the 1950’s that allowed a 1957 Chevy to get 200 MPG. I have tried explaining the science to this man, pointing out how the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance of a 1957 Chevy would make this virtually impossible. But he is utterly convinced that GM bought the patent and buried the idea because they were in cahoots with big oil. This guy doesn’t want to hear about the science, because his mind is already made up.
However, I also have a friend who is constantly coming up with very creative ideas. He thinks outside the box. He is always asking “what if” questions. I think it’s perfectly natural for a young parent, who got A’s in Science, to wonder about possible side-effects from any foods or chemicals to which their baby might be exposed.
My mother craved ground coffee each time she was pregnant. She actually ate the stuff raw, right out of the Maxwell House can. Could all of that caffeine have affected my brain? My wife would say YES!
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 18:46
“Could all of that caffeine have affected my brain?”
That would have flooded her system with adrenaline…neutralizing your testosterone as a fetus…according to a study on rats.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 19:30
OMG! You’ve just outed me!
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 17:36
Really!?! Whatever did they do prior to bright lights? And why didn’t all women who spent time in the sun produce gay babies? Give me a break. There was also a test that said women who have abortions will suffer breast cancer. Don’t know where they got their information from. Probably from the same lab rats that were exposed to bright lights.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 18:02
“And why didn’t all women who spent time in the sun produce gay babies?”
Because women don’t get stressed out and produce adrenaline when exposed to bright light, as rats do.
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 18:23
adrenaline does not kill testosterone
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 19:47
The following is not from an authoritative source, but it appears to be from a pro-gay author who is basically saying the same things that I read elsewhere.
“All males start out in the womb as female and must be ‘converted’ into male by testosterone and other hormones. If a women during the early stage of her pregnancy releases more Androstenedione (an adrenaline-related hormone that is structurally similar to testosterone) into her bloodstream and that of her unborn child, it will bind to the receptors that would normally be receiving testosterone thereby ‘shielding’ the hypothalamus from receiving the amount of testosterone it needs to convert from female to male. In homosexual men, the hypothalamus remains ‘female’ while the rest of the body follows its XY code for male development. We now know that the hypothalamus of homosexual men is smaller than in heterosexual men- about the same size of a female’s hypothalamus. Since the hypothalamus is that part of the brain responsible for finding a mate the gay man with a [female] hypothalamus will find men sexually attractive in the same way that heterosexual women do. This is backed-up by the recent pheromone studies that show heterosexual women and homosexual men have the same olfactory nerve responses. For obvious reasons sexual orientation is assigned very early on in fetal development and it cannot be reversed once it is set. Increasing testosterone later in the pregnancy or after birth has shown to have no affect on one’s sexual orientation.”
http://newschoollove.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-is-homosexuality.html
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 20:02
Here’s a more authoritative source. This is on the NIH website.
“Testosterone, progesterone, and corticosterone titers were measured by RIA (radioimmunoassay) in plasma of stressed and control pregnant rats and their male and female fetuses on days 17, 18, 19, and 21 of gestation and on the day of birth. The regimen of stress used (three 45-min periods of restraint under intense illumination daily from days 14-21 of pregnancy) causes failure of masculinization and defeminization of behavioral potentials in male offspring.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6714159
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 18:59
So if women don’t get stressed out and produce adrenaline when exposed to bright lights, they shouldn’t produce gay babies, right? Your argument holds no water.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 19:35
I didn’t say that maternal adrenaline is the ONLY mechanism by which the male offspring might be affected. It is one mechanism.
Bunya December 23rd, 2014 at 10:41
I’m not saying there may be side affect from vaccinations, but tests done on rats may not have the same effect on humans. Besides, many different species of animals produce gay offspring, including dolphins, who aren’t exposed to bright light.
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 18:22
It is old and debunked
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 19:01
I know it has. But the screwballs hanging outside Planned Parenthood clinics, terrorizing women in crisis, have no use for facts.
