Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[GFR7]

While a person need only look at the "homosexual culture" segment in part 1 of the thread (refer to the table of contents)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...82&postcount=2

to see that promiscuity is a huge part of the homosexual lifestyle, it's the act of homosexuality itself that is the danger (to be brunt Traci, the anal sphincter muscle wasn't meant to be penetrated by 1 or 100 guys).

And in our porn-ified culture, heterosexual couples also engage in the dangerous anal sex:

http://io9.com/5873230/the-cdc-want...has-gotten-really-popular-among-heterosexuals

 

[TracerBullet]

While a person need only look at the "homosexual culture" segment in part 1 of the thread (refer to the table of contents)
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3391482&postcount=2

to see that promiscuity is a huge part of the homosexual lifestyle,

If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

On that note: I'll be returning to the segment on homosexual violence shortly, showing how serial killers are disproportionately those that engage in homosexual behavior.

you've already failed miserably at that

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

Because we're a bunch of LIARS! LIARS! LIARS!

By the way Traci, I've been meaning to ask you: What do you believe causes homosexual desires?

 

[GFR7]

If gays are so horrible and so promiscuous why do Christian groups have to continually present false information about them?

They don't present false information. This would be an extremely inexpedient move on their part, as lies and false information are easily detected.

And how could HIV/AIDS have ever become the massive problem it did in the 1980s - and even now there are increases in the contraction of the virus among MSM (men who have sex with men, i.e., gay/bisexual men) only - if promiscuity had not been a factor and had not been rampant?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And in our porn-ified culture, heterosexual couples also engage in the dangerous anal sex:

http://io9.com/5873230/the-cdc-want...has-gotten-really-popular-among-heterosexuals

Yes, those that engage exclusively in heterosex often times do "explore". But keep in mind grasshopper, that the anus is to the homosexual relationship what the vagina is to the heterosexual relationship.

With that in mind, I posted a couple of articles about the risks of anal sex in part 2:

Anal cancer may be on the rise in the U.S

March 22, 2013

"(Reuters Health) - The number of people in the U.S. with anal cancer has tripled since the 1970s, according to a new study that suggests rates of detection in high-risk groups may partly explain the rise in cases.

A U.S. cancer database search found that the rate of anal cancers went from approximately one person per 100,000 between 1973 and 1996 to three people per 100,000 between 1997 and 2009.

"I think the literature has already shown that there has been an increase in anal cancer cases, but we were surprised to see how dramatically it increased," according to Dr. Lily Lai, the study's senior author from City of Hope in Duarte, California.

According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), about 7,000 people will be diagnosed with anal cancer in the U.S. in 2013, and about 900 will die from the disease. The most common type of anal cancer by far is squamous cell carcinoma, which accounts for about 85 percent of cases.

For the new study, Lai and her colleagues analyzed trends in the 11,231 squamous cell carcinoma cases described in a U.S. database for the years 1973 through 2009.

They saw a large jump in 1997 - in the 23 years before that one, 4,224 people had been diagnosed, compared to 7,007 people in the 13 years afterward.

Although both sexes saw an increase in anal cancers, the rate for men jumped most dramatically - from one in every 100,000 men to three in every 100,000. That compared to the women's rate, which rose from 1.4 in every 100,000 women to about 2.4 in every 100,000.


Lai told Reuters Health that the major increase in cases among men was a novel finding, and her team suspects it could be due to more men getting screened more often, especially men with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3402592&postcount=32

And then this one where I discussed the risks of anal sex with Art Brain:

Speaking of buggery:

In the general population, anal cancer is a rare disease.
Few people knew about it before Farrah Fawcett made
public her struggle with the illness. Among men who
have sex with men (MSM), and especially HIV-positive
MSM, the incidence of anal cancer is significantly more
prevalent and increasing annually.1 However, the majority
of gay and bisexual men know little about the
disease, have never been tested for it, nor know that
screening tests exit. Health care professionals, too,
remain divided on how and whether to screen for it. In
fact, a standardized screening protocol for anal cancer
does not yet exist.
Each year anal cancer is diagnosed in about two people
out of every 100,000 people in the general population.
HIV negative MSM are 20 times more likely to be
diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases
per 100,000. HIV-positive MSM are up to 40 times
more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, resulting
in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people.
Anal cancer is caused by the same strains of Human
Papilloma Virus (HPV) that cause cervical cancer in
women. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted
infection.2 There are over 100 different types of HPV,
although only several strains are believed to increase
the risk of cancer. Approximately 75% of all sexually
active adults acquire HPV, often within the course of
early adulthood and without any symptoms.3 Among
MSM, it is transmitted through both protected and
unprotected anal intercourse, and through skin-to-skin
contact. Among heterosexual women, the vast majority
of infections are cleared naturally by the body within a
few years, usually by age 30. This appears to be less true
for MSM, where the infections are often still present in
later adulthood.2
Anal HPV is present in approximately 65% of HIV
negative MSM and 95% of MSM who are HIV positive.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90740&page=482

Regarding women that have anal cancer: Keep in mind that lesbian's who play with sex toys also will be effected by this disease.

Yet another of many reasons why homosexuality MUST be recriminalized!

 

[GFR7]

Yes, those that engage exclusively in heterosex often times do "explore". But keep in mind grasshopper, that the anus is to the homosexual relationship what the vagina is to the heterosexual relationship.

With that in mind, I posted a couple of articles about the risks of anal sex in part 2:

Anal cancer may be on the rise in the U.S

March 22, 2013

"(Reuters Health) - The number of people in the U.S. with anal cancer has tripled since the 1970s, according to a new study that suggests rates of detection in high-risk groups may partly explain the rise in cases.

A U.S. cancer database search found that the rate of anal cancers went from approximately one person per 100,000 between 1973 and 1996 to three people per 100,000 between 1997 and 2009.

"I think the literature has already shown that there has been an increase in anal cancer cases, but we were surprised to see how dramatically it increased," according to Dr. Lily Lai, the study's senior author from City of Hope in Duarte, California.

According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), about 7,000 people will be diagnosed with anal cancer in the U.S. in 2013, and about 900 will die from the disease. The most common type of anal cancer by far is squamous cell carcinoma, which accounts for about 85 percent of cases.

For the new study, Lai and her colleagues analyzed trends in the 11,231 squamous cell carcinoma cases described in a U.S. database for the years 1973 through 2009.

They saw a large jump in 1997 - in the 23 years before that one, 4,224 people had been diagnosed, compared to 7,007 people in the 13 years afterward.

Although both sexes saw an increase in anal cancers, the rate for men jumped most dramatically - from one in every 100,000 men to three in every 100,000. That compared to the women's rate, which rose from 1.4 in every 100,000 women to about 2.4 in every 100,000.


Lai told Reuters Health that the major increase in cases among men was a novel finding, and her team suspects it could be due to more men getting screened more often, especially men with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3402592&postcount=32

And then this one where I discussed the risks of anal sex with Art Brain:

Speaking of buggery:

In the general population, anal cancer is a rare disease.
Few people knew about it before Farrah Fawcett made
public her struggle with the illness. Among men who
have sex with men (MSM), and especially HIV-positive
MSM, the incidence of anal cancer is significantly more
prevalent and increasing annually.1 However, the majority
of gay and bisexual men know little about the
disease, have never been tested for it, nor know that
screening tests exit. Health care professionals, too,
remain divided on how and whether to screen for it. In
fact, a standardized screening protocol for anal cancer
does not yet exist.
Each year anal cancer is diagnosed in about two people
out of every 100,000 people in the general population.
HIV negative MSM are 20 times more likely to be
diagnosed with anal cancer. Their rate is about 40 cases
per 100,000. HIV-positive MSM are up to 40 times
more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, resulting
in a rate of 80 anal cancer cases per 100,000 people.
Anal cancer is caused by the same strains of Human
Papilloma Virus (HPV) that cause cervical cancer in
women. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted
infection.2 There are over 100 different types of HPV,
although only several strains are believed to increase
the risk of cancer. Approximately 75% of all sexually
active adults acquire HPV, often within the course of
early adulthood and without any symptoms.3 Among
MSM, it is transmitted through both protected and
unprotected anal intercourse, and through skin-to-skin
contact. Among heterosexual women, the vast majority
of infections are cleared naturally by the body within a
few years, usually by age 30. This appears to be less true
for MSM, where the infections are often still present in
later adulthood.2
Anal HPV is present in approximately 65% of HIV
negative MSM and 95% of MSM who are HIV positive.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90740&page=482

