Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history

PREGNANT WOMEN: OBs are knowingly closing birth canal up to 30% by using
semisitting and dorsal delivery. (See PROOF below.)

For simple instructions on how to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra"
up to 30%, see the very end of this post.

ISRAEL'S HISTORY See below.

WILD CIRC RHETORIC OF MDs...

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]

In late 1987, I PROVED routine infant circumcision was child abuse (it
wasn't hard - MDs were still using obviously phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology)...

As I recently noted for Oprah Winfrey (no response yet):

In early 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!

See excerpt of "Tiny penises and Oprah," below...

Mass child abuse by MDs will end - the only question is when...

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

I myself requested that MY son be mutilated - to look mutilated like me!
How stupid of me (!) - and I do mean MUTILATED.

I didn't say the word "mutilated" - but that is what I was saying - and my
son's mom knew it! More below...

"nahasafeemapetelan" wrote:

Todd, as a former medical assistant, I agree with you that infant
circumcision is child abuse...I have watched a baby boy strapped to a
board
scream and scream in pain. After witnessing one, I could not assist
my doctor with that procedure ever again. I think you're right that
at least unanesthetized circ should be considered criminal child
abuse. In the best situation, the procedure should be left to the
individual to make his own choice after the age of consent. I'm
afraid your wild rhetorical style will doom your effectiveness, but I
wish you the best in your quest.

Nahasafeemapetelan,

Thanks for agreeing with me that routine infant circumcision is child abuse.

You wrote:

"I think you're right that at least unanesthetized circ should be considered
criminal child abuse."

I don't think I ever said that - if I did I was wrong.

ALL child abuse is criminal - even anesthetized child abuse.

There is an exception: Child abuse exemptions.

About two BILLION dollars' worth of infant mutilations ago - back in 1987
when I discovered MDs "informing" parents using phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology - I asked Congress to create an exemption from the child
abuse laws for Jews (see below)...

BEGIN excerpt of Tiny penises and Oprah...

When I pointed out in 1987 that MD-pediatricians were using phony neurology
to claim that babies can't feel pain during routine infant circumcision, I
asked Congress to create a religious exemption from the child abuse laws for
Jews.

The largest pediatric trade union - AAP - came out against ALL religious
exemptions - and suggested anonymity for perpetrators of child abuse!

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

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.)

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!

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.)

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

BTW #1: I wanted my eldest son's penis to be mutilated/circumcised to look
just like mine. I vividly remember the argument I had with his mother.

Fortunately his mother prevailed and his penis was not
mutilated/circumcised.

How stupid I was! I wanted my little boy to scream and writhe and bleed -
so his penis would look like mine!

Arrrggghhh... I know this is no excuse - but there are a LOT of men who
think like me.

This monumental male arrogance - born of mass ABUSE of those males -
perpetuates a false male dominance in our society.

A false "equalization" occurs - American OBs also slice VAGINAS en masse -
at about the same time they slice PENISES - these are American medicine's
most frequent surgical behaviors toward males and females!

See Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256

BTW #2: My penis *still* looks normal to me - it works quite well - but it
*was* mutilated - or rather - encyclopedias use the term "mutilation" to
describe circumcision.

Here are some MUTILATION 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]

Here is a 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]

Again, 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]

BOTTOMLINE: I think that most Jews sincerely believe that their infant
males must be mutilated - which is why I called for a religious exemption
for Jews (see above)...

The again, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin writes:

"My friend Rabbi Jack Riemer of Miami likewise expresses great
exasperation at the obscene jokes that frequently are told by
people attending a circumcision." [Rabbi Joseph Telushkin.
Jewish Wisdom. New York: William Morrow 1994:141]

Also, there are indications from some Jewish experts (hotly contested by
other Jewish experts) that Jewish infant mutilation could wait until
adulthood:

1) Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted under Israel's
Law of Return. This indicates that even "religious" circumcision is a
CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until adulthood and beyond.
("[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])

2) Modern rabbis are advocating the amputation of FAR MORE infant foreskin
than God originally/allegedly intended: "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]

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])

BTW #3: It matters not whether rabbis/mohelim are amputating
far more foreskin than God originally/allegedly commanded (see #2 above).
On U.S. soil -
by federal statute - the excision of "any part" of a GIRL'S genitals is now
explicitly illegal.