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 19:04
so true, when it was worse for women I was an escort
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 18:21
I read the study as well, you have changed the actual summation
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 19:34
I summarized it in my own words, based upon my recollection. Then I found an article providing more info and added a link. I apologize if my description was not entirely accurate. It was not intentional. Was there one specific aspect that I got wrong?
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 19:37
the entire debunked premise that this old mice study works the same way in humans. Warm morning with lot’s of sun raise sex hormones in humans…read about that
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 20:05
How do you know that it was debunked? Can you provide links? I know that Google is my friend, but he wasn’t much help with this.
Obewon December 22nd, 2014 at 22:29
The Spartan warriors were LGBT way before vaccines were gay!
arc99 December 22nd, 2014 at 16:26
Would you understand why it would be controversial to ask the question does a diet consisting entirely of Kosher food make people have big noses?
It is not just asking a question. It is a covert way of reinforcing prejudice.
Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of human civilization, thousands of years before any vaccines other than food and water existed. Nonsensical hypotheticals with zero scientific basis do not change that fact.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 16:54
“Would you understand why it would be controversial to ask the question does a diet consisting entirely of Kosher food make people have big noses?”
That’s a false equivalence. There is no plausible scientific connection between Kosher food and facial anatomy. There is plenty of scientific evidence for chemicals affecting sexuality. Please see my response to Bunya, below, for just one example.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 17:14
“There’s no evidence vaccines are “made up of endocrine-disrupting chemicals” or “disrupt hormonal function and can cause fertility and thyroid problem,”
Also,there is no evidence of an increase in homosexuality with the introduction of vaccines either…so you may as well be asking if iPhones were a factor in sexual orientation.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 17:59
“…you may as well be asking if iPhones were a factor in sexual orientation.”
Cell phones may well be a factor in brain cancer and birth defects, especially for frequent users located in rural areas. The strength of the RF signal emitted by the phone is related to the distance to the closest cell tower. In rural areas, the phones put out more energy to cover the greater distances.
As a youngster, I studied ham radio. One of the first things you learn is never to get close to an antenna during transmission, because you can easily get RF burns. The RF energy literally burns the skin and underlying tissues.
When using a cell phone, the antenna is typically within an inch of brain tissue. When sitting in a chair or car seat with a phone in your pocket, the antenna could be within an inch or two of your testicles. Cell phones periodically communicate with the network whenever they are powered on, even if you are not engaged in a call. Could the RF energy affect brain tissue or the DNA of sperm cells? It is plausible, but not proven.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 18:28
I said “There is no evidence of an increase in homosexuality with the introduction of vaccines either…so you may as well be asking if iPhones were a factor in sexual orientation.
My point was that there is no evidence of an increase in homosexuality associated with iPhones or vaccines. You could add anything to the list…fluoride, teflon, radiation, GMOs, auto emissions, preservatives, insecticides…there is no evidence of a spike in the number of gays that correlates to anything other than people being less afraid to come out.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 18:54
I completely agree. I just worry about creating an environment where people are afraid to brainstorm and ask “what if” questions. There was a time when no scientific knowledge existed. What motivated someone to formulate the very first theory and conduct the very first scientific experiment? You can call it inquisitiveness or curiosity or intuition. Whatever it is, we need more of it, not less of it. It’s important to be sensitive to how questions might be perceived by others, but it’s also important to keep asking questions, even if the questions might be somewhat uncomfortable.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 19:17
There are reasonable questions based on at least a bit of evidence which promote science, there are fantasy questions “what if people live in the center of the earth?”, and there are questions to serve an agenda…often used on Fox “we’re just asking the question, even though there is nothing to suggest its true”. The anti-vaxxers are doing the latter.
arc99 December 22nd, 2014 at 18:58
It is not a false equivalence at all. “Controversy” is ultimately a matter of opinion. Your characterization of my metaphor as false equivalence tends to support my basic point that simply asking a question can and does have unsavory undertones.
There is plenty of scientific evidence between diet and physical makeup. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But let’s not pretend that just asking a question is inherently an innocent exercise.
