The feminist Gestapo would love to deny top U.S. surgeons the right to conclude e.g. that semen is good for female health
Dr Lazar Greenfield of the University of Michigan is a giant of surgery. In 1968, he invented a metal filter - the Greenfield filter - that prevented clots from traveling through veins into lungs. The discovery has surely saved lots of lives. He has also authored 200 papers, 8 books, and 55 book chapters. Dr Greenfield has also recruited lots of younger surgeons, including a large number of female ones.
However, because of the self-evident inability of the American nation to safely liquidate the pernicious feminist fascist movement, this 78-year-old heroic president of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) had to undergo a rather inhuman treatment that included his forced resignation from ACS.
In Valentine's Day issue of Surgery News which was later censored, he dared to share an important and rather persuasive scientific finding that is directly relevant both for women's health as well as Valentine's Day: semen is a healthier gift than chocolate. He wrote:
One of the legends of St. Valentine says that he was a priest arrested by Roman Emperor Claudius II for secretly performing marriages. Claudius wanted to enlarge his army and believed that married men did not make good soldiers, rather like Halsted’s feelings about surgical residents. But Valentine’s Day is about love, and if you remember a romantic gut feeling when you met your significant other, it might have a physiological basis.There's a lot of interesting ideas in the text - and all of the nontrivial ones are supported by peer-reviewed literature. But the Big Sisters never sleep, especially - sadly enough - not with a man, so some of Greenfield's third class female colleagues (and a couple of their would-be male colleagues as well) have eventually forced him to resign as the editor of the publication and, today, as the president of ACS.
It has long been known that Drosophila raised on starch media are more likely to mate with other starch-raised flies, whereas those fed maltose have similar preferences. In a study published online in the November issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, investigators explored the mechanism for this preference by treating flies with antibiotics to sterilize the gut and saw the preferences disappear (Proc. Nad. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010 Nov. 1).
In cultures of untreated flies, the bacterium L. plantarum was more common in those on starch, and sure enough, when L. plantarum was returned to the sterile groups, the mating preference returned. The best explanation for this is revealed in the significant differences in their sex pheromones. These experiments also support the hologenome theory of evolution wherein the unit of natural selection is the “holobiont,” or combination of organism and its microorganisms, that determines mating preferences.
Mating gets more interesting when you have an organism that can choose between sexual and asexual reproduction, like the rotifer. Biologists say that it’s more advantageous for a rotifer to remain asexual and pass 100% of its genetic information to the next generation. But if the environment changes, rotifers must adapt quickly in order to survive and reproduce with new gene combinations that have an advantage over existing genotypes. So in this new situation, the stressed rotifers, all of which are female, begin sending messages to each other to produce males for the switch to sexual reproduction (Nature 2010 Oct. 13). You can draw your own inference about males not being needed until there’s trouble in the environment.
As far as humans are concerned, you may think you know all about sexual signals, but you’d be surprised by new findings. It’s been known since the 1990s that heterosexual women living together synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones, but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize, the researchers suspected that semen played a role. In fact, they found ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin; a sleep enhancer, melatonin; and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%. Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient. Female college students having unprotected sex were significantly less depressed than were those whose partners used condoms (Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93). Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity, because women using condoms were just as depressed as those practicing total abstinence. The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts and better performance on cognition tests.
So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.
I am not able to safely evaluate the robustness of Dr Greenfield's arguments concluding that unprotected sex is healthy for women; my guess is that he is right, also because in millions of years, evolution is likely to have developed some advantages that make the unfiltered contact of the sexes preferred. But whether we have a reliable proof or not: holy crap, he knows quite something about medicine, doesn't he? I just find it shocking if the very top surgeon in the very top country of the world is effectively not allowed by the inferior yet zealous minds to convey his conclusions about these extremely important health questions that directly belong to his primary expertise.
First dinner in the Society of Fellows
Ten years ago, in 2001, I was still believing that the United States were a country of the free and of course, this belief may also have increased the frequency of my jokes, laughter, and good mood in general. It just happens that during the very first dinner in the Harvard Society of Fellows, which was probably one right after the interview if I remember well (before the new fellows were chosen), I have presented one of my favorite jokes that is very similar to Dr Greenfield's - more serious - findings.
The joke is a question: What is the most intelligent cell in a female body?
The answer is, of course, a sperm. ;-)
I am confident that at that time, I didn't have any real problems because of this joke that was heard by a dozen of junior and senior fellows; after all, they picked me. About one half of them exploded in laughter; the remaining one half of them froze to death. The former group included a constantly smiling fellow natural scientist who appreciated that it was a "double hit" because the joke was making fun both about the sensitive sexual topics as well as the intelligence of the sexes.
Well, I am not sure whether I would have the courage to say such a joke in the U.S. today - in front of people who are not uniformly my "verified friends". During my last years in the U.S., I became well aware of the suffocating atmosphere of the political correctness in the U.S. which made me immensely unhappy - at least in comparison with the previous years. Today, I no longer consider America to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. This conclusion also means that its national anthem has become deceptive.
What really drives me up the wall is that the people who are supposed to lose their freedom to speak are also if not primarily the people who are the most competent ones to speak about the issues.
I remember similar feelings from 2006 when two crackpots whose names don't have to be listed explicitly complained to 1/2 of the Harvard senior professors about my perfectly polite amazon.com reviews of their books that have unmasked why the books were actually rubbish. They actually mentioned that the senior professors should give me a hard time because I was not politically correct in other respects, too. You can't be surprised that I viscerally hate Shmolin, Shmoit, and all of their shameless apologists; they're just stinky assholes without any traces of ethics.
The topics discussed in my reviews were exactly the aspects of physics whose extraordinary knowledge has landed me a job a year earlier, as chosen from 66 applicants, and two fucked-up crackpot assholes who (including their thousands of equally defective crackpot fans) don't know 1% of physics that I was familiar with wanted to silence me? What did it mean, I was asking? Still, I had a feeling that this self-evident description of the situation was controversial, a finding that made me even more depressed.
The situation in the U.S. Academia - and the medical elite - is really bad. Any topic that overlaps with some ideologically sensitive issues is de facto being controlled by extremist ideological groups such as the feminists who are predominantly humans of poor quality. The currently politically loaded questions involve not only climatology and pretty much all environmental sciences, much like all issues related to sexes, races, and any group differences between humans, but some of the jerks mentioned above have even attempted to politicize topics as abstract as quantum gravity.
As far as the healthy-semen hypothesis goes, I am convinced that the Inquisition can't stop the propagation of the ideas - and, after some tests and filtering, the truth - among the scientifically leaning people. Most intelligent women are aware that the conclusions by Dr Greenfield are more worth to listen than the preconceived opinions of his critics, so this story may lead to an increased rate of unprotected sex. What the PC police does manage to achieve is to poison the community of surgeons themselves.