Since it is illegal on U.S. soil to afford females
protection from harm that is not also afforded males, the new federal female
genital mutilation law
will be quite useful.

There are also 50 state child abuse laws; and legal scholar WE Brigman has
written:

"[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]

KEY POINT: Legal scholar Brigman, just cited, came to his conclusion
without noting
that MDs have a long history (which continued in 1999 BTW) of using
phony "lack of myelin" neurology to "inform" parents.

The American Jewish Congress co-sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act to prevent states from invoking the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 Smith
decision to end ritual circumcision with the child protection statutes
[Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10]...

But mutilating infants for religious purposes was illegal before the U.S.
Supreme Court issued Oregon Employment v. Smith (1990) - and in any event,
the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
that finally passed...

Whatever Jews do, ending NON-religious infant screams in America would save
$200 million dollars per year and PRESERVE the
mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.

Mass mutilation by MDs *should* have stopped two *BILLION* dollars' worth of
infant mutilations ago - back in 1987 when I pointed out that MDs were using
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology...

But MDs are a protected class in America.

I think the reason is geopolitical...

ISRAEL'S HISTORY

I think there is a strategic chunk of land in the Middle East that was
hijacked under the GUISE of Judaism - but really for immense profit...

The mythical Biblical notion that a God promised a people other peoples'
land - in
exchange for infant foreskins in perpetuity - is the ostensible Biblical
"reason" the Allies gave the Zionists land in Palestine - instead of doing
the more sensible thing, i.e., using Holocaust guilt to give the Jews a
chunk of German land as their homeland.

The Poles, after all, received a chunk of German land - to compensate them
for Polish land given to Stalin. ("For the future peace of Europe here was
a wrong
beside which [the post WWI taking of Alsace-Lorrain and the Danzig Corridor
from Germany] were but trifles. One day the Germans would want their
territory back and the Poles would not be able to stop them."
[Churchill W. In deZayas AM: Nemesis at Potsdam. 1979, p. 187. Harvard Law
School graduate deZayas' book was republished in 1989, just before the
Berlin Wall fell.])

"We are all Jews" wrote U.S. Justice Dept. Nazi Hunter John Loftus and
Australian Mark Aarons in their book The Secret War Against the Jews
[1994]...

I agree with Loftus and Aarons who say that most people - including most
Jews - do not know the history of the founding of the "Jewish" State of
Israel...

One influential Jew, Dennis Prager writes:

"Orthodoxy is the home of most Jews who take Judaism seriously." [Prager D.
Quoted disparagingly by Rabbi Kenneth D. Roseman, who apparently is not an
orthodox Jew, in Moment (Jun)1996;21(3):14. Moment is edited by Hershel
Shanks, 4710 41st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016]

And according to another influential Jew, Eli D. Clark, the 'ultra-Orthodox'
or 'right-wing' branch of Judaism views "the State of Israel as antagonistic
to Orthodoxy." [Clark ED. Orthodoxy lurches to the right. Moment
(Jun)1996;21(3):29-35,59-9..]

Combining Prager's sentiment with Clark's, one arrives at the SEEMINGLY
unlikely notion that most Jews who take Judaism seriously believe the State
of Israel is antagonistic to taking Judaism seriously. (!)

One ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect, Neturey Karta, insists that Israel is "the
enemy of the Jews" because Israel was founded before the coming of the
Messiah. [Neturey Karta ad in the May 15, 1981 New York Times. Quoted in
Rosten L: The Joys of Yinglish, 1989, McGraw-Hill: New York, p. 385]

Clark [1996] quotes Rabbi Avi Shafran, editor of Agudath Israel's
quarterly Coalition in the March 1996 issue:

"The Jewish State, of course, never really was one at all..."