Regarding women that have anal cancer: Keep in mind that lesbian's who play with sex toys also will be effected by this disease.

I appreciate all your extensive knowledge and information , as always - but why on earth did you call me a grasshopper??? :doh:

Really, it is a reasonable point to make, that we live in a culture where married couples often engage in oral and anal sex, and use sex toys - which is quite different from the ideal and from that which was practiced in saner times. You yourself said that there is a wider sexual decadence agenda of which homosexuality is only a part.

Again, I think it is important to point out and to remember that the rainbow agenda gained a foothold only when the entire culture had become steeped in sexual decadence.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I appreciate all your extensive knowledge and information , as always - but why on earth did you call me a grasshopper??? :doh:

I'm still trying to figure out if I trust you or not. (Feel free to answer this post anytime: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3965568&postcount=584

Really, it is a reasonable point to make, that we live in a culture where married couples often engage in oral and anal sex, and use sex toys - which is quite different from the ideal and from that which was practiced in saner times. You yourself said that there is a wider sexual decadence agenda of which homosexuality is only a part.

I've mentioned many times that the "marriage bed is undefiled"
http://www.christian-marriage-today.com/christian-marriage-bed.html


and that if married couples are indeed partaking in risky sexual activity, they'll pay for it in ill health as well as having to take it up with God on their own judgment day.

Again, I think it is important to point out and to remember that the rainbow agenda gained a foothold only when the entire culture had become steeped in sexual decadence.

Hence my reason for talking about Alfred Kinsey and his fraudulent "research" early in part 1 of the thread.

Alfred Kinsey, page 77, post #1142

Video: The Kinsey Syndrome, page 77, post #1152

"ALFRED KINSEY – THE LEFT’S PERVERT HERO" (Don Feder article), page 78, post #1158

As mentioned many times before: The legalization and hence cultural approval of homosexuality is the last nail in the coffin for a once Judeo-Christian based society.

 

[GFR7]

I'm still trying to figure out if I trust you or not. (Feel free to answer this post anytime: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3965568&postcount=584

I'm not certain on what grounds you need to "trust" me. You can indeed trust that I am concerned about gay marriage and deeply concerned about the cultural breakdown in general. I am not convinced by the arguments of the rainbow agenda.

But I am not a fundamentalist Christian, - (I list myself as a Protestant and "more right than left"; also inclined to philosophical debate) - and while I do indeed believe that Judeo-Christian values are what allowed Europe and America to thrive, there has always been separation of Church and State, and individual freedom (which we always had from the beginning; the 'margin of freedom' I spoke of was referencing Sartre's expression about Western democracies) is certainly a presupposition of the democracy we live in.

I told you that I have a hard time believing that once granted, a freedom could be re-criminalized (although it may be both possible and desirable) but that I for one have hoped that the rainbow agenda might simply "go out of style" (which has been the end of many a movement in the U.S., if one thinks about it).

Libertarianism I don't like as it is not populist enough. It's as simple as that: I don't like their smears on the poor, and on social programs.

I hope that I have addressed your question, and that you can at least trust that I am sincere.
Your feedback is always appreciated. G

addendum: I am not at all sure why telling you that you present your ideas thoughtfully and with reason, and that I can't oppose them, would make you say that you "smell a fraud" : Unless you just aren't used to the kind of "speaking" I do. In any case, sorry for that. As far as policing things by police state: Does anyone believe that is the best ( or only) way to achieve something great? Please tell me any further thoughts you have on this. There can be great cultural shifts in other ways.(religious Reawakenings have caused cultural shifts, historically)

 

[GFR7]

@aCW:

I think the marriage bed ought to be undefiled, but can be defiled not only by adultery, but by the viewing of pornography, and a myriad of other things which I won't bother to mention but I am sure you can well imagine.