Dwendt44 December 22nd, 2014 at 19:11
Nothing wrong with asking a question, but this question has been answered time and time again. SO enough already.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 17:02
I don’t understand why it is controversial to suggest that chemicals injected into the body might directly or indirectly affect the brain, and thereby affect behavior. Lots of chemicals affect the brain; some temporarily and some permanently.nnProving that vaccines have a specific effect is another matter. But I don’t see anything wrong with asking the question. I have seen numerous articles about “gender bender” chemicals in streams affecting fish and amphibians. Some people have suggested that girls might be entering puberty earlier due to estrogens in the environment or in food.
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 17:21
“I don’t understand why it is controversial to suggest that chemicals injected into the body might directly or indirectly affect the brain, and thereby affect behavior”n. nBecause homosexuality is NOT a learned behavior. Your argument makes no sense. That’s like saying vaccinations may cause one to turn from Irish descent to Puerto Rican descent. n.nGirls are entering puberty earlier because of all the hormones injected into the meat they ingest. It is a known fact that hormones have an impact on one’s growth, but only in regards to their reproductive systems, not their height, for example.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 17:40
“Because homosexuality is NOT a learned behavior.”nnBut sexuality is affected by chemicals. If you expose a pregnant female rat to bright lights at specific times during her pregnancy, her male offspring will exhibit homosexual behavior. Bright light causes the mother to be stressed. She secretes adrenaline. Her adrenaline crosses the placenta and enters the bloodstream of the fetus where it essentially neutralizes testosterone. Certain parts of the brain will develop differently depending upon whether testosterone is present or absent when those parts are forming. The net result is that if you stress out a pregnant rat at the right times, you can cause her to produce male offspring that allow themselves to be mounted by males.nn”In a paper published almost a quarter of a century ago, a research psychologist at Villanova University was also puzzled about gender. Dr. Ingebog Ward was studying the sexual behavior of rats, years before the role of the hypothalamus was even suspected of gendering human brains. Dr. Ward divided some pregnant rats into three groups. Suspecting that something special might be happening in the early stages of pregnancy, she subjected the first group to stress during the first ten days of gestation by irritating the mother rats to bright lights, noise and annoying vibrations. Ten days in a rat’s pregnancy corresponds to the first trimester (3 months) of a human pregnancy. The second group was subjected to stress towards the end of their pregnancy, just before birth. The third group was comprised of male offspring from both prenatal stressed mothers and unstressed mothers. These babies were subjected to the same stress producing stimuli. Dr. Ward then allowed all the males to grow to adulthood without further interference. She then placed each group of males in cages with healthy females to observe their ability and desire to mate with normal adult females. Here is what happened:nn”Abstract: Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatally stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding (i.e. “lordotic” refers to mounting behavior which usually occurs during mating). Postnatal stress had no effect. The modifications are attributed to stress-mediated alterations in the ratio of adrenal to gonadal androgens during critical stages of sexual differentiation. Specifically, it appears that stress causes an increase in the weak adrenal androgen, androstendione, from the maternal fetal adrenal cortices, or both, and a concurrent decrease in the potent gonadal androgen, testosterone.”nnhttp://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.htmlnnIf the presence or absence of androgens can cause these effects, why is it verboten to ask questions about the possible effects of vaccines?
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 17:54
From the article’nn Thereu2019s no evidence vaccines are u201cmade up of endocrine-disrupting chemicalsu201d or u201cdisrupt hormonal function and can cause fertility and thyroid problem,u201d so the basis of their question is like asking u201chave you stopped beating your wife?u201d u2013itu2019s biased in its initial assumption.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 18:30
I suspect that there was a point in time when there was no evidence that Thalidomide caused birth defects. Even if the drug’s manufacturer did have such evidence and kept it from the public, the question is whether a member of the public, who had no such evidence, would have been justified in wondering about and asking about the possible effects of Thalidomide.nnEveryone is biased in their initial assumptions. I am biased against taking unnecessary medications or injecting anything into the body that is not absolutely necessary. My wife and I made sure our kids got all recommended vaccinations. But when I got a colonoscopy a few years ago, I remained conscious for the entire procedure because of a concern about the dangers associated with general anesthesia.nnThe unintended side-effects of drugs and even dietary advice are sometimes not understood for many decades. When I was a kid, the experts recommended that people eat liver because it was known to be packed with vitamins. It wasn’t until many years later that people began to think about cholesterol.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 18:40
” the question is whether a member of the public, who had no such evidence, would have been justified in wondering…”nnYou can speculate about anything and everything without evidence, that’s why conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are so rampant.
