Are OBs Bible-based? Is home schooling child abuse?

Dr. Gastaldo's final usenet post - thanks to Gary S. Goldman, PhD...

ARE OBs BIBLE-BASED? IS HOME SCHOOLING CHILD ABUSE?

According to Gary S. Goldman's PEARBLOSSOM Private School Newsletter...

Annette Cootes of the NEA-affiliated Texas State Teachers Association
reportedly said:

"[H]ome schooling is a form of child abuse because you are isolating
children from human interaction. I think home schoolers are doing a great
discredit [sic] to their children."
--Quoted in Gary S. Goldman, PhD's PEARBLOSSOM Private School (PPS, Inc.)
Newsletter, article by Brian C. Anderson, undated
http://privateschoolinc.com/

Attention Pearblossom's MEDICAL VERITAS Editor-in-Chief Gary S. Goldman,
PhD...

SCRIPTURAL RECALL GAME...

I see that your Pearblossom Private School has a software program titled:
SCRIPTURAL RECALL GAME...
http://pearblossomschool.com/contactus.html

KEY POINT: American obstetricians have ILLEGITIMATELY tapped into the
cultural power of Biblical Scripture - with California Supreme Court
assistance (see the London case, discussed below).

In regard to OBs closing birth canals up to 30% and lying to cover-up - you
suggested that I should "share how the TRUTH became distorted so that the
LIE replaced the truth." (Your post is forwarded below.)

I think American obstetricians illegitimately tapping into the cultural
power of Biblical Scripture is the root cause of MANY ongoing medical lies.

QUESTION: Can fraudulent surgical power of American obstetrics over FEMALES
(discussed below) reside in American obstetrics' grisly infant-penis
ripping-and-slicing most frequent surgical behavior toward MALES?

I am referring to TOTAL foreskin amputation the American medical religion's
$400 million per year most frequent surgical behavior toward males. It is
obvious child abuse performed mostly by obstetricians. It should have ended
BILLIONS of dollars worth of infant screams ago - back in 1987 immediately
after I exposed the American medical religion's phony neurology.(details
below). NOTE: This was BEFORE the California Supreme Court decided the
London case, discussed below.

In the year 2000, American pediatricians finally clearly indicated that
babies CAN feel pain; but the pediatricians did not acknowledge their phony
neurology - indeed, they indirectly repeated it - this time to "explain" why
it is hard to strap babies down to Circumstraint devices! Some American
obstetricians (and pediatricians) may still be lying to parents, using phony
neurology to tell them that babies can't feel pain.

Ending the American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior
toward males - ending the mass infant penis ripping and slicing - ending the
mass infant screams of agony - would instantly save America $400 million per
year and preserve the grisly surgery as a CHOICE American males could make
for themselves in adulthood.

I AM IN FAVOR OF PARDONS IN ADVANCE FOR MDs...

I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs because as medical students MDs
are TRAINED to perform felonies.

I AM ALSO IN FAVOR OF A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE CHILD ABUSE LAWS FOR
THE ANCIENT JEWISH RITUAL THAT LEAVES MOST OF THE FORESKIN ON THE PENIS

American pediatricians recently perpetuated the fraudulent notion that the
American medical religion's TOTAL amputation is the same as the minimal
ancient Jewish ritual. It is not the same. More below.

IS HOME SCHOOLING CHILD ABUSE?

I certainly don't think so - but I am biased - two of my children - both now
in college - were homeschooled. LOTS of homeschoolers are going to college.
Some colleges are expressing an admissions preference for homeschoolers.

WARNING: Most of the rest of this post is NOT about home schooling; rather,
it is about the fact that it is mandatory for MDs and RNs to report child
abuse when child abuse is so much as SUSPECTED. (Anyone MAY report suspected
child abuse - even the PhD Editor-in-Chief of MEDICAL VERITAS - but MDs and
RNs MUST report - immediately by telephone in California.)

KEY POINT: For years American MDs offered parents phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology - when they bothered to obtain "informed consent" at all.
In 2000, American MDs finally indicated babies can feel pain - but they (in
effect) repeated their phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. They
didn't use the phony neurology to say babies can't feel pain - but rather to
lamely "explain" why it is hard to strap babies down for the penis ripping
and slicing. See below.

SCHOOL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS

Can future behavior problems in boys in public schools be
exacerbated-in-advance when tiny penises are ripped and sliced in infancy?
Most American baby boys still have their penises ripped and sliced - they
still scream and writhe and bleed - some lose their lives or their penises.

The DEATH OF BABY and loss of penis circumcision outcomes - though rare -
underscore the fact that there are NO medical indications for the mass
ripping and slicing - there is NO reason for any babies to be screaming
writhing and bleeding let alone losing their lives or their penises to the
American medical religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.
America is wasting $400 million dollars per year on obvious mass child
abuse. Ending the screams would preserve the surgery as a CHOICE American
males could make for themselves in adulthood.

NEUROTOXINS/VACCINES...