I am sure when the Apostle spoke of the marriage bed being undefiled, he was comparing it (as he says) to adultery and fornication. He was not imagining couples viewing porn, using sex toys, and engaging in anal and oral sex (one would assume). Unless I am just a prude (which may be, who knows).

And yes, Kinsey research was fraudulent, I would agree wholly with that.

Very best.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

@aCW: I think the marriage bed ought to be undefiled, but can be defiled not only by adultery, but by the viewing pornography and a myriad of other things which I won't bother to mention but I am sure you can well imagine...

My point is that the civil magistrate never has taken an interest in what goes on inside the bedroom of a husband and wife, as their "union" is the foundation of society (marriage and a family).

 

[GFR7]

@aCW:

And yes, your statistics on HVP and anal cancer are convincing, and not surprising. When speaking of married couples, I simply believe it may not be dangerous but "in bad faith" to engage so much in these other acts in which marriage actually is just gay sex--- an argument gays often make about marriage. My opinion only, though.

 

[GFR7]

My point is that the civil magistrate never has taken an interest in what goes on inside the bedroom of a husband and wife, as their "union" is the foundation of society (marriage and a family).

Of course. But it still matters on some spiritual level, I would think. But granted, publicly it is no one's business, although gays make the same argument about their marriages outside of procreation.

Hope my other points were clarifying.

 

[GFR7]

@CW -
When you have time, please tell me why my saying your ideas were presented well and hard to oppose would make you "smell a fraud"??? I am really baffled and need to know :jawdrop: (*as it is really just a hail-fellow-well-met gesture, such as saying, "You have spoken well, Rabbi, and I can't disagree." )

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm still trying to figure out if I trust you or not. (Feel free to answer this post anytime: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3965568&postcount=584

I'm not certain on what grounds you need to "trust" me. You can indeed trust that I am concerned about gay marriage and deeply concerned about the cultural breakdown in general. I am not convinced by the arguments of the rainbow agenda.

I get the sneaking suspicion that you're a "consensual moralist", i.e. someone who believes what two consenting adults/miinors do in privacy isn't something that society should be concerned about.

But I am not a fundamentalist Christian, - (I list myself as a Protestant and "more right than left"; also inclined to philosophical debate) - and while I do indeed believe that Judeo-Christian values are what allowed Europe and America to thrive, there has always been separation of Church and State, and individual freedom (which we always had from the beginning) is certainly a presupposition of the democracy we live in. I told you that I have a hard time believing that once granted, a freedom could be re-criminalized (although it may be both possible and desirable) but that I for one have hoped that the rainbow agenda might simply "go out of style" (which has been the end of many a movement in the U.S., if one thinks about it).

Libertarianism I don't like as it is not populist enough. It's as simple as that: I don't like their smears on the poor, and on social programs.

I hope that I have addressed your question, and that you can at least trust that I am sincere.
Your feedback is always appreciated. G

addendum: I don't know why telling you that you present your ideas thoughtfully and with reason, and that I can't oppose them, would make you say that you "smell a fraud" : Unless you just aren't used to the kind of "speaking" I do. In any case, sorry for that. As far as policing things by police state: Does anyone believe that is the best ( or only) way to achieve something great? Please tell me any further thoughts you have on this. There can be great cultural shifts in other ways.

While those that legislated laws against abortion, homosexuality, adultery, pornography and other destructive sexual behaviors were indeed devout Christians (refer to various posts in the table of contents about our Founding Fathers) I've made the case long ago that even a secular society would benefit greatly if we were to recriminalize homosexual behavior.

Amongst many other things:

1). There would be no "gay agenda", and hence society's most precious institutions wouldn't be on the verge of destruction.