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 18:43
I understand your concern about the side effects of drugs, and it’s understandable, but a drug turning someone gay? C’mon. That’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 19:17
Yes, it does seem a stretch. I took a neuroscience elective in college, and my wife is a nurse who has shared a lot of information with me over the years. Based upon my very limited knowledge, I don’t know what the causal link would be.nnHowever, I think that, in general, it is a good thing for people to ask questions and to be inquisitive about the world. This is a double-edged sword. Some people are inclined to trust their gut to such a degree that they ignore science.nnI understand the annoyance with anti-vaxers. I have a neighbor who insists that somebody invented a carburetor in the 1950’s that allowed a 1957 Chevy to get 200 MPG. I have tried explaining the science to this man, pointing out how the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance of a 1957 Chevy would make this virtually impossible. But he is utterly convinced that GM bought the patent and buried the idea because they were in cahoots with big oil. This guy doesn’t want to hear about the science, because his mind is already made up.nnHowever, I also have a friend who is constantly coming up with very creative ideas. He thinks outside the box. He is always asking “what if” questions. I think it’s perfectly natural for a young parent, who got A’s in Science, to wonder about possible side-effects from any foods or chemicals to which their baby might be exposed.nnMy mother craved ground coffee each time she was pregnant. She actually ate the stuff raw, right out of the Maxwell House can. Could all of that caffeine have affected my brain? My wife would say YES!
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 19:46
“Could all of that caffeine have affected my brain?”nnThat would have flooded her system with adrenaline…neutralizing your testosterone as a fetus…according to a study on rats.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 20:30
OMG! You’ve just outed me!
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 18:36
Really!?! Whatever did they do prior to bright lights? And why didn’t all women who spent time in the sun produce gay babies? Give me a break. There was also a test that said women who have abortions will suffer breast cancer. Don’t know where they got their information from. Probably from the same lab rats that were exposed to bright lights.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 19:02
“And why didn’t all women who spent time in the sun produce gay babies?”nnBecause women don’t get stressed out and produce adrenaline when exposed to bright light, as rats do.
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 19:23
adrenaline does not kill testosterone
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 20:47
The following is not from an authoritative source, but it appears to be from a pro-gay author who is basically saying the same things that I read elsewhere.nn”All males start out in the womb as female and must be ‘converted’ into male by testosterone and other hormones. If a women during the early stage of her pregnancy releases more Androstenedione (an adrenaline-related hormone that is structurally similar to testosterone) into her bloodstream and that of her unborn child, it will bind to the receptors that would normally be receiving testosterone thereby ‘shielding’ the hypothalamus from receiving the amount of testosterone it needs to convert from female to male. In homosexual men, the hypothalamus remains u2018femaleu2019 while the rest of the body follows its XY code for male development. We now know that the hypothalamus of homosexual men is smaller than in heterosexual men- about the same size of a female’s hypothalamus. Since the hypothalamus is that part of the brain responsible for finding a mate the gay man with a [female] hypothalamus will find men sexually attractive in the same way that heterosexual women do. This is backed-up by the recent pheromone studies that show heterosexual women and homosexual men have the same olfactory nerve responses. For obvious reasons sexual orientation is assigned very early on in fetal development and it cannot be reversed once it is set. Increasing testosterone later in the pregnancy or after birth has shown to have no affect on one’s sexual orientation.”nnhttp://newschoollove.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-is-homosexuality.html
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 21:02
Here’s a more authoritative source. This is on the NIH website.nn”Testosterone, progesterone, and corticosterone titers were measured by RIA (radioimmunoassay) in plasma of stressed and control pregnant rats and their male and female fetuses on days 17, 18, 19, and 21 of gestation and on the day of birth. The regimen of stress used (three 45-min periods of restraint under intense illumination daily from days 14-21 of pregnancy) causes failure of masculinization and defeminization of behavioral potentials in male offspring.”nnhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6714159
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 19:59
So if women don’t get stressed out and produce adrenaline when exposed to bright lights, they shouldn’t produce gay babies, right? Your argument holds no water.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 20:35
I didn’t say that maternal adrenaline is the ONLY mechanism by which the male offspring might be affected. It is one mechanism.
