If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)
Chiro care of baby PENISES See RONALD L. POLAND, MD below.
First VAGINAS PREGNANT WOMEN: To help protect your VAGINA, don't let the MD-obstetrician close your birth canal up to 30%. Semisitting and dorsal delivery (medicine's most common delivery positions) CLOSE the birth canal up to 30%. It's EASY to for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the very end of this post... MD-obstetricians are SLICING VAGINAS en masse (euphemism "routine episiotomy") - surgically/FRAUDULENTLY claiming they are doing everything possible to OPEN birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%. See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256 See also: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is criminal medical CAM)... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2391 MD-obstetricians are also committing SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse at birth... With birth canals senselessly closed, MD-obstetricians are violently pushing (with oxytocin, Cytotec, PGE2) and gruesomely pulling (with hands, forceps, vacuums)... Some babies die, some get paralyzed - but most "only" have their necks gruesomely wrenched. ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%. LADIES: It's EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the very end of this post. MD-obstetricians are also committing SEXUAL child abuse... IF YOU HAVE A BABY BOY: BEWA In 1988, a few months after I pointed out American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology (see below), American MDs anti-scientifically (desperately) created "an effective public health measure" out of "no medical indications" routine infant circumcision. One cannot legally commit child abuse by first injecting anesthetic... But MD-funded/influenced law enforcement officers (DAs/AGs) are not yet prosecuting... So if you simply MUST have your son's little penis literally ripped and sliced by an MD (or CNMwife) - please ask the MD (or CNMwife) to use the MOGEN clamp and dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB) or "ring block" anesthetic injections. REMEMBER: Most MDs **STILL** aren't using anesthesia on babies as they literally rip and slice most little penises in America. And if you let your baby keep his whole penis - YAY! See Care of the Intact Penis http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2413 RONALD L. POLAND, MD... In 1997, Ronald L. Poland, MD threatened to sue me. He never did... I am asking Ronald again to help STOP the mass infant mutilations (mass MD child abuse)... He (and AAP) perpetuated phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in 1987...[Poland et al. Pediatrics 1987;80:446]. He (and AAP) subsequently FURTHER promoted the infant mutilation by advising infant foreskin retraction in 1989 (see below)... In his 1997 lawsuit threat, Ronald L. Poland, MD demanded that I: .."[C]orrect the errors for the same readers that you have communicated with about my part in this controversy and notify me of the correction..." (Full text below) ATTENTION RONALD L. POLAND, MD: Please finally correct, in the pages of Pediatrics, the phony "lack of myelin" neurology that I called to your attention in 1987. Please make a public apology to me - and to all the babies that got abused - some were killed - some lost their penises - as a consequence of your decision to "study the matter" instead of immediately reporting it as child abuse. See below. Please also correct AAP's 1989 bogus retract the infant foreskin advice which contradicts AAP's 1984 "Leave it alone" advice. (More on this below.) NOTE TO READERS: It was Poland et al.'s 1987 phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology [Poland et al. Pediatrics 1987;80:446] which caused me to write to AAP and the New England Journal of Medicine and the California Medical Association (CMA) on October 11, 1987 and demand an end to the mass child abuse by MDs. In the same year, a national study by nurses determined that doctors could not agree as to whether babies feel pain. [J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1987;16(6):387] Since the AAP was on record three times (1971, 1975 and 1983) as having found no medical indication for circumcision, and since the "babies can't feel pain" hoax had just been exposed by me, the pediatricians either had to justify the physical pain - or their obstetrician-brethren would eventually be prosecuted for taking $200 million dollars per year for lying to parents using phony neurology and inflicting "unjustifiable physical pain" onto helpless infants strapped to boards. ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the precise definition of child abuse in California, each count of which is punishable by six years in state prison. [Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a] In 1986, one pediatrician wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] If MDs are going to fail to report PARENTS - they are certainly going to fail to report themselves! THIS is why in January 1988 - a month or so after I very publicly asked Congress to pass a child abuse exemption for the Jews - the AAP's journal Pediatrics told pediatricians to OPPOSE all religious exemptions - a religious exemption immediately identifies routine infant circumcision as the child abuse it is... THIS is why in February 1988 - the AAP's journal Pediatrics called for ANONYMITY OF PERPETRATORS of child abuse (see exact quote below)... THIS is why in March 1988 the California Medical Association abruptly ignored its own Scientific Board to declare newborn circumcision "an effective public health measure," and why the AMA two days later advised that circumcision be made "more humane" by first puncturing babies twice with local anesthetic. Both of these actions took place one week before the 1989 AAP Task Force (Poland was a member) held its first meeting in March 1988. BOTTOMLINE: Over two BILLION dollars' worth of infant mutilations ago (and an estimated 200 circumcision-related DEATHS per year ago.. http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/legal.htm) Ronald L. Poland et al. (and the AAP) COULD have stopped the mass child abuse by MDs - but didn't... Ronald L. Poland et al. (and the AAP) SHOULD have called the sheriff as mandated by law... AAP decided instead to "study the matter" (to quote Poland's Dec. 1987 letter to me)... When babies are being abused en masse ("no medical indications")... The fact that MDs are obviously falsely claiming that "babies can't feel pain" only makes matters more urgent... FIRST CALL THE SHERIFF THEN "study the matter." It's not too late for nurses to start reporting MDs... REMEMBER: Calling the Sheriff is THE LAW - even if child abuse is "only" SUSPECTED - see Nurse Milos/NO CIRC is MAYBE CIRC below. Nor is it too late for America's *MDs* to finally report *themselves* for mass child abuse. Again, in 1986, one pediatrician wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] Here is my 1997 reply to Ronald's lawsuit threat... From: Todd Gastaldo ] Subject: Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo?? This is the only article in this thread View: Original Format Newsgroups: sci.med, misc.kids.pregnancy, misc.kids.health Date: 1997/09/09 PennState Department of Pediatrics Faculty (names below): Please see my "religious" note to you... Chiro-listers; and newsgroup posters: I just received a threat of a lawsuit (see below) from Ronald Poland, MD, who in 1987 perpetuated (uncorrected) organized medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology... Wrote Dr. Poland: "I am seriously considering suing you for misrepresenting to the public what I have said and written to the detriment of my reputation...I have never advocated for routine circumcision for newborn infant boys nor have I condoned the practice of circumcision without anesthesia..." Dr. Poland demands: "..."[C]orrect the errors for the same readers that you have communicated with about my part in this controversy and notify me of the correction..." Dr. Poland asks politely: "Please send me copies of any publications or correspondence that you interpret differently from what I have just said..." Dr. Poland closes by giving me a deadline: "Respond within 14 days" - and a polite "Thank you." GASTALDO'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DR. POLAND... 1. DR. POLAND "CONDONED"... Dr. Poland says he never "condoned" the practice of circumcision without anesthesia..." Here is how one dictionary defines "condone": Condone \Con*done"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Condoned; p. pr. & vb. n. Condoning.] [L. condonare, -donatum, to give up, remit, forgive; con- + donare to give. See Donate.] 