2). The indoctrination and often times physical molestation of children wouldn't run rampant, i.e. we wouldn't be creating generations of moral zombies.

3). The disease factor would decrease substantially and instead of dying decades before they should, those that engage in homosexual behavior would get the help that they truly need. Also keep in mind (as shown in part 2's "The High Cost of Sodomy") that our tax dollars are supplementing this disease ridden lifestyle.

Now lets' look at what you said in the link that has me concerned:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3965568&postcount=584

Yes, I understand these distinctions; they're not foreigh to me.

No, because of how you've presented these ideas (thoughtfully, in-depth, and with reason) I can't find myself opposed to them...

Libertarianism is a huge part of the homosexual movement. You can't fight the homosexual movement and still agree with Libertarian philosophy.

I would agree that for homosexuality to be recriminalized, America would have had to, at some point, undergone a drastic, violent transformation. And much good would have been lost; the whole margin of freedom within a democracy -...

I won't go into how our Founding Fathers warned us about democracies (we were founded as a Constitutional Republic), but I have to ask you this:

What "good" has the legalization of homosexuality (and other immoral sexual behaviors) brought to our society?

Do you consider deviant sexual behavior a legitimate "freedom"?

And last:

It's not that one wants to police anyone by force. That could never align with American, democratic thinking in any case - and it is not the way to achieve anything great.

What do you think righteous laws entail? Of course laws use the threat of force, we wouldn't have laws if they didn't. Righteous laws (along with cultural mores)' based on Judeo-Christian doctrine is what made America great. We're witnessing what happens when we as a nation ignore those laws and mores': moral decay.

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm still trying to figure out if I trust you or not. (Feel free to answer this post anytime: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3965568&postcount=584



I get the sneaking suspicion that you're a "consensual moralist", i.e. someone who believes what two consenting adults/miinors do in privacy isn't something that society should be concerned about.



While those that legislated laws against abortion, homosexuality, adultery, pornography and other destructive sexual behaviors were indeed devout Christians (refer to various posts in the table of contents about our Founding Fathers) I've made the case long ago that even a secular society would benefit greatly if we were to recriminalize homosexual behavior.

Amongst many other things:

1). There would be no "gay agenda", and hence society's most precious institutions wouldn't be on the verge of destruction.

2). The indoctrination and often times physical molestation of children wouldn't run rampant, i.e. we wouldn't be creating generations of moral zombies.

3). The disease factor would decrease substantially and instead of dying decades before they should, those that engage in homosexual behavior would get the help that they truly need. Also keep in mind (as shown in part 2's "The High Cost of Sodomy") that our tax dollars are supplementing this disease ridden lifestyle.

Now lets' look at what you said in the link that has me concerned:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3965568&postcount=584



Libertarianism is a huge part of the homosexual movement. You can't fight the homosexual movement and still agree with Libertarian philosophy.



I won't go into how our Founding Fathers warned us about democracies (we were founded as a Constitutional Republic), but I have to ask you this:

What "good" has the legalization of homosexuality (and other immoral sexual behaviors) brought to our society?

Do you consider deviant sexual behavior a legitimate "freedom"?

And last:



What do you think righteous laws entail? Of course laws use the threat of force, we wouldn't have laws if they didn't. Righteous laws (along with cultural mores)' based on Judeo-Christian doctrine is what made America great. We're witnessing what happens when we as a nation ignore those laws and mores': moral decay.

OK, I do understand what your concerns are. This has been revised and added to as I reflected:

1. I really did not know (but did see you state several times) that Libertarianism is concealing a lot of homosexual people's ideology and rationalizations. I am getting the picture.

2. Sartre's "margin of freedom" is really stuck in my head since my college days.

3. I didn't like Reagen's War on Drugs, even though I've never smoked pot or taken any non-prescription drugs in my life. I don't like police state auras, it does not seem righteous to me (although of course we must enforce for violent crimes and the like). I think drugs should be illegal but maybe enforced in a different way. I just don't know.