Bunya December 23rd, 2014 at 11:41
I’m not saying there may be side affect from vaccinations, but tests done on rats may not have the same effect on humans. Besides, many different species of animals produce gay offspring, including dolphins, who aren’t exposed to bright light.
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 19:22
It is old and debunked
Bunya December 22nd, 2014 at 20:01
I know it has. But the screwballs hanging outside Planned Parenthood clinics, terrorizing women in crisis, have no use for facts.
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 20:04
so true, when it was worse for women I was an escort
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 19:21
I read the study as well, you have changed the actual summation
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 20:34
I summarized it in my own words, based upon my recollection. Then I found an article providing more info and added a link. I apologize if my description was not entirely accurate. It was not intentional. Was there one specific aspect that I got wrong?
tracey marie December 22nd, 2014 at 20:37
the entire debunked premise that this old mice study works the same way in humans. Warm morning with lot’s of sun raise sex hormones in humans…read about that
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 21:05
How do you know that it was debunked? Can you provide links? I know that Google is my friend, but he wasn’t much help with this.
Obewon December 22nd, 2014 at 23:29
The Spartan warriors were LGBT way before vaccines were gay!
arc99 December 22nd, 2014 at 17:26
Would you understand why it would be controversial to ask the question does a diet consisting entirely of Kosher food make people have big noses?nnnIt is not just asking a question. It is a covert way of reinforcing prejudice. nnnHomosexuality has existed since the dawn of human civilization, thousands of years before any vaccines other than food and water existed. Nonsensical hypotheticals with zero scientific basis do not change that fact.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 17:54
“Would you understand why it would be controversial to ask the question does a diet consisting entirely of Kosher food make people have big noses?”nnThat’s a false equivalence. There is no plausible scientific connection between Kosher food and facial anatomy. There is plenty of scientific evidence for chemicals affecting sexuality. Please see my response to Bunya, below, for just one example.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 18:14
“Thereu2019s no evidence vaccines are u201cmade up of endocrine-disrupting chemicalsu201d or u201cdisrupt hormonal function and can cause fertility and thyroid problem,u201d nAlso,there is no evidence of an increase in homosexuality with the introduction of vaccines either…so you may as well be asking if iPhones were a factor in sexual orientation.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 18:59
“…you may as well be asking if iPhones were a factor in sexual orientation.”nnCell phones may well be a factor in brain cancer and birth defects, especially for frequent users located in rural areas. The strength of the RF signal emitted by the phone is related to the distance to the closest cell tower. In rural areas, the phones put out more energy to cover the greater distances.nnAs a youngster, I studied ham radio. One of the first things you learn is never to get close to an antenna during transmission, because you can easily get RF burns. The RF energy literally burns the skin and underlying tissues.nnWhen using a cell phone, the antenna is typically within an inch of brain tissue. When sitting in a chair or car seat with a phone in your pocket, the antenna could be within an inch or two of your testicles. Cell phones periodically communicate with the network whenever they are powered on, even if you are not engaged in a call. Could the RF energy affect brain tissue or the DNA of sperm cells? It is plausible, but not proven.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 19:28
I said “There is no evidence of an increase in homosexuality with the introduction of vaccines either…so you may as well be asking if iPhones were a factor in sexual orientation.nnMy point was that there is no evidence of an increase in homosexuality associated with iPhones or vaccines. You could add anything to the list…fluoride, teflon, radiation, GMOs, auto emissions, preservatives, insecticides…there is no evidence of a spike in the number of gays that correlates to anything other than people being less afraid to come out.