If the Jewish state "never really was one" - or even if Jews aren't really
sure, as Clark puts it, whether or not "re**** tzernihat ge'ulatenu, the
beginning of the flowering of our [Messianic] redemption" has
occurred...Americans - especially American Jews - will soon be thinking
seriously about whether Palestinians are really terrorists - or just
refugees from American-financed Israeli propaganda and aggression that stems
from Balfourian Zionism...

The birth of BALFOURIAN Zionism was obvious racism...

In 1919, primarily as a consequence of the Biblical foreskins for (other
peoples') land "Covenant", 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]

Lord Balfour's blatantly racist pronouncement should have been roundly
criticized and rejected. But it wasn't.

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
(quoted below), joined in the anti-Semitic chorus.

In 190_, Weizmann (future first president of Israel) told the British,
"[Zionists], too...believe that Germans of the Mosaic faith are an
undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon" [Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim
Weizmann 1994];

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 went along with the anti-Semitic gag, telling 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]

This was the birth of Balfourian Zionism which is now sustained by billions
of U.S. tax dollars each year...

Balfourian Zionists claim (and many Jews innocently believe) that the U.S.
Congress is "loaning" billions of dollars per year to Israel.

Former-Congressman Paul Findley (23 years in Congress) notes in
Deliberate Deceptions [1993] that the loan story was true prior to 1985; but
"Since 1985, all money sent to Israel has been a grant, meaning that not a
penny of it has to be repaid."

Congressman Findley notes further that "when Israel pays interest and
principal on loans made before 1985, it does so with U.S. tax dollars" -
because the 1984 Cranston amendment
"stipulates that economic aid to Israel each year will be at least equal to
its annual repayments (principal and interest) of its debts to the United
States." [Findley Deliberate Deceptions 1993:113. Cong. Paul Findley, 1040
West College Avenue, Jacksonville, IL 62650.]

Average Israelis, of course, never see most of America's multi-billion
dollar taxpayer gift because most of the billions are sent to defense
contractors for the purchase of weaponry which is then sent to Israel.

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 - via the world of high finance...

RELEVANT HISTORY...

One of the more famous banking families are the Rothschilds. They got their
start in secret bank transactions by helping a German prince sell his
citizens as mercenaries to fight the Americans.

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.

Indeed, 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]

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 after WWI. The Ottoman Empire
was about
to fall. In exchange for ignoring the Turkish genocide of one million
Armenians, the Allies got the Mosul oil fields. [Simpson Splendid Blond
Beast 1993]

"The Covenant idea is the polar opposite of democracy." [Cantor F. The
Sacred Chain. NY: HarperCollins 1994:21] The "four great powers" exploited
the Covenant - and exploited Judaism - to control the Middle East.

One of the "four great powers" is still allowing MDs to make $200
million inflicting "the Covenant" on most male infants "because parents
ask" - a clear violation of medical ethics - and law...

The mass child abuse in America could soon end...

As noted above...

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


"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Katz M: Letter. AJDC, 1980]

"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]

Singer [2000] wrote that Israeli textbooks are changing:

"This year [2000], three new ninth-grade texts were introduced into Israeli
high schools informing students that the familiar account of Israel's
desperate situation in 1948 was wrong. Until this year, students learned
that '[T]he numerical standoff between the two sides in the conflict was
horrifyingly unbalanced'...

"Here's what [Israeli students] learn today in a text by Tel Aviv University
professor Eyal Naveh: 'On nearly every front and in nearly every battle, the
Jewish side had the advantage over the Arabs...'" [Singer SF. The attack on
Israel's pride and legitimacy. Moment: A Conversation on Jewish Culture,
Politics, and Religion. (Feb)2000;25(1):10,12,14]

Singer [2000:12] also reported:

"In...the October 29, 1999 Ha'aretz, the favored newspaper of Israel's
intellectuals, Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog debunks all of
Israel's early history, claiming that the following conclusions must be
drawn from recent archaeology: 'The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not
wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and
did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel..."