1. To pardon; to forgive. [Example:] A fraud which he had either concocted or condoned. --W. Black. http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?condone Dr. Poland, you rather NEGLIGENTLY condoned the physician practice of using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to inform parents - thus you DID condone the practice of circumcising without anesthesia. In a 1987 issue of Pediatrics (I am sure you have access to this), you publicly perpetuated - uncorrected - organized medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology... As I wrote in the post to which you object: BEGIN excerpt from post to which Dr. Poland objects It was Poland et al.'s 1987 phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology which caused me to write to AAP and the New England Journal of Medicine and the California Medical Association (CMA) on October 11, 1987 and demand an end to the mutilations. (In the same year, a national study by nurses determined that doctors could not agree as to whether babies feel pain. [J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1987;16(6):387]) In that Oct. 11, 1987 letter, I asked for an immediate end to the mutilations because they clearly constituted child abuse - the infliction of "unnecessary physical pain." There were not then (and there still are not) medical indications - and the "babies can't feel pain" neurology was obviously phony. A month later (Nov 1987), the New England Journal of Medicine published Anand and Hickey's admission that MDs had been using phony babies can't feel pain neurology for decades... See forwarded "Pardon MDs in Advance" post. A month after that (Dec 1987), Dr. Poland wrote me a letter acknowledging there were no medical indications and stating that AAP was going to "study the matter." END excerpt from post to which Dr. Poland objects 2. DR. POLAND "ADVOCATED"... Dr. Poland writes, "I have never advocated for routine circumcision for newborn infant boys..." Au contraire... By perpetuating uncorrected organized medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology, Dr. Poland has, IN EFFECT, "advocated" for routine infant circumcision... By failing to correct the AAP's/Poland's 1987 perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in the AAP's 1989 Task Force on Circumcision Report (co-authored by Dr. Poland), Dr. Poland further, IN EFFECT, "advocated" for routine infant circumcision... Dr. Poland also failed to correct the AAP's/Poland's 1987 perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in a more recent piece... http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html To his credit, Dr. Poland states in this just cited more recent piece: "A 1996 statement of the Canadian Pediatric Society concluded that there are no medical reasons to perform a routine circumcision on a newborn infant...an earlier American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Neonatal Circumcision...did not see a compelling medical reason for recommending routine circumcision either." Unfortunately, Dr. Poland's (and the AAP's) ongoing advocacy of routine circumcision of newborns appears when he states in the middle of the just quoted sentence that the AAP (Dr. Poland and his fellows) "noted some potential risks and benefits associated with the procedure..." http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html By a rather gross act of omission, Dr. Poland and the 1989 AAP Task Force on Circumcision allowed the promotion of the dangerous myth - promoted by Task Force Chairman Edgar Schoen, MD and the California Medical Association - that studies in Africa have "confirmed" that circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV... That is why I wrote in the post to which Dr. Poland objects: "It is nice to see Dr. Poland saying in 1997 that, 'circumcision certainly cannot be depended on for protection against a deadly virus.'" http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html BEGIN ADDENDUM #1 2004 Ten years later, in 1999, yet *another* AAP Task Force on Circumcision LIED: "...In 1989, because of new research on...acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks..." http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html IN FACT, the 1989 AAP circumcision policy statement made NO MENTION of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome!! http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#1989 The 1989 AAP circumcision policy statement ALSO failed to mention the fact that the California Medical Associationignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote created "an effective public health measure" out of "no medicalindications." (!) END ADDENDUM #1 2004 Ritual circumciser and nurse-midwife Ilene Gelbaum suggested in the pages of editor Mary Ann Shah's Journal of Nurse-Midwifery that when the AAP issued its 1989 Statement on Circumcision, it did not mention the CMA's ostensible "confirmation" of the HIV transmission characteristics of a penis covered by a foreskin - because the AAP "did not get the opportunity" to evaluate "recent African studies suggesting a possible link between lack of circumcision and AIDS." [Gelbaum JNM 1992;37(2S):100S] In fact, the AAP Task Force took a full year to deliberate, beginning one week after the CMA House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board to declare that reduced HIV transmission had been "confirmed" in circumcised males. [CMA Res. 305-88] Does Gelbaum (or anyone else) believe that CMA members Schoen and Hinman (also AAP task force members) were not aware that the CMA had "confirmed" that circumcision reduces HIV transmission? Gelbaum didn't reply to a published letter that informed her that the CMA had ignored its own Scientific Board in declaring circumcision a public health measure. [JNM 1992;37(5):354] After being so informed, Gelbaum continued in 1993 to uncritically extoll the "health benefits" of circumcision - even going so far as to unabashedly claim that one type of circumcision - God's circumcision ("mini-circ") - is inferior to another type of circumcision (total amputation). [JNM 1993;38(2S):22S] Perhaps the biggest flaw in the AAP's 1989 report is that it advocates foreskin retraction for cleaning the foreskin, a practice thought to perpetuate circumcision: BEGIN Gastaldo's critique of AAP's 1989 circumcision report Not mentioned in the 1989 Report of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision [Pediatrics 1989;84(4):388-91], was Øster's landmark paper demonstrating that it is normal for the foreskin not to be fully retractable until age 17. Nor did the 1989 AAP study mention Øster's belief that his gentle "test" retractions in over 1900 boys caused the need for the three circumcisions that had to be performed during his study of 1968 children. Interestingly, the AAP's 1989 Task Force report diverged significantly from information provided in the AAP's 1984 circumcision pamphlet. [Care of the Newborn Penis. 1984 American Academy of Pediatrics, Publications Department, P.O. Box 927, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007] Where the 1989 Task Force report states, "It is particularly important that uncircumcised boys be taught careful penile cleansing," the 1984 AAP pamphlet virtually exclaimed, "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. No special care is required! Leave the penis alone." The 1989 Task Force report states, "As the boy grows, cleansing of the distal portion of the penis is facilitated by gently, never forcibly, retracting the foreskin only to the point where resistance is met...Full retraction may not be achieved until age 3 years or older," In contrast, the 1984 AAP pamphlet stated (in italics), "It is not necessary to retract any part of the skin in order to wash under it..." The 1984 AAP pamphlet stated further (emphasis added), "Do NOT retract the foreskin in an infant, as it is almost always attached to the glans. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis, causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. AFTER PUBERTY the adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily basis." Does the 1989 AAP Task Force really want American mothers and fathers attempting to "achieve" full retraction in 3-year-olds? Does the AAP really think it necessary that 3-year-olds be taught "careful penile cleansing," i.e., "retracting the foreskin only to the point where resistance is met?" An "academy" of pediatricians offering parents this "careful cleansing" advice, is CAUSING phimosis, paraphimosis and balanoposthitis. How many parents will finally "achieve" getting the foreskin behind the glans only to fail to get the foreskin back over the glans, i.e., how many parents will cause paraphimosis? And how many parents will permanently scar "preputial rings," i.e., causing phimosis and balanoposthitis by daily attempting retraction of the foreskin in an attempt to "achieve" full retraction by age 3? And just exactly what is the definition of "force" in regard to foreskin retraction? Again, Øster [1968] thought his "gentle" retraction tests caused the need for three circumcisions, and Roberton [1992] advises that parents not even try to retract the infant foreskin: "All newborn males have 'phimosis'; the foreskin is not meant to be retractile at this age, and the parents must be told to leave it alone and not try and retract it. Forcible retraction in infancy tears the tissues of the tip of the foreskin, causing scarring, and is the commonest cause of genuine phimosis later in life." [Roberton NRC. Care of the normal term newborn baby. In Roberton NRC (ed). Textbook of neonatology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2nd ed., 1992. Roberton is Consultant Paediatrician, Addenbrook's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.] Immediately after stating that full retraction may not be "achieved" until age 3 years or older, the AAP Task Force wrote, perhaps prophetically: "A small percentage of boys who are not circumcised as newborns will later require the procedure for treatment of phimosis, paraphimosis, or balanoposthitis." The very next paragraph is a shameless penile cancer scare tactic: "The incidence of penile cancer is related to hygiene...The decision not to circumcise a male infant must be accompanied by a lifetime commitment to genital hygiene to minimize the risk of penile cancer developing..." A significant number of parents hearing this advice will REALLY want to get their infant's penis clean - and they are going to cause foreskin problems in doing so. Certainly, though, no one can quarrel with a GOOD infant genital hygiene recommendation (like the AAP's recommendation in 1984: "It is not necessary to retract any part of the skin