Can future behavior problems in BOTH girls and boys be
exacerbated-in-advance (or caused de novo) when neurotoxins/vaccines are
injected into their bloodstreams?

I think so.

Gary S. Goldman, PhD exclaimed in one of his emails to me: "My specialty is
vaccine adverse reactions!"

Eventually, I hope Gary and others will look into physicians CONCEALING a
serious vaccine adverse
reaction (failure-to-immunize) as they fraudulently promote their
vaccinations as being 100% effective as they also (in effect) deny massive
numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

See again: Breasts as doctors (also: Medical Veritas)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...325ac661f5807f

Would there be fewer behavior problems in public schools if American MDs
weren't (in effect) denying massive numbers of babies massive numbers of
free daily immunizations?

I think so.

I have asked the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to look into these
obvious child abuse crimes.

I have also asked the LA Supervisors to look into the MD robbery from EVERY
CESAREAN BABY of up to 50% of its blood volume (the medical euphemism for
this is "immediate cord clamping")...

See Birth danger (attn: LA County Supervisors)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...2ed9527dfd8504

(I emailed the LA County Supervisors on March 10. No word back from them
yet. I will cc them this post too. My thanks, BTW, to Canadian grandma
Donna Young for calling my attention to the immediate cord clamping mass
child abuse by MDs and I thank George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG for the
"every cesarean baby" phraseology. AMAZING - OBs are routinely robbing
babies of up to 50% of their blood volume!)

LOW PRESSURE HOMESCHOOL ENVIRONMENT...

Could it be that a low/lower pressure homeschool environment is successful
in part because it doesn't exacerbate behavior problems?

How many behavior problems might have been caused/exacerbated-in-advance by
illegal (and legal) medical behavior towards infants and children?

NOTE ABOUT CIRCUMCISION: Parents are NOT guilty of child abuse when they ask
the obstetrician (or pediatrician) to rip and slice their son's penis - any
more than medical students are guilty of child abuse when they commit the
obvious felony. Parents and medical students alike are TRAINED by this
culture to do these things. I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs for
this reason.

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access at http://groups.google.com)

Gary S. Goldman, PhD
Pearblossom Private School (PPS, Inc.)
P.O. Box 847
13134 E. Ave. V-13 (use this address line for U.P.S. only)
Pearblossom, CA 93553
Phone : (800) 309-3569 (9:00 am to 3:00 pm Pacific Standard)
24 Hr Fax : (661) 944-4483
E-mail:

Gary,

As noted above, your Pearblossom Newsletter quotes Annette Cootes:

"[H]ome schooling is a form of child abuse because you are isolating
children from human interaction. I think home schoolers are doing a great
discredit [sic] to their children."

Do you know whether Annette Cootes ever bothered to REPORT home schooling as
child abuse?

You wrote of OBs closing birth canals up to 30%: "I would not hesitate to
call what is being practiced Child Abuse." (Your post is forwarded below.)

Gary, the law is quite clear.

Child abuse is a CRIME to be reported when it is so much as SUSPECTED.

ANYONE (even PhD editors of MEDICAL VERITAS) can file suspected child abuse
reports.

You have asked me to write an article for your journal (MEDICAL VERITAS)
about my work to stop OBs from closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping
birth canals closed when babies get stuck - and lying to cover-up.

To underscore for readers of your journal that you would not hesitate to
call birth-canal-closing child abuse - please REPORT it to the sheriff and
CPS right there in Pearblossom.

The sheriff and CPS will likely not do anything as you are not an MD or RN.
(Also, see the London case, mentioned below.)

By reporting and saying you reported - and reporting this in an editorial -
you will underscore your conviction that it is child abuse for OBs to be
closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% - PLUS you will underscore the
fact that ANYONE can report.

With MDs and RNs not reporting themselves (for obvious reasons) - generating
reports from non-MDs and non-RNs might help - can't hurt.

Incidentally, regarding my article, if I do not get it written before your
March 18 deadline (a huge personal matter has come up)...

I recommend you publish - AS IS (complete with cc addressees) - my Open
Letter to Susan Standring, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of BRITISH GRAY'S ANATOMY...

See Dr. Gastaldo corrects BRITISH GRAY'S ANATOMY...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c2b0485b369c81

You might also want to publish in the same issue of MEDICAL VERITAS - a
piece regarding American obstetricians' (and American medicine's) most
frequent surgical behavior toward MALES...

It occurred to me to call your attention to American medicine's en masse
ripping and slicing of baby penises because...

After indicating you would not hesitate to call birth-canal-closing Child
Abuse, you added:

"I am not sure, though, that I would agree, that all doctors know better and
that some would not change once they were made aware of the important
issues."

First, you are wrong to suggest that I have said that "all doctors know
better." I have never said "all doctors know better."

Second, regarding whether "some [MDs] would change": Sheriffs/district
attorneys ARREST people who do not stop abusing children - hence my call for
pardons in advance for MDs: As medical students MDs were/are TRAINED to
perform felonies.

Third...