Robert M. Snyder December 22nd, 2014 at 19:54
I completely agree. I just worry about creating an environment where people are afraid to brainstorm and ask “what if” questions. There was a time when no scientific knowledge existed. What motivated someone to formulate the very first theory and conduct the very first scientific experiment? You can call it inquisitiveness or curiosity or intuition. Whatever it is, we need more of it, not less of it. It’s important to be sensitive to how questions might be perceived by others, but it’s also important to keep asking questions, even if the questions might be somewhat uncomfortable.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 20:17
There are reasonable questions based on at least a bit of evidence which promote science, there are fantasy questions “what if people live in the center of the earth?”, and there are questions to serve an agenda…often used on Fox “we’re just asking the question, even though there is nothing to suggest its true”. The anti-vaxxers are doing the latter.
arc99 December 22nd, 2014 at 19:58
It is not a false equivalence at all. “Controversy” is ultimately a matter of opinion. Your characterization of my metaphor as false equivalence tends to support my basic point that simply asking a question can and does have unsavory undertones. nnnThere is plenty of scientific evidence between diet and physical makeup. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But let’s not pretend that just asking a question is inherently an innocent exercise.
Dwendt44 December 22nd, 2014 at 20:11
Nothing wrong with asking a question, but this question has been answered time and time again. SO enough already.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 16:41
Anti-vaxxers are as bad as creationist in their logic, but they do more damage.
Dwendt44 December 22nd, 2014 at 19:01
Don’t overlook the connection between milk and hard drugs. All of those that use hard drugs started out with milk.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 17:41
Anti-vaxxers are as bad as creationist in their logic, but they do more damage.
Dwendt44 December 22nd, 2014 at 20:01
Don’t overlook the connection between milk and hard drugs. All of those that use hard drugs started out with milk.
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 16:43
…
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 17:43
…
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 16:45
….
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 17:45
….
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 16:58
Perhaps this would be better?
Jones December 22nd, 2014 at 17:58
Perhaps this would be better?
Carla Akins December 23rd, 2014 at 05:25
Ran across this, Australia govt takes their vaccinations pretty seriously.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/australian-court-to-penalize-homeopaths-for-claiming-vaccine-alternative/
Carla Akins December 23rd, 2014 at 06:25
Ran across this, Australia govt takes their vaccinations pretty seriously.nnhttp://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/australian-court-to-penalize-homeopaths-for-claiming-vaccine-alternative/
Mr. Somebody March 5th, 2016 at 17:05
Well, when you think about it, if there are chemicals in the vaccines that can cause men to increase in the amount of estrogen, and/or women to increase testosterone, you could say it is a possible influence.
You can also argue this from a mental standpoint as well. If there are specific chemicals in vaccines that cause a manipulation with how your brain is sexually attracted to a certain sex, you can argue that as a cause for people becoming/being homosexual over time.
Am I saying these are are true? I do not know for certain.
Here is a place for some good information on vaccines- http://vaccinepapers.org/
Carla Akins March 5th, 2016 at 17:17
Wow, that’s not a good place for accurate scientific information, vaccines do not affect hormonal production and/or sexual orientation. Questioning authority is always good, being skeptical is good but relying on unsubstantiated woo instead of peer reviewed science is why people die.
Mr. Somebody March 5th, 2016 at 17:23
I am pretty sure these guy(s) cite professionals. If you look around the site, you will find some pretty interesting information. And I am not certain if vaccines cause all that I listed above, and what I listed isn’t listed on the website (as far as I am aware). I was just supposing some hypothetical’s of possible influences.