in order to wash under it..."). The 1989 AAP Task Force Report fails to advise physicians that penile cancer prevention is NOT a reason to circumcise in infancy, and instead takes the opportunity instead to call forth one last vestige of medicine's recently abandoned "babies can't feel pain" philosophy. According to the 1989 Task Force, "When performed after the newborn period, circumcision may be a more complicated procedure." Circumcision is a LOT more complicated once a human male gets so big that he can't be held down by the velcro straps of a Circumstraint board. And circumcision becomes even more complicated once the human male gets old enough to shout and scream using actual WORDS that mean pain. Indeed, as human males get bigger and bigger, it gets harder and harder to claim, as the AAP Task Force did in 1989, that, "physiological responses SUGGEST...that they are experiencing pain (emphasis added)." Actually, circumcision got MOST complicated when AAP Task Force member-to-be Ronald L. Poland perpetuated phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in his 1987 AAP Statement on Neonatal Anesthesia [Poland et al. Pediatrics 1987;80:446]. Since the AAP was on record three times (1971, 1975 and 1983) as having found no medical indication for circumcision, and since the "babies can't feel pain" hoax had just been exposed, the pediatricians either had to justify the physical pain - or their obstetrician-brethren would eventually be prosecuted for taking $200 million dollars per year for lying to parents using phony neurology and inflicting "unjustifiable physical pain" onto helpless infants strapped to boards. ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the precise definition of child abuse in California, each count of which is punishable by six years in state prison. [Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a] This is why the California Medical Association abruptly ignored its own Scientific Board to declare newborn circumcision "an effective public health measure," and why the AMA two days later advised that circumcision be made "more humane" by first puncturing babies twice with local anesthetic. Both of these actions took place one week before the AAP Task Force held its first meeting in March 1988.) In 1986, the AAP "updated" its 1984 pamphlet by deleting the following paragraph that clearly indicated that circumcision is a mutilation, i.e., the amputation of healthy functional tissue: [Deleted by AAP in 1986] "The glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with circumcision this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening [meatis] may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis [inflammation of the meatis], and meatal stenosis [a narrowing of the urinary opening]. Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life." [Deleted by AAP in 1986] The 1986 edition of the AAP pamphlet also deleted mention of the book from which the pamphlet drew its illustration of the penis (Wallerstein's Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy 1980 New York: Springer). Mention of the words "health fallacy" - especially in the title of a book which documents the health fallacy (Wallerstein won the American Medical Writers Award in 1981) - makes obstetricians uncomfortable about strapping babies to boards and assuring parents that their babies aren't feeling pain as they scream and writhe and bleed. The only addition to the 1986 pamphlet was the following: "The AAP is an organization of 29,000 pediatricians dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children and adolescents in North, Central and South America." An academy that tells parents to begin foreskin retraction as part of washing the infant penis (in response to exposure of the fact that M.D.'s had long been offering parents phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology as infants screamed and writhed) - is NOT dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants in North, Central and South America. The AAP should take its own 1984 advice: Leave the penis alone. Finally, it must be noted that the AAP's influence is not limited to the Americas. Concerned that the AAP was "under pressure" and fearing that a call for universal circumcision would soon "sweep the European continent," five Swedish physicians suggested, instead of routine newborn circumcision, squatting home births, breast-feeding and application of maternal fecal matter to the infant penis. [Winberg et al. The prepuce: a mistake of nature? The Lancet March 18, 1989.] END Gastaldo's critique of AAP's 1989 circumcision report BEGIN Dr. Poland's "Lawsuit" post to Gastaldo Subject: Law suit Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:25:43 -0400 From: "Ronald L. Poland, M.D." To: Todd Gastaldo Mr. Gastaldo: I am seriously considering suing you for misrepresenting to the public what I have said and written to the detriment of my reputation. Please review your sources and correct the errors for the same readers that you have communicated with about my part in this controversy and notify me of the correction. I have never advocated for routine circumcision for newborn infant boys nor have I condoned the practice of circumcision without anesthesia. Please send me copies of any publications or correspondence that you interpret differently from what I have just said. Respond within 14 days. Thank you. Ronald L. Poland, M.D. END Dr. Poland's "Lawsuit" post to Gastaldo In summary, Dr. Poland and cohorts condoned and advocated routine infant circumcision, by responding to exposure of Dr. Poland's 1987 perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology with an utter failing to openly admit the gross negligence; and by "not[ing in 1989] some potential risks and benefits associated with the procedure." In addition, Schoen and Poland et al. [1989] in effect reversed AAP's wise "Do NOT retract the infant foreskin" advice and substituted advice which can only create the "need" for more circumcisions. In America, anyone can sue anybody - or so it seems. I personally think Dr. Poland could spend his time and money far more wisely - by finally actively working to END the mutilation. This was my hope when I contacted him about his perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology about two BILLION dollars of mutilations ago. As I've said many times before, ending the screams INSTANTLY saves the country $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVES the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. Dr. Poland, I say again: When one discovers that one's profession has been conducting American medicine's grisly $200 million dollar per year most frequent surgical behavior toward males by "informing" parents with phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - one does NOT appoint a Task Force and "study the matter." One stops the screams IMMEDIATELY - and THEN one studies the matter...perhaps with the assistance of the sheriff. Dr. Poland, I don't think there is a judge in the land (except perhaps those who have been politically installed by organized medicine) who would publicly disagree with me on this last point... Good luck - I think you'll need it if you sue me. Oh, one last note... You perhaps inadvertently referred to me as "Mr." Gastaldo. I legitimately earned the title "Dr." - in part by learning the neurology necessary to expose as a grisly hoax the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology which you perpetuated uncorrected back in 1987. If you don't think I rate the title "Dr.," then by all means don't address me as "Dr." - but know that when a title is to be used, I prefer the title I earned - "Dr." A "religious" note to PennState Faculty Members: Mark S. Baker, M.D., Todd F. Barron, M.D., Cheston M. Berlin, Jr., M.D., Gary Ceneviva, M.D., Michael W. Consevage, M.D., Ph.D., Stephen E. Cyran, M.D., Margaret Rose D'Arcangelo, M.D., Michael D. Dettorre, D.O., Attila G. Devenyi, M.D., John H. Dossett, M.D., Daniel A. Evans , M.D., Douglas G. Field, M.D., Jordan W. Finkelstein, M.D., Andrew S, Freiberg, M.D., Maureen M. Gilmore, M.D., Elena Goldberg Man, M.D., Brandt P. Groh, M.D., Maryellen E. Gusic, M.D., Timothy F. Hoban, M.D., Sarah M. J. Iriana, M.D., Karen Kaplan, M.D., Deborah Kees-Folts, M.D., Howard E. Kulin, M.D., Roger L. Ladda, M.D., Richard L. Levine, M.D., Samuel Licata, M.D., Steven E. Lucking, M.D., Eric B. Mallow, M.D., Keith H. Marks M D., Ph.D., Christopher R. Mart, M.D., Andrea C.S. McCoy, M.D., Barbara A. Miller, M.D., Patricia M. Millner,M.Ed, CRNP, Dennis J. Mujsce, M.D., John E. Neely, M.D., Nicholas M. Nelson, M.D., Barbara E. Ostrov, M.D., Charles Palmer M.D., Evan G. Pattishall III, M.D., David S. Phelps, Ph.D., M. Lynne Price, M.D., Jeanette C. Ramer, M.D., Diane E. Schuller, M.D., Alawia K. Suliman M.D., Philip Thuma, M.D., David R. Ungar, M.D., Robert C. Vannucci, M.D., W. Stuart Warren, M.D., Steven J. Wassner, M.D., Kristi L. Watterberg, M.D., Howard S Weber, M.D., Mark D. Widome, M.D., Ronald J. Williams, M.D., Christopher H. Zachary, M.D., Steven D. Zangwill, M.D. BEGIN "religious" excerpt from Gastaldo's "Ronald L. Poland" post I also sent the Medical Board of California a copy of my Oct. 11, 1987 letter to Poland. Medical Board consumer services representative J. Kinnard responded on November 16, 1987: "Unfortunately your correspondence touches on a religious issue...Your best resource [for action] would be the religious groups that utilize circumcision, not the government agencies." On the advice of the Medical Board (Ms. Kinnard), I contacted Del Rey Beach Florida Rabbi Pinchas Aloof (1-800-FOR-BRIT, now disconnected). Rabbi Aloof told me that it is spiritually wrong for a non-observant Jew with an M.D. degree to circumcise Jews. In other words, Jews have no need for the circumcision services of most M.D.s (unless most M.D.s are observant Jews, in which case there may be a "religious" reason for the CMA ignoring its own Scientific Board). Later in 1987, based on my conversation with Rabbi Aloof, I began writing to various governmental authorities suggesting a religious exemption for Jews. Then I discovered that there was indeed a "religious issue": rabbis have their own primal commandment wrong. As alluded to above, rabbis are telling Jews to ask ritual circumcisers to amputate far more infant foreskin than God originally/allegedly intended. [For references to early circumcisers leaving most of the foreskin on the penis see Wallerstein. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46; and see The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia 1970, New York: Doubleday, p. 442; and see Bertschinger J. Circumcision choices. Midwifery Today No. 17, 1991:22-3.] Long-obscured by medical negligence (noted above), mutilating infants for religious purposes has always been illegal - but tolerated: "[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision as child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is through criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE: Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues. Journal of Family Law, 1984;23(3):337-57] "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Katz M. Circumcision. AJDC 1980;134:1098] When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Oregon Employment v. Smith (1990), the American Jewish Congress co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, fearing that states would invoke the Smith decision and child protection statutes - to end ritual circumcision. [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10]. But the American Jewish Congress needn't have bothered. As I just noted, the ritual mutilation of infants was illegal (but tolerated) before the Smith decision - and (most significantly) it is STILL illegal (but tolerated). Significantly, Jewish authorities (vigorously contested by other Jewish authorities) offer Jewish parents an ideological basis not to circumcise: 1) "[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] (Note: Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted under Israel's Law of Return - and are allowed to remain uncircumcised. This suggests that "religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until adulthood and beyond. It makes sense for adults to be able to choose which religion to embrace, and to choose whether or not to surgically alter their bodies for religious reasons.) 2) Modern rabbis are advocating the amputation of FAR MORE infant foreskin than God originally/allegedly intended. Quoting Wallerstein (cited above), "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46. (Wallerstein, a Jew, had previously won the American Medical Writers Award for his 1980 book, "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy.) 3) "The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1994:387]) 4) Some religions do not allow members to be circumcised. Therefore, a baby who is circumcised is denied the choice of some religions. A baby who is left intact, however, has true religious freedom, as he can choose to be circumcised or intact when he is old enough to choose. In the January 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP leaned on the Jews and declared war on all religious exemptions to the child abuse statutes. AAP members were to "vigorously oppose in the legislatures," all present and proposed religious exemptions; and they were to "defend the rights of all children to the protection and benefits of the law...". (Translation: a religious circumcision exemption from the child abuse laws means medical circumcision is indeed child abuse; therefore we M.D.s must now restate our long-standing opposition to religious exemptions. If we are prosecuted, the rabbis and mohelim are going down with us.) In the February 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP recommended anonymity for perpetrators of child abuse: "The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all states adopt laws forbidding public disclosure...of information that identifies victims of child abuse, their families, AND PERPETRATORS [emphasis added]." In a February 1988 letter to JAMA [(Feb3)1988;261:701-2], Howard Stang, M.D. told AAP Circumcision Task Force chairman, Edgar Schoen, M.D., in effect, the bald lie that local anesthetic injections given under general anesthesia (for post-operative circumcision pain relief) are equivalent to local anesthetic injections for the performance of circumcision itself - without general anesthesia. (!) For some reason, neither Schoen nor any other JAMA reader caught Stang's bald lie. (At least I saw no protest published in JAMA.) Schoen is reportedly pedaling a circumcision training videotape in which it appears that the infant is asleep. IMPORTANT NOTE: Some Jewish persons swear they have watched babies sleep through their circumcisions. This may well be. Robert Lowensohn, MD, Chief of Obstetrics at Oregon Health Sciences University says he injects babies with local anesthetic 15-20 minutes before the Jewish ceremony starts: "I do circumcisions both in and out of the hospital (at religious ceremonies), and have been using local injections for at least 5 years. I agree that it takes about 5 minutes to set up, but what I do is (in the hospital) inject a dorsal nerve block before transferring the baby out of the bassinette, setting up, etc, using a small pledgette of antiseptic on the skin. That way most of the 5 minutes is used up without my caring. At the home ceremonies I inject before the ceremony starts, and that gives 15-20 minutes lead time." Robert Lowensohn, M.D. Chief of Obstetrics, OHSU http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gy...9701/0708.html On March 8, 1988, the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and proclaimed routine infant circumcision "an effective public health measure." Two days later, the AMA issued a press release stating that it would be "more humane" if babies were punctured twice with local anesthetic prior to circumcision. A week or so later, the Jerusalem Post of March 19, 1988 quoted the Chief Circumciser of Israel stating in effect that the local anesthetic punctures were OK under Jewish law. He noted in effect that Jews never said babies can't feel pain and noted also that a baby urinating into his circumcision wound cries because he feels pain. A week after the CMA and AMA proclamations, the AAP held the first meeting of its Task Force on Circumcision, chaired by Edgar Schoen, MD with Dr. Poland as a member. One year later, Schoen and his AAP still hadn't found any medical indications for routine infant circumcision. Three years later, Newsweek reporter Debra Rosenberg interviewed Schoen. She began her article on the subject by stating that the AAP "twice discounted the procedure [in the 70s]," and she closed by stating, "though [AAP Task Force chairman] Schoen believes the pendulum will swing back toward circumcision, the AAP has not changed its formal position denouncing the procedure." [Rosenberg D. Circumcision circumspection. Technology Review (Jul)1992;95(5):17. Debra Rosenberg, c/o Newsweek, 31 St. James Ave., Boston MA 02116, (617) 350-0300]) AAP Circumcision Task Force Schoen's 1992 discussion with Ms. Rosenberg perhaps explains why the AAP's 1988-9 media propaganda was so thick that when the AAP finally reported in Pediatrics that there STILL weren't any medical indications for the mutilations, the Medical Tribune was moved to inform physicians that the AAP actually (again) found NO medical indications: MEDICAL TRIBUNE 30:16 (8 June 1989) FORGET THOSE HEADLINES ABOUT CIRCUMCISION AAP IS AGAINST ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/news/1989.0...MedicalTribune In 1995, Circumcisionist Edgar Schoen, MD told Australian physician Terry Russell, "We are now at a point that newborn circumcision is analogous to immunisation." [Russell T. Letter. Medical Observer (20Jan)1995, Level 2, 100 Bay Road, Waverton, NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA] Dr. Russell then embellished Schoen's vaccination/circumcision comparison by inferring that circumcision prevents "HIV seroconversion and AIDS." The following year (1996), in Scientific American, Australian authors John and Pat Caldwell claimed that the African studies indicating that circumcision prevents AIDS are sound; they just weren't discussed by the medical profession in the late 1980s because "many did not wish to revive...[the notion]...that circumcision was a meaningless mutilation." [Caldwell JC, Caldwell P. The African AIDS Epidemic. Scientific American (Mar)1996;274(3):62-8] END "religious" excerpt from Gastaldo's "Ronald L. Poland" post BEGIN ADDENDUM #2 2004 NO CIRC and Marilyn Milos, RN See Sen. Frist, infant penis care, dead babies - and AHRQ 'in-hospital safety events' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2019 See also: Johns Hopkins breast/vagina/penis power! (How America can INSTANTLY save $200 million per year...) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2108 As noted above, in 1988 - just months after I exposed American medicine's phony babies can't feel pain neurology - routine infant circumcision abruptly went from "no medical indication" to "effective public health measure" as the California Medical Association overrode (ignored) its own Scientific Board by voice vote NO CIRC is actually MAYBE CIRC... Also interesting: Nurse Marilyn Milos of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NO CIRC) went from saying "Child Abuse Begins With Circumcision" on bumper stickers and telling me she would be organizing en masse nurse reporting) - to saying she couldn't think of any circumcisions to report! (I pointed out that she could report using the NO CIRC video of a circumcision.) Subsequent to telling me that she couldn't think of any routine infant circumcisions to report... Nurse Milos and the NO CIRC Board in effect VOTED FOR CHILD ABUSE (with two no votes) - that is - the NO CIRC Board voted to expel a NO CIRC Board Member who made her continued service on the NO CIRC Board contingent on NO CIRC nurses simply complying with Calif. Penal Law and filing MANDATORY Suspected Child Abuse Reports. (Remember, Nurse Milos very publicly suspected child abuse with her "Child Abuse Begins With Circumcision" bumper stickers - she just couldn't bring herself to file MANDATORY suspected child abuse reports!) Nurse Milos actually runs MAYBE CIRC - i.e. - Nurse Milos MAY be against routine infant circumcision - but ONLY if MDs can continue to do it. I told Oprah about this - but I guess she either didn't see my email - or she doesn't think a show about mass child abuse by MDs would be interesting - or she doesn't think it would bring in commercial advertising revenue... See Oprah and grisly 'hazing' of babies at UCLA... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2354 (Oprah could help end mass infant screams and save America $200 million per year - and (paradoxically) PRESERVE the foreskin removal as a CHOICE American males could make for themselves in adulthood.) END excerpt of Tiny penises and Oprah (also: Breasts are immunization devices (!) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2395 END ADDENDUM #2 2004 I think there is a GEOPOLITICAL "reason" that newborn circumcision has not yet ended in the U.S. .. Here is a chiropractic adjustment which could save Americans BILLIONS of dollars more per year - after we save $200 million dollars per year by ending the screams and PRESERVING the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. "The Covenant idea is the polar opposite of democracy" [Cantor F. The Sacred Chain. NY: HarperCollins 1994:21] Strange as it seems, tacit state protection of the obstetricians' bizarre "babies can't feel pain" behavior is rooted in a brand of Judaism foisted onto Jews by the "four great powers" back in 1919. In 1919, presumably basing his reasoning primarily on the Biblical foreskins for land "Covenant" (quoted from the Bible; see below), Lord Balfour committed "the four great powers" to Zionism "for better or worse"; and proclaimed that the needs of Palestinian Zionists were of "far greater import" than the needs of Palestinian Arabs. [Lord Balfour quoted in Mansfield The Arabs 1985] According to Mansfield [1985], it is "astonishing" that the four great powers adopted Zionism, because prior to WWI, most Jews in Palestine "regarded Zionism...as sacrilege," and "the majority of prominent and influential Jews in Europe were unsympathetic to Zionism." "Indeed," continues Mansfield, "the two most representative bodies in British Jewry - the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association - had actually begun a campaign to persuade the British government to resist the demands of the Zionists." [Mansfield The Arabs 1985:181,175,175] Long before Hitler came into power, the Zionists began telling the British anti-Semitic things about German Jews - and Winston Churchill, of all people, joined in the anti-Semitic chorus. See below. In 190_, Weizmann told the British, "[Zionists], too...believe that Germans of the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon" [Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1994]; And Weizmann later wrote, "[T]here arises in me a terrible hatred towards 'Jews' who turn away from [Zionism]. I perceive them as animals unworthy of the name homo sapiens." [Weizmann quoted in Rose Chaim Weizmann 1986] In 1920, Churchill told the British that Jews created "the Antichrist" (Bolshevism) and that Zionism was "the antidote." [Churchill. Zionism vs. Bolshevism: a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people. Illustrated Sunday Herald, Feb. 8, 1920] Even pro-Zionists admit "the essential accuracy" of author Aharon Megged's statement that "hundreds of [Israel's] leading writers, intellectuals, academics, authors and journalists" believe that Zionism amounts to "an evil colonialist conspiracy to exploit the people dwelling in Palestine, enslave them, and steal their land." [Halkin H. Israel against itself. Commentary 1994;98(5):33-39.] But who is conspiring? Not "the Jews" - or "the British" - or "the Americans" - or "the Russians"; though persons of all these descriptions seem to have participated. According to Rothschild family biographer Frederick Morton [1962], the Rothschild's became monied interests when in 1804 Prince William of Hesse secretly saved from bankruptcy his uncle and father-in-law, the King of Denmark - using Myer Anselm Rothschild as a secret go-between. [Morton F. The Rothschilds. NY: Atheneum 1962:22]) Prince William had plenty of money to secretly loan to his royal uncle, the King of Denmark, because he had grown wealthy selling Hessian citizens trained as military officers, to his cousin George III, Elector of Hanover (Germany) and King of England. The U.S. Declaration of Independence was precipitated when King George publicly declared he would be using cousin William's Hessians to keep order in the American colonies. [Butterfield LH. Psychological warfare in 1776: The Jefferson-Franklin plan to cause Hessian desertions. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1950;94(3):233-41.] According to Morton [1962], "Everytime a Hessian was killed, the prince received [from George III] extra compensation to soothe him for the victim's trouble. The casualties mounted, and therefore his cash..." It was this arrangement that Jefferson and Franklin exploited in their psychological warfare against the Hessians. See Butterfield [1950] above. Morton [1962] notes that the Rothschilds made vast financial gains due to 19th century military exertions of Napoleon and Bismarck; but claims that the Rothschild family nearly lost everything during WWI and WWII. Significantly, however, Morton notes that the French Baron Edmond de Rothschild (the youngest son of the youngest son of old Mayer Anselm Rothschild) "special[ized in] dividing the world's oil with Shell and Standard Oil" [1962:197] even as he engaged in "ostensibly non-Zionist efforts toward the realization of Israel." [1962:205] After years of being "hostile" to Zionism (p. 101), something strange happened. Edmond suddenly "now sounded more Zionist than the Zionists" (p. 148). [Rose Chaim Weizmann 1986] "Immediately after Britain's declaration of war against Turkey" (p. 146), writes Rose [1986], Edmond told the Russian Zionist, Chaim Weizmann, to "Prepare the ground carefully with the British government...Work secretly..." (p. 148) Weizmann had already been preparing the ground. Years before Edmond Rothschild encouraged him, Weizmann proposed to the British that, "An imperial synthesis between England and Jewry would be the greatest thing imaginable." [Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1993] Why would Baron Edmond Rothschild, initially "hostile" to Zionism, suddenly become so rabidly Zionist in 1914? And why would he advise Weizmann to "secretly" prepare with the British government? Some prime real estate was coming available. The Ottoman Empire was about to fall. In exchange for ignoring the Turkish genocide of one million Armenians, monied oil interests in the West would conclude World War One with vast oil concessions in the Middle East. [Simpson The Splendid Blond Beast 1993] In 1914 the powerful "British" arm of the Rochschild bank was no doubt assisting the British in finding "a fuel obtainable only from overseas" - for the British Empire's (Winston Churchill's) brand-new, oil-fired Dreadnought class of battleships: According to Massie [1991]: "Converting dreadnoughts to oil meant...basing British naval supremacy on a fuel obtainable only from overseas... "[In early 1914], Parliament authorized the spending of £10 million for [oil] storage tanks. Churchill simultaneously sent experts to the Persian Gulf to examine the potential of oil fields in that region. In July 1914, another £2.2 million was authorized to acquire a controlling interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company..." [Massie RK. Dreadnought NY: Random House 1991:785] WWI oil concessions in the Middle East were secured by WWII... Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, Churchill was in Washington insisting that the Americans NOT attack Hitler in Europe. ("[General George] Marshall insisted - despite British reluctance - [on] an amphibious assault upon the coast of France and an advance into Germany...Churchill...argued [instead] for...land[ings] in Algeria and Morocco." [Deighton 1993:599]) Quoting Kilzer [1994], "Winston Churchill had no intention of creating a second front [for Hitler] in 1942, as he would have no intention of doing so in 1943, or indeed even in 1944...Churchill...seemed to be exploiting the German-Soviet bloodbath to secure British colonial interests in the Middle East." [Kilzer, Churchill's Deception 1994:283,286] "Rommel was in North Africa because the British were in North Africa. And the British were there because of oil." [Kilzer 1994:270] "[T]he security of the great oil fields of the Middle East was...the true heart of British foreign policy." [Kilzer LC. Churchill's Deception: The Dark Secret that Destroyed Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster 1994.] According to Yahil [The Holocaust. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1991], before Hitler's ascension to power, "no special importance was attached to the small Zionist movement in Germany, and the German Zionist supply of immigrants to Palestine was barely a trickle." This accords with Mansfield's report [1985] that when "the four great powers" adopted Zionism, most Jews opposed it. According to Yahil, German Zionists were "the first to conceive the idea of conferring with the German authorities to facilitate emigration to Palestine" - with the Zionist Chaim Arlosoroff "hop[ing] to engage the German authorities in negotiations on the organized emigration of Jews to Palestine while taking their assets with them..." (p. 98) Yahil continues, "The 1933 Zionist Congress, accepting a [transfer] proposal originally advanced by Arlosoroff, decided to establish a body under the aegis of the Zionist Executive to be headed by Weizmann." (p. 99) "Initially," says Yahil, "Nazi propaganda organs attacked the Zionist movement...However, this approach changed following the 1993 Zionist Congress" (p. 100), after which Hitler himself "decid[ed] in favor of emigration" - both in 1935 and again in 1938. (p. 103) According to Yahil, "As early as January 1937, the SD called for concentrating the management of Jewish emigration in the framework of a special office of the Gestapo and the SD." (p. 105) In the same chapter in which Yahil discussed how the Nazis created "the paradox of the Jewish condition" ("anti-Semites accusing Jewry of the very thing it lacked: the power to control world politics"), she admitted that it was the German Zionists - adopted by "the four great powers" - who first suggested emigration to the Nazis - thus giving life to the paradox. Head-Zionist Chaim Weizmann thought "an imperial synthesis between England and Jewry...the greatest thing imaginable" - and thought German Jews "an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon." [Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1993] Paraphrasing Weizmann (quoted in Yahil), let's be frank. Let's admit that the Zionists politically defeated non-Zionist German Jews who wanted to create an international boycott of Germany instead of moving out. Let's admit that neither the British nor the Zionists wanted the gates of Palestine thrown open to just any refugee. Let's admit that rich refugees were most desirable, and that Weizmann's "demoralizing, undesirable" rich German refugees could become desirable (in Weizmann's eyes) by either sending money to Palestine or by moving themselves and their money to Palestine. Again quoting Yahil (quoting Weizmann), "You cannot flood Palestine indefinitely with a population recruited from all over the world without running a grave risk of endangering the very structure which we are trying to create." [Weizmann quoted in Yahil 1991:99] The foregoing, I believe, resolves Yahil's "Jews have no political power" paradox. Certain Jews did have political power, i.e., the British gave the Zionist Weizmann his "greatest thing imaginable," an "imperial synthesis of England and Jewry." And the British very likely created Hitler out of the ashes of WWI to take care of the Weizmann's "demoralizing, undesirable" German (and East European) Jews. Most people in the world still aren't aware that Weizmann said these things or that, paraphrasing Balfour, the four great powers had indeed "committed to Zionism, "blatantly disregarding the "desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who [then] inhabit[ed] that ancient land." [Balfour quoted by Mansfield. The Arabs. 1985:189] I submit that British and American (Jewish and non-Jewish) financiers adopted Zionism, Hitler and WWII: 1) to get a real foothold in the region to protect their WWI oil concessions (Simpson Splendid Blond Beast 1993); and 2) to keep the Arabs politically out of balance. (Mansfield The Arabs 1985) Zionism seems to have been perverted into an international codeword for obtaining petroleum reserves. And both militant Zionism and Nazism seem to be creations and/or tools of the monied interests. According to Simpson's Splendid Blond Beast [1993], the American's claimed to be de-Nazifying Germany following WWII; but in fact they did quite the opposite. Lord Balfour's 1919 racist, false, "four great powers" form of Judaism currently costs Americans about $3 billion dollars per year - about $9 million dollars per day - in addition to the $200 million dollars per year spent to make American infants scream and writhe and bleed through orthodox medicine's *******ization of Judaism's mythical "Covenant." This multi-billion dollar annual foreign aid boondoggle may be part of the reason why that mainstay of government - mainstream medicine - used HIV/AIDS lies to perpetuate infant screams of circumcision and $200 million in medical profits nationwide. Using unnamed "intelligence sources," former Justice Department Attorney John Loftus and Mark Aarons make some rather astonishing assertions about Richard Nixon and Nazis - and about a Zionist cell codenamed "Max" that orchestrated the deaths of about 20 million Russians and Germans as six million Jews were slaughtered. See Loftus and Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994. In all this mess, I know two things for su Ronald Poland, MD perpetuated organized medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology... And "the four great powers" had no business "adopting Zionism for better or for worse..." I sincerely believe Judaism was hijacked and modern medicine was hijacked. Paraphrasing Loftus and Aarons [1994], "We are all Jews..." Scientific American: Is it really scientific? Who owns Scientific American? Sincerely, Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. -- IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not currently practicing chiropractic - except insofar as the practice of chiropractic includes freedom of speech. While in Oregon doing library research I have voluntarily forfeited my California chiropractic license so as not to have to pay the annual licensing fee. (Under California law, any licensed D.C. may voluntarily forfeit his/her license, and may, at any time, reactivate said license by providing the Board of Examiners with "twice the annual amount of the renewal fee...[He or she]...shall not be required to submit to an examination for the reissuance of the certificate." [Section 12, Act Regulating the Practice of Chiropractic...Issued by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners...Act Includes Amendments Through October 1993] "Yes, I sold [Gastaldo] a modem. That was one of the biggest mistakes of my entire life and I regret it more than any other error of my life." Howard Leighty, D.C. END Gastaldo's 1997 reply to Poland's lawsuit threat MDs *can't* simply stop because that would be tantamount to admitting the massive crimes. I favor pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful mental meatgrinder - medical school. Pardons in advance will instantly stop the crimes (or render recalcitrant MDs susceptible to prosecution) and most MDs can keep doing their valid medical work to be able to pay the inevitable civil damages. Then again, it is finally becoming plain to me... MDs are a protected class... MDs can commit obvious (sometimes fatal) child abuse for profit... I think there are geopolitical reasons for MDs having been chosen as a protected class... See again: Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398 Thanks for reading. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS Note to chiropractors: Check out the new Dorland's definition of vertebral subluxation! See Dorland's: Preventing VS by educating OBs (also: New defn of chiro in Dorland's) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2318 PREGNANT WOMEN: MDs and MBs are KNOWINGLY closing birth canals up to 30% by using dorsal and semisitting delivery. (See PROOF above.) It is EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out - or deliver on hands-and-knees, kneeling, standing, squatting, etc. BEWARE though: Some MDs and MBs will let you "try" "alternative" delivery positions but will move you back to dorsal or semisitting (close your birth canal!) as you push your baby out! Talk to your MD or MB about this TODAY. MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must - first get the woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt. This post will be instantly archived for global access: See Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 Within 24 hours this post will be in the Google usenet newsgroups archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)
"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message link.net... (...) IF YOU HAVE A BABY BOY: BEWA In 1988, a few months after I pointed out American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology (see below), You mean like this: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm The American Academy of Pediatrics said, in part: "For the first time in AAP circumcision policy history, the new recommendations also indicate that if parents decide to circumcise their infant, it is essential that pain relief be provided. To assist parents in making the decision of whether or not to circumcise their sons, the AAP policy outlines the potential medical benefits and risks and discusses the use of analgesia." Gee, it sounds like you need to get your facts strait and up-to-date. Personally, I have never done a circumsion without anesthesia and never will. No one (including babies) should have one with anesthesia. Jeff |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)
"No one (including babies) should have one with anesthesia."