PEOPLE V. POINTER

In California, prosecution for child abuse "does not require any intent to
violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage." [People v.
Pointer (App. 1 Dist. 1984) 199 Cal. Rptr. 357 cited/quoted under California
Penal Code Section 273a]
I found this just-cited People v. Pointer case law back in 1987 when I
caught the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP uncritically perpetuating
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology. (I am assuming People v. Pointer
is still a valid legal precedent.)

I exposed the AAP's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in an Oct. 11,
1987 letter to the AAP - which I copied to the New England Journal of
Medicine...

In California, child abuse was (may still be) defined as inflicting onto a
child "unjustifiable physical pain."

American medicine's most frequent surgical behavior toward males was/is
OBVIOUS child abuse.

There were/are NO medical indications ("unjustifiable") and American MDs
were LYING ("babies-can't-feel-pain") surgical behavior toward males,

So I called for an END to the obvious mass child abuse.

That was in an Oct. 11, 1987 letter to AAP, copied to the New England
Journal of Medicine...

LOOK WHAT HAPPENED

On November 19, 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine published
Harvard pain expert KJS Anand's admission that he and others had used
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology for decades. [N Eng J Med
1987;317:1322]


Anand later told me that he had submitted his paper to the Journal the
year before, but was told it would be "too inflammatory."
Anne B. Fletcher, M.D. editorialized, in that same November 19 issue of
the Journal, that the pain of circumcision is "incurred by infants."


Later that year, I also called for a religious exemption from the child
abuse statutes for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the
foreskin on the penis (more on this below)...

(Gary, it looks like you might have instant access to relevant Scripture
regarding circumcision: As noted above, your Pearblossom Private School,
Inc. has a software program titled: Scripture Recall Game.
http://pearblossomschool.com/contactus.html)

Since a religious exemption for Jews would have finally officially/legally
ACKNOWLEDGED that routine infant circumcision is child abuse...

Pediatricians understandably (though unconscionably) resorted to
anti-Semitism...


In Jan 1988 American pediatricians came out against ALL religious
exemptions - i.e. - American pediatricians tried to hide behind religion.

The pediatricians were saying in effect: if we MDs are made to stop, Jews
must
be made to stop...it was anti-Semitism.

In Feb 1988 the pediatricians came out in favor of anonymity for
PERPETRATORS of child abuse.


In March 1988 the California Medical Association ignored its own Scientific
Board and by voice vote instantly created "an effective public health
measure" out of "no medical indication" routine infant circumcision.


See Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr.
Gastaldo)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com*/grou...t/message/2430

Most recently, America's pediatric priests again played their religious
card: They perpetuated the fraudulent notion that the American medical
religion's TOTAL amputation ritual is the same as the ancient Jewish ritual
that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

See Pediatrician 'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com*/grou...t/message/2908


I am still in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the
ancient Jewish ritual; and I imagine America's pediatric priests still
oppose all religious exemptions...

HIV/AIDS PENIS HOAX?

When the California Medical Association ignored its own Scientific Board in
1988, the CMA's resulting "effective public health measure" resolution
indicated that routine infant circumcision prevents transmission of
HIV/AIDS....

Remember Gary: OBSTETRICIANS perform most of American medicine's most
frequent surgical behavior toward males.

Here's a post that further addresses what I believe to be an ongoing
HIV/AIDS cover-up of the obvious mass child abuse....

I apologize for some repetition...


THE CIRCUMCISION DECISION:


PARENTS AREN'T GUILTY OF CHILD ABUSE


See Postscript #2 below...


WAS THE BAETEN ET AL. STUDY FLAWED?


Childbirth educator Carl Jones wrote:


"Tell me this study is flawed. I am a firm believer in not ci*rcumcising
babies...Todd, where are you??"
http://groups-beta.google.com/*group...msg/*ab1349b10...


replied:



It does not matter if the study is flawed or not.


Actually, it DOES matter if the Baeten et al. study if flawed - especially
if it was INTENTIONALLY flawed...

It matters that the American medical religion is LYING to cover-up another
huge felony...


OBs are routinely closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely keeping birth
canals closed when babies get stuck...


I notified Dr. Baeten of the birth-canal-closing felony - but he has not yet
gotten back to me...


See Dr. Baeten's folly? Infant penis ripping, HIV and* African truck
drivers (also: C-section and obesity)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com*/grou...t/message/3173


Why might the Baeten et al. study have been intentionally flawed?


Carl Jone's phrase "circumcising babies" is euphemism for the American
medical religion's "no medical indication" en masse ripping and slicing of
infant penises - an obvious mass felony which is **still being committed**
by the American medical religion.


This grisly ritual of American medical priests (MDs) costs the American
health care system an estimated $400 million dollars per year. It should
have ended billions of dollars' worth of infant screams ago (and a some
infant deaths and infant penis amputations ago) back in 1987 when I pointed
out that MDs were still using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to
perpetuate the "no medical indications" mass felony.


Finally ending the grisly mass child abuse would not only instantly save the
American healthcare system the estimated $400 million dollars per year - it
would preserve the surgery as a