In 1994, Halkin (already quoted above) stated that even pro-Zionists were
admitting "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.]

Halkin [1994] claimed that Zionists sinned - as in his statement that they
"sinned less" by robbing, enslaving and
killing people in Palestine than by being embarrassed about it, because this
embarassment led to the manufacture of myths "that could only breed
disillusionment in the end."
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=106776489

The BASIS of all this disallusionment is the surgical Covenant...

Quoting Cantor, "the Covenant idea is the polar opposite of democracy"
[Cantor F. The Sacred Chain. NY: HarperCollins 1994:21]

Loving Israel does NOT mean harming babies.

Or so I say...

Mass child abuse by American MDs *will* end.

It *should* have ended two *BILLION* dollars' worth of infant mutilations
ago - back in 1987 when I pointed out American medicine's phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology...

I have not been idle since exposing American medicine's phony "babies can't
feel pain" neurology....

I have uncovered *worse* MD mass child abuse - SPINAL MANIPULATION child
abuse by MDs...

MD-obstetricians are the most prolific spinal manipulators - and they are
GRUESOME spinal manipulators!

MD-obstetricians are manipulating most babies' spines while knowingly
closing birth canals up to 30%!

Here's simple PROOF that MD-obstetricians are knowingly closing birth
canals:

"When shoulder dystocia occurs...the mother's thighs are hyperflexed to
increase the diameter of the pelvic outlet..."
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanu...er253/253g.jsp

WHY are OBs and CNMwives waiting until the
head is
out and shoulders get stuck before giving the baby maximum pelvic outlet
diameter?

WHY are we letting OBs and CNMwives force babies' heads through birth canals
senselessly closed up to 30%?

(An estimated 4.6% of "healthy" term babies suffer unexplained brain bleeds!
And babies actually suffer DENTS in their skulls - "pingpong" skull
fractures - though most of these dents/"pingpong" fractures pop out.)

THE KICKER

OBs and CNMwives are
KEEPING birth canals closed when babies' shoulders get stuck!

That is, the Merck Manual method for increasing the diameter of the pelvic
outlet - merely hyperflexing the mother's thighs - is BAD McRoberts
maneuver...

BAD McRoberts maneuver does not roll the woman off her sacrum and therefore
does
NOT increase the diameter of the pelvic outlet!

See ACOG birth crime video evidence
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2300


Mysteriously the chiropractic trade unions are remaining silent...

See DCs: OBs are anti-psychic (anti-education - like
BJ-'straight' chiros)...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2396.

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.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


This post will be instantly archived for global access at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

Within 24 hours it will be in the Google usenet groups archive. Search
http://groups.google.com for "Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's
history"

Dear Todd

One quick question for you: how on *earth* do you go about "proving" that
circumcision is child abuse? It seems to me that such a concept is beyond
the scope of empirical proof, so I am curious.

Jake.

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
link.net...
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...

Or perhaps Oprah's screeners thought it a bit 'over the top'.
Of course if you really want to push the commercial advertising carrot
you've implied may be holding Oprah's show back.....you might point out how
the pain involved in circumcising babies could lead to developing even more
issues (and more shows) about 'child abuse' by inflicting pain on
babies......like pricking their heels for blood tests, or inserting needles
into them for injections of medication, and then how about one of the
fastest growing forms of child abuse.....the piercing baby's ears ?????

Grab a tambourine, there are so many issues to be horrified by in the
universe.......

I wrote:

WILD CIRC RHETORIC OF MDs...

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]

In late 1987, I PROVED routine infant circumcision was child abuse (it
wasn't hard - MDs were still using obviously phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology)...

As I recently noted for Oprah Winfrey (no response yet):

In early 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!

See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

Jake Waskett ) replied:

Dear Todd

One quick question for you: how on *earth* do you go about "proving" that
circumcision is child abuse? It seems to me that such a concept is beyond
the scope of empirical proof, so I am curious.