--Jeff P.Utz, MD to Gastaldo Gastaldo remarks: I disagree with Jeff P.Utz, MD. Sometimes circumcision is necessary. I think people in need of necessary circumcision *should* have one with anesthesia. I would apologize for not correcting Jeff P.Utz, MD's obvious mistake - but first Jeff and AAP should apologize to all the infants that are STILL risking death and loss of penis - or "just" screaming writhing and bleeding - so MDs can stay out of prison for their obviously massive, ongoing child abuse for profit scheme. For details, see the post to which Jeff P.Utz, MD "responded"... See Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 The AAP press release Jeff P.Utz, MD referenced contains the same AIDS *lie* that the 1999 AAP Statement told. The 1989 AAP Statement said NOTHING about AIDS - so the 1999 AAP Statement is wrong on this point. The 1989 AAP Statement also said nothing about what happened immediately after I exposed AAP's 1987 perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology: In early 1988 the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and created "an effective public health measure" out of "no medical indication" routine circumcision - because ostensibly routine circumcision prevents transmission of HIV... Why did the 1989 AAP Statement fail to mention the AAP's 1987 perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and the CMA obviously anti-scientifically declaring the mass child abuse "an effective public health measure"? And why did the *1999* AAP Statement also fail to mention this bizarre AAP/CMA behavior? While I am quite pleased that the AAP finally acknowledged IN A PRESS RELEASE that it is "essential" that babies receive analgesia, the 1999 AAP SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS say only that babies "should" receive analgesia, as in, "SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia SHOULD be provided." --AAP 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement. PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, pp. 686-693 (SHOULD emphasis added) http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/103/3/686 AAP still has not acknowledged that I exposed AAP's perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology back in 1987 - and routine infant circumcision - "no medical indications" - should have ended immediately. See again: Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 AAP is a trade union that has supported - and still supports - mass child abuse - is now trying to cover-up child abuse with analgesia. Child abuse with analgesia is still child abuse. In 1986, one pediatrician wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] In 1980, another pediatrician wrote: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] WHY is this mass child abuse for profit scheme ongoing? Why are MDs a protected class? I think the reason is geopolitical... See again: Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 Thanks for reading. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS Here is Jeff P.Utz's full "response" to my post... "Jeff" wrote in message ... "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message link.net... (...) IF YOU HAVE A BABY BOY: BEWA In 1988, a few months after I pointed out American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology (see below), You mean like this: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm The American Academy of Pediatrics said, in part: "For the first time in AAP circumcision policy history, the new recommendations also indicate that if parents decide to circumcise their infant, it is essential that pain relief be provided. To assist parents in making the decision of whether or not to circumcise their sons, the AAP policy outlines the potential medical benefits and risks and discusses the use of analgesia." Gee, it sounds like you need to get your facts strait and up-to-date. ##### No Jeff, it's still a straight fact - in 1987 AAP perpetuated phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - and after I exposed AAP's phony neurology - the CMA House of Delegates ignored CMA's own Scientific Board and by voice vote made "no medical indications" routine circumcision into "an effective public health measure" - and AAP has so far failed to mention this highly relevant bit of anti-science in TWO AAP circumcision statements! Personally, I have never done a circumsion without anesthesia and never will. No one (including babies) should have one with anesthesia. Jeff ##### Jeff, I am sorry to hear that you have strapped babies to boards and literally ripped and sliced their tiny penises. ##### Sounds like medicine is making progress what with you using anesthesia to "perform" the child abuse! "Most doctors believe babies can't feel pain...Most doctors today...I bought it..." - Dean Edell, M.D. claiming on national television that his physician superiors at Cornell University taught him that babies don't have nerves in their genitals. (KGO-TV San Francisco, circa 1984) "It has never been proved that a neonate undergoing surgery experiences pain." [Weiss GN. Letter. JAMA 1988;260:637.] "If it was painful, then doctors wouldn't do it." [Rabbi Samuel Weiss quoted in Mitric JM: Merits of circumcision a subject of dispute. Washington Post Health, Oct. 23, 1985, p. 9] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)
"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message news "No one (including babies) should have one with anesthesia." --Jeff P.Utz, MD to Gastaldo No, I did not say this to Gastaldo. I said it to the newsgroup (which Mr. Gastaldo is member). And I mispoke. I meant to say "No one (including babies) should have one without anesthesia." By this I meant that whenever anyone has a circumsion, it should only be done with aneshesia. I apologise for my mistake. Jeff |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Men's Health: It starts in pregnancy
PREGNANT WOMEN: MDs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%. It's
easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the very end of this post... MEN'S HEALTH: It starts during pregnancy I want to thank the magazine MEN'S HEALTH (and author MARK JENKINS) for that fine infant circumcision article cited below. Jeff P.Utz, MD ) whines: "No, I did not say this to Gastaldo. I said it to the newsgroup (which Mr. Gastaldo is member)." I apologise to Jeff P.Utz, MD for suggesting that he was addressing me in his second sentence. Jeff wrote: "Gee, it sounds like you need to get your facts strait [sic] and up-to-date...Personally, I have never done a circumsion without anesthesia and never will. No one (including babies) should have one with anesthesia." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain (My facts *were* "strait" and up-to-date.) Jeff says now: "And I mispoke. I meant to say 'No one (including babies) should have one without anesthesia.' I apologise for my mistake." Jeff's obvious mistake is NOT what he needs to apologize for... As I wrote when I mentioned Jeff's "with anesthesia" mistake: "I would apologize for not correcting Jeff P.Utz, MD's obvious mistake - but first Jeff and AAP should apologize to all the infants that are STILL risking death and loss of penis - or "just" screaming writhing and bleeding - so MDs can stay out of prison for their obviously massive, ongoing child abuse for profit scheme." Jeff will probably say he and AAP don't need to apologize because parents ASK MDs to rip and slice their sons' penises. Jeff may not know it but... In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially stated in effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice... According to AAP, "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires... "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk... "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html In 1980, one pediatrician wrote: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] In 1986, another wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] This massive MD crime that sometimes kills or causes loss of the penis should have ended back in 1987 when I exposed American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. It should have ended about two BILLION dollars' worth of infant screams ago. For further details, see the post to which Jeff P.Utz, MD "responded"... See Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS Ending the infant mutilations/infant screams would instantly save America an estimated $400 million dollars per year^^^. ^^^The $400 million dollar per year figure is from Mark Jenkins' article in Men's Health, July/August 1998, pages 130-135,163. http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm Paradoxically, ending the infant mutilations/infant screams would also PRESERVE the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. I DO MEAN MUTILATION "The practice violates all seven principles of the American Medical Association's code of ethics," charges George Denniston, M.D., a Seattle physician and founder of Doctors Opposing Circumcision. "By definition it's not even surgery. Surgery is removal of diseased tissue, or a repair of some kind." --Denniston quoted in Mark Jenkins' article in Men's Health, July/August 1998, pages 130-135,163. http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm Encyclopedias use the term "mutilation" to describe circumcision. Here are some exact quotes: "Thus in Hebrew history the mutilation of Abraham is the beginning of a religious rite which has continued... "...[R]eligious mutilations are personal and voluntary in contradistinction to savage practice, where mutilations are imposed by compulsion upon conquered enemies or enslaved peoples or persons..." [Gomme L. Mutilation. In Hastings J (ed). Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. IX NY: Charles Scribner's Sons 1922:62-3] Biblical quote regarding the mutilation of enslaved persons: "[E]very man purchased with money of yours must without fail get circumcised..." [Genesis 17:13] "Mutilations of the sexual organs are more ethnically important than any...The most important, circumcision (q.v.), has been transformed into a religious rite...." [Mutilation. The Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. XIX, Cambridge, England: University Press 1911:99-100] "[C]ircumcision is one of the procedures by which an individual is initiated into a new social role at puberty. Initiation rites may include ordeals involving other forms of mutilation...." [Mutilation. The Encyclopedia Americana. Vol. 19, Danbury, CT: Grolier Inc. 1992:681] BARBARIC AND BRUTAL BTW, my own penis was mutilated. It seems quite normal to me - but it *was* mutilated - barbarically so according to the medical literatu "After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/] "Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of Pediatric Nursing [1997] "[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older children or adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell, MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of Medicine] JEFF AND AAP... Jeff and AAP seem to think that it was OK for MDs to "inform" parents with phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology as they inflicted on babies their "no medical indications" routine circumcisions. Jeff and AAP seem to think that it was OK for AAP to "forget" to mention (in TWO subsequent AAP circumcision statements) that after the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology was exposed the California Medical Association/CMA House of Delegates ignored the CMA Scientific Board and by voice vote instantly created "an effective public health measure" out of "no medical indications." THE KICKER: After I discovered the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - after I called for religious exemptions for Jews - just before CMA ignroed its own Scientific Board - AAP came out against ALL religious exemptions - and in favor of ANONYMITY FOR PERPETRATORS of child abuse. Understandably, MDs do not want to go to prison. AAP should have disclosed this obvious "must stay out of prison" bias in each AAP circumcision statement. For details: See again: Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 MDs know they are committing horrible crimes against babies.... Which brings me to my usual public service announcement about MDs knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%... PREGNANT WOMEN: To help protect your VAGINA, don't let the MD-obstetrician close your birth canal up to 30%. Semisitting and dorsal delivery (medicine's most common delivery positions) CLOSE the birth canal up to 30%. It's EASY to for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the very end of this post... MD-obstetricians are SLICING VAGINAS en masse (euphemism "routine episiotomy") - surgically/FRAUDULENTLY claiming they are doing everything possible to OPEN birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%. See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256 See also: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is criminal medical CAM)... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2391 MD-obstetricians are also committing SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse at birth... With birth canals senselessly closed, MD-obstetricians are violently pushing (with oxytocin, Cytotec, PGE2) and gruesomely pulling (with hands, forceps, vacuums)... Some babies die, some get paralyzed - but most "only" have their necks gruesomely wrenched. ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%. LADIES: It's EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out - or deliver on hands-and-knees, kneeling, standing, squatting, etc. BEWARE though: Some MDs and MBs will let you "try" "alternative" delivery positions but will move you back to dorsal or semisitting (close your birth canal!) as you push your baby out! Talk to your MD or MB about this TODAY. MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must - first get the woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt. MDs can't stop these obvious crimes because stopping them would be tantamount to admitting them. I favor pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful mental meatgrinder - medical school. Pardons in advance would allow MDs to keep doing their valid medical work, earning money to pay the inevitable massive civil damages. Again, thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Copied to David Zinczenko, editor of MEN'S HEALTH Magazine via http://www.menshealth.com/ (Click on "Contact Us") Men's Health: It starts in pregnancy http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2433 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Men's Health: It starts in pregnancy
Sorry Jeff, I apologize for suggesting you were addressing me in your THIRD
sentence. It was nice of you though to address me in your first. : ) "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message .net... PREGNANT WOMEN: MDs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%. It's easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the very end of this post... MEN'S HEALTH: It starts during pregnancy I want to thank the magazine MEN'S HEALTH (and author MARK JENKINS) for that fine infant circumcision article cited below. Jeff P.Utz, MD ) whines: "No, I did not say this to Gastaldo. I said it to the newsgroup (which Mr. Gastaldo is member)." I apologise to Jeff P.Utz, MD for suggesting that he was addressing me in his second sentence. Jeff wrote: "Gee, it sounds like you need to get your facts strait [sic] and up-to-date...Personally, I have never done a circumsion without anesthesia and never will. No one (including babies) should have one with anesthesia." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain (My facts *were* "strait" and up-to-date.) Jeff says now: "And I mispoke. I meant to say 'No one (including babies) should have one without anesthesia.' I apologise for my mistake." Jeff's obvious mistake is NOT what he needs to apologize for... As I wrote when I mentioned Jeff's "with anesthesia" mistake: "I would apologize for not correcting Jeff P.Utz, MD's obvious mistake - but first Jeff and AAP should apologize to all the infants that are STILL risking death and loss of penis - or "just" screaming writhing and bleeding - so MDs can stay out of prison for their obviously massive, ongoing child abuse for profit scheme." Jeff will probably say he and AAP don't need to apologize because parents ASK MDs to rip and slice their sons' penises. Jeff may not know it but... In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially stated in effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice... According to AAP, "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires... "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk... "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html In 1980, one pediatrician wrote: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980] In 1986, another wrote: "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] This massive MD crime that sometimes kills or causes loss of the penis should have ended back in 1987 when I exposed American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. It should have ended about two BILLION dollars' worth of infant screams ago. For further details, see the post to which Jeff P.Utz, MD "responded"... See Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 Thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo PS Ending the infant mutilations/infant screams would instantly save America an estimated $400 million dollars per year^^^. ^^^The $400 million dollar per year figure is from Mark Jenkins' article in Men's Health, July/August 1998, pages 130-135,163. http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm Paradoxically, ending the infant mutilations/infant screams would also PRESERVE the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. I DO MEAN MUTILATION "The practice violates all seven principles of the American Medical Association's code of ethics," charges George Denniston, M.D., a Seattle physician and founder of Doctors Opposing Circumcision. "By definition it's not even surgery. Surgery is removal of diseased tissue, or a repair of some kind." --Denniston quoted in Mark Jenkins' article in Men's Health, July/August 1998, pages 130-135,163. http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm Encyclopedias use the term "mutilation" to describe circumcision. Here are some exact quotes: "Thus in Hebrew history the mutilation of Abraham is the beginning of a religious rite which has continued... "...[R]eligious mutilations are personal and voluntary in contradistinction to savage practice, where mutilations are imposed by compulsion upon conquered enemies or enslaved peoples or persons..." [Gomme L. Mutilation. In Hastings J (ed). Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Vol. IX NY: Charles Scribner's Sons 1922:62-3] Biblical quote regarding the mutilation of enslaved persons: "[E]very man purchased with money of yours must without fail get circumcised..." [Genesis 17:13] "Mutilations of the sexual organs are more ethnically important than any...The most important, circumcision (q.v.), has been transformed into a religious rite...." [Mutilation. The Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol. XIX, Cambridge, England: University Press 1911:99-100] "[C]ircumcision is one of the procedures by which an individual is initiated into a new social role at puberty. Initiation rites may include ordeals involving other forms of mutilation...." [Mutilation. The Encyclopedia Americana. Vol. 19, Danbury, CT: Grolier Inc. 1992:681] BARBARIC AND BRUTAL BTW, my own penis was mutilated. It seems quite normal to me - but it *was* mutilated - barbarically so according to the medical literatu "After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/] "Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of Pediatric Nursing [1997] "[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older children or adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell, MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of Medicine] JEFF AND AAP... Jeff and AAP seem to think that it was OK for MDs to "inform" parents with phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology as they inflicted on babies their "no medical indications" routine circumcisions. Jeff and AAP seem to think that it was OK for AAP to "forget" to mention (in TWO subsequent AAP circumcision statements) that after the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology was exposed the California Medical Association/CMA House of Delegates ignored the CMA Scientific Board and by voice vote instantly created "an effective public health measure" out of "no medical indications." THE KICKER: After I discovered the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - after I called for religious exemptions for Jews - just before CMA ignroed its own Scientific Board - AAP came out against ALL religious exemptions - and in favor of ANONYMITY FOR PERPETRATORS of child abuse. Understandably, MDs do not want to go to prison. AAP should have disclosed this obvious "must stay out of prison" bias in each AAP circumcision statement. For details: See again: Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2430 MDs know they are committing horrible crimes against babies.... Which brings me to my usual public service announcement about MDs knowingly closing birth canals up to 30%... PREGNANT WOMEN: To help protect your VAGINA, don't let the MD-obstetrician close your birth canal up to 30%. Semisitting and dorsal delivery (medicine's most common delivery positions) CLOSE the birth canal up to 30%. It's EASY to for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See the very end of this post... MD-obstetricians are SLICING VAGINAS en masse (euphemism "routine episiotomy") - surgically/FRAUDULENTLY claiming they are doing everything possible to OPEN birth canals - even as they CLOSE birth canals - up to 30%. See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256 See also: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is criminal medical CAM)... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2391 MD-obstetricians are also committing SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse at birth... With birth canals senselessly closed, MD-obstetricians are violently pushing (with oxytocin, Cytotec, PGE2) and gruesomely pulling (with hands, forceps, vacuums)... Some babies die, some get paralyzed - but most "only" have their necks gruesomely wrenched. ALL spinal manipulation is gruesome with the birth canal closed up to 30%. LADIES: It's EASY for you to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. Just roll onto your side as you push your baby out - or deliver on hands-and-knees, kneeling, standing, squatting, etc. BEWARE though: Some MDs and MBs will let you "try" "alternative" delivery positions but will move you back to dorsal or semisitting (close your birth canal!) as you push your baby out! Talk to your MD or MB about this TODAY. MDs/MBs: If you must push or pull - and sometimes you must - first get the woman off her sacrum - off her back/butt. MDs can't stop these obvious crimes because stopping them would be tantamount to admitting them. I favor pardons in advance for MDs. MDs are just academic prime cuts forced through this culture's most powerful mental meatgrinder - medical school. Pardons in advance would allow MDs to keep doing their valid medical work, earning money to pay the inevitable massive civil damages. Again, thanks for reading everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Copied to David Zinczenko, editor of MEN'S HEALTH Magazine via http://www.menshealth.com/ (Click on "Contact Us") Men's Health: It starts in pregnancy http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2433 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)
"Jeff" wrote in message ... "Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message link.net... (...) IF YOU HAVE A BABY BOY: BEWA In 1988, a few months after I pointed out American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology (see below), You mean like this: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm The American Academy of Pediatrics said, in part: "For the first time in AAP circumcision policy history, the new recommendations also indicate that if parents decide to circumcise their infant, it is essential that pain relief be provided. To assist parents in making the decision of whether or not to circumcise their sons, the AAP policy outlines the potential medical benefits and risks and discusses the use of analgesia." Gee, it sounds like you need to get your facts strait and up-to-date. Personally, I have never done a circumsion without anesthesia and never will. No one (including babies) should have one with anesthesia. I mispoke. I meant to say "No one (including babies) should have one without anesthesia." I apologise for my mistake. Jeff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY | Malev | General | 0 | December 12th 03 03:53 PM |
'Closed vagina' never discussed/Louis XIV viewed vagina at birth... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 2nd 03 05:34 PM |
| Database should audit high $$ in Foster Care system | Kane | General | 3 | July 15th 03 06:43 AM |