4. Yes, you are right but at this point I would love to see the movement reach it's apex and reversal and just collapse - it is possible, as with the hippie movement and the disco era - door to door searches to see who is/is not engaging in gay sex after all this SCOTUS and federal backing just sounds surreal - I would think to many people. But I give you credit for your "Warrior" stance, absolutely. As I stated before, there can be cultural shifts without a police sate ( for example, cigarette smoking now compared to the 1970s)

5. I think you can tell my my posting that I do not consider many things to be valid freedoms. Including the watching of pornography. But I feel the culture is too massive to hope for anything but some return of decency.

6. Yes, Nietzsche also said all democracies become decadent, and it looks like he was correct and things now stand where he indicated.

7. Consensual moralist - not exactly. In fact, I annoy many people with my moral judgments. And would I have any reason to be against SSM if I were a consensual moralist?

8. The legalization of homosexuality has not done any good (and has sown much confusion and has come to dominate the public school discourse in a way that is not pleasant to behold)
- nor has the legalization of porn and no-fault divorce.
Agreed.

Cheers and thanx for the clarifications.

 

[GFR7]

Had posted this on the marriage thread but thought to add it here as more grist for the mill:

On the much repeated phrase that "the gay marriage debate is over":

Some say it has not even yet begun, in earnest.

If states all had referendums and nearly all states had voted in SSM, this would be far more convincing than federal judges over-turning bans, and SCOTUS taking up the case.

The debate over abortion never ended, and for some issues of the wisdom of inter-racial marriage (even if all races are viewed as "equal") may never end.

 

[GFR7]

@aCW: I don't know your age, but those of us who recall the Reagen '80s (or even the W Bush years) would not have imagined things would come to this: (and this is why re-criminalization, outside of total war, is difficult to envision)~From the National Journal: (and take note of Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry)

The GOP's Gay-Rights Reboot

Growing public acceptance of same-sex marriage has spurred an effort to change the Republican Party's platform.

Inside the offices of Republican gay-rights groups, a strategy is forming to convince party leaders to strip opposition to gay marriage from the GOP platform.

The target, operatives say, is to see party leaders drop their support for a gay-marriage ban in time for the Republican National Convention in summer 2016.

It's a long shot, but Republican gay-rights lobbyists think they can build on the momentum provided by courts nationwide and the belief that, philosophically, the GOP's social conservatives are fighting a battle that puts them well out of step with the majority of the country, and that could demographically doom national aspirations.

"The ground has never been more inviting and welcoming to someone changing their position on the issue," said Marc Solomon, a former Republican Hill staffer, now with Freedom to Marry. "Where the polling is on the issue, it shows that we have a real legitimate chance at victory in 2016."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-gop-s-gay-rights-reboot-20140713

 

[aCultureWarrior]

4. Yes, you are right but at this point I would love to see the [sexual anarchist] movement reach it's apex and reversal and just collapse - it is possible, as with the hippie movement and the disco era -

The "hippie movement", i.e. the sexual revolution/free love movement is far from collapsing.

Did you just compare the disco fad with the sexual anarchy movement?

door to door searches to see who is/is not engaging in gay sex after all this SCOTUS and federal backing just sounds surreal - I would think to many people. But I give you credit for your "Warrior" stance, absolutely. As I stated before, there can be cultural shifts without a police sate ( for example, cigarette smoking now compared to the 1970s)

So tell me, with incest and sex with children being illegal, are there "door to door searches" being done to make certain that those things don't take place?

I have one more question for you before I move on:

What is the purpose of you posting this? (Like disco, it's probably just a fad and it'll reach it's apex and reversal and just collapse).
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3963724&postcount=517

On that note: One of my favorite sayings over the years has been:

"Go with your gut instincts."

My gut instincts told me that you're a fraud, and once again my instincts were right.

 

[TracerBullet]

Because we're a bunch of LIARS! LIARS! LIARS!

how is the misrepresentation of the Van de Ven study "truth"?

 

[TracerBullet]

They don't present false information. This would be an extremely inexpedient move on their part, as lies and false information are easily detected.

Yes the false claims about the Van de Ven study was easily detected.