Jake.

em·pir·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1..
1.. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical
results that supported the hypothesis.
2.. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
empirical laws.
2.. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Jake,

You are right.

I have no experimental evidence.

I do though have empiric proof (observational).

I observed that when I demonstrated that MDs were using phony "babies can't
feel pain" neurology, the California Medical Association/CMA suddenly
ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote made American medicine's
"no medical indication" most frequent surgical behavior toward males "an
effective public health measure."

It is very likely that the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and created
the new "effective public health measure" by voice vote because it is
criminal negligence to make up neurology to promote a "no medical
indication" procedure.

Rarely a baby DIES from infection of a "no medical indication" circumcision
wound - at which point the obvious criminal negligence becomes criminally
negligent homicide.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS There is also empiric proof (observational) that MDs closing birth
canals up to 30% is child abuse. When I pointed out to the authors of
Williams Obstetrics that dorsal widens is a lie - that dorsal CLOSES the
birth canal (so does semisitting) - the authors of Williams Obstetrics added
the correct biomechanics to their text as I had requested - but they left in
their text - in the same paragraph! - the dorsal widens bald lie that first
called my attention to their text!

Incidentally, the authors of Williams Obstetrics first started saying dorsal
widens back in the 70s when Ohlsen pointed out that they were still saying
that the pelvic diameters don't change at delivery!

I think many women trying to push babies out with their birth canals
stupidly closed up to 30% by their obstetricians - would also call it ADULT
abuse - esp. when the obstetrician slices the vagina ("routine episiotomy")
surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring that everything possible is being done to
OPEN the birth canal - even as the birth canal is being closed up to 30%!

See again: Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

"Coleah" wrote in message
news:LCZac.55115$w54.340384@attbi_s01...

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
link.net...
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...

Or perhaps Oprah's screeners thought it a bit 'over the top'.
Of course if you really want to push the commercial advertising carrot
you've implied may be holding Oprah's show back.....you might point out
how
the pain involved in circumcising babies could lead to developing even
more
issues (and more shows) about 'child abuse' by inflicting pain on
babies......

However, IF a doctor, or *anyone*, strapped a baby to a board and cut away
any other piece of skin from an infant without a documentable medical
indication, they'd be in serious legal trouble.

How is it that *this* skin is exempt, and removing say....the external ear,
which is hardly a necessary part of the body either.....is utterly
unacceptable except under the most dire circumstances?

As for doing it without anaesthetic....well, I challenge any mother out
there to have her clitoral hood removed with *or* without anaesthetic, and
then come back and tell us all how wonderful it is for her.

--angela

Todd Gastaldo wrote:
In late 1987, I PROVED routine infant circumcision was child abuse (it
wasn't hard - MDs were still using obviously phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology)...

Jake Waskett ) replied:

Dear Todd

One quick question for you: how on *earth* do you go about "proving" that
circumcision is child abuse? It seems to me that such a concept is beyond
the scope of empirical proof, so I am curious.

Jake.

You are right.

I have no experimental evidence.

I do though have empiric proof (observational).

I observed that when I demonstrated that MDs were using phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology, the California Medical Association/CMA
suddenly ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote made American
medicine's "no medical indication" most frequent surgical behavior toward
males "an effective public health measure."

It is very likely that the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and
created the new "effective public health measure" by voice vote because it
is criminal negligence to make up neurology to promote a "no medical
indication" procedure.

Making up evidence of any kind is fraud, Todd. Some time ago, it was widely
believed that babies don't feel pain - or at least not in the same way that
we do. Now, we recognise that that isn't true.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
1) That the medical community *honestly believed* that babies couldn't feel
pain, or
2) That the medical community *deliberately lied*.

To allege the second is to accuse them of fraud - what evidence do you have
to support your assertion?


Rarely a baby DIES from infection of a "no medical indication"
circumcision wound - at which point the obvious criminal negligence
becomes criminally negligent homicide.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS There is also empiric proof (observational) that MDs closing birth
canals up to 30% is child abuse. When I pointed out to the authors of
Williams Obstetrics that dorsal widens is a lie - that dorsal CLOSES the
birth canal (so does semisitting) - the authors of Williams Obstetrics
added the correct biomechanics to their text as I had requested - but they
left in their text - in the same paragraph! - the dorsal widens bald lie
that first called my attention to their text!

Incidentally, the authors of Williams Obstetrics first started saying
dorsal widens back in the 70s when Ohlsen pointed out that they were still
saying that the pelvic diameters don't change at delivery!

I think many women trying to push babies out with their birth canals
stupidly closed up to 30% by their obstetricians - would also call it
ADULT abuse - esp. when the obstetrician slices the vagina ("routine
episiotomy") surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring that everything possible is
being done to OPEN the birth canal - even as the birth canal is being
closed up to 30%!

See again: Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

Chotii wrote:


"Coleah" wrote in message
news:LCZac.55115$w54.340384@attbi_s01...

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
link.net...
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...

Or perhaps Oprah's screeners thought it a bit 'over the top'.
Of course if you really want to push the commercial advertising carrot
you've implied may be holding Oprah's show back.....you might point out
how
the pain involved in circumcising babies could lead to developing even
more
issues (and more shows) about 'child abuse' by inflicting pain on
babies......

However, IF a doctor, or *anyone*, strapped a baby to a board and cut away
any other piece of skin from an infant without a documentable medical
indication, they'd be in serious legal trouble.

How is it that *this* skin is exempt, and removing say....the external
ear, which is hardly a necessary part of the body either.....is utterly
unacceptable except under the most dire circumstances?

Actually, although the outer ear isn't strictly essential, it both channels
sound into the inner ear (your hearing would be noticeably poorer without
it), and fulfills an aesthetic role.

The general consensus, *whether you agree or not*, is that circumcision is a
harmless, even beneficial procedure.


As for doing it without anaesthetic....well, I challenge any mother out
there to have her clitoral hood removed with *or* without anaesthetic, and
then come back and tell us all how wonderful it is for her.

Agreed. Circumcision should *not* be performed without anaesthetic. This is
the AAP's 1999 recommendation.

Jake.


--angela

Interspersions #####

"Jake Waskett" wrote in message
...
Todd Gastaldo wrote:
In late 1987, I PROVED routine infant circumcision was child abuse (it
wasn't hard - MDs were still using obviously phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology)...

Jake Waskett ) replied:

Dear Todd

One quick question for you: how on *earth* do you go about "proving"
that
circumcision is child abuse? It seems to me that such a concept is
beyond
the scope of empirical proof, so I am curious.

Jake.

You are right.

I have no experimental evidence.

I do though have empiric proof (observational).

I observed that when I demonstrated that MDs were using phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology, the California Medical Association/CMA
suddenly ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote made
American
medicine's "no medical indication" most frequent surgical behavior
toward
males "an effective public health measure."

It is very likely that the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and
created the new "effective public health measure" by voice vote because
it
is criminal negligence to make up neurology to promote a "no medical
indication" procedure.

Making up evidence of any kind is fraud, Todd. Some time ago, it was
widely
believed that babies don't feel pain - or at least not in the same way
that
we do. Now, we recognise that that isn't true.


##### It was REPORTEDLY believed by **MDs** that babies don't feel pain!

##### Then I pointed out their FRAUD - they were using phony "lack of
myelin" neurology - saying the baby's nervous system isn't myelinated yet -
when in fact most of the nervous system never *becomes* myelinated and
unmyelinated nerves are thought to transmit the most excruciating qualities
of pain!

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:
1) That the medical community *honestly believed* that babies couldn't
feel
pain, or

##### Babies born under general anesthesia perhaps did not feel pain - but
this did not mean that babies can't feel pain!

##### Babies rendered unconscious by the pain of circumcision were also
perhaps not feeling pain - but this too did not mean that babies can't feel
pain!


2) That the medical community *deliberately lied*.


##### Yes - I am saying that when the California Medical Association House
of Delegates ignored the CMA Scientific Board and by voice vote instantly
created "an efffective public health measure" out of "no medical
indication" - the medical community deliberately lied.

To allege the second is to accuse them of fraud - what evidence do you
have
to support your assertion?


##### What evidence? The phony "lack of myelin" neurology as most babies
screamed and writhed through the mutilation - and the subsequent CMA voice
vote - ignoring the CMA Scientific Board.

##### CMA members risked (and still risk) being sent to prison, as in,


Rarely a baby DIES from infection of a "no medical indication"
circumcision wound - at which point the obvious criminal negligence
becomes criminally negligent homicide.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS There is also empiric proof (observational) that MDs closing birth
canals up to 30% is child abuse. When I pointed out to the authors of
Williams Obstetrics that dorsal widens is a lie - that dorsal CLOSES the
birth canal (so does semisitting) - the authors of Williams Obstetrics
added the correct biomechanics to their text as I had requested - but
they
left in their text - in the same paragraph! - the dorsal widens bald lie
that first called my attention to their text!

Incidentally, the authors of Williams Obstetrics first started saying
dorsal widens back in the 70s when Ohlsen pointed out that they were
still
saying that the pelvic diameters don't change at delivery!

I think many women trying to push babies out with their birth canals
stupidly closed up to 30% by their obstetricians - would also call it
ADULT abuse - esp. when the obstetrician slices the vagina ("routine
episiotomy") surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring that everything possible
is
being done to OPEN the birth canal - even as the birth canal is being
closed up to 30%!

See again: Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

Interspersions #####

"Jake Waskett" wrote in message
...
Chotii wrote:


"Coleah" wrote in message
news:LCZac.55115$w54.340384@attbi_s01...

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
link.net...
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...

Or perhaps Oprah's screeners thought it a bit 'over the top'.
Of course if you really want to push the commercial advertising carrot
you've implied may be holding Oprah's show back.....you might point out
how
the pain involved in circumcising babies could lead to developing even
more
issues (and more shows) about 'child abuse' by inflicting pain on
babies......

However, IF a doctor, or *anyone*, strapped a baby to a board and cut
away
any other piece of skin from an infant without a documentable medical
indication, they'd be in serious legal trouble.

How is it that *this* skin is exempt, and removing say....the external
ear, which is hardly a necessary part of the body either.....is utterly
unacceptable except under the most dire circumstances?

Actually, although the outer ear isn't strictly essential, it both
channels
sound into the inner ear (your hearing would be noticeably poorer without
it), and fulfills an aesthetic role.

The general consensus, *whether you agree or not*, is that circumcision is
a
harmless, even beneficial procedure.


##### No. This is false. Almost without fail, babies scream and writhe and
bleed - the "general consensus" is that routine infant circumcision is quite
harmful. MD-child abusers - and those who support them - must start
including the votes (screams) of babies.


As for doing it without anaesthetic....well, I challenge any mother out
there to have her clitoral hood removed with *or* without anaesthetic,
and
then come back and tell us all how wonderful it is for her.

Agreed. Circumcision should *not* be performed without anaesthetic. This
is
the AAP's 1999 recommendation.


##### Well, this is progress. AAP still hasn't admitted it perpetuated
phony "lack of myelin" neurology in 1987. And I believe the 1999 AAP
recommendation indirectly promoted "lack of myelin" neurology as it said
babies can't "verbalized" their pain. No, babies can't say "I am in pain" -
but they sure as hell have ALWAYS issued forth with verbalizations
indicating pain during circumcision!

Jake.


--angela

X-No-Archive: yes

"Chotii" wrote in message
news:kG_ac.12191496
As for doing it without anaesthetic....well, I challenge any mother out
there to have her clitoral hood removed with *or* without anaesthetic, and
then come back and tell us all how wonderful it is for her.
===================
AMEN! I wish someone had told me the TRUTH when my son was born.
--
Kim
The most amazing BS artists there a
http://members.rogers.com/kirkkolas/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/naturopathi.../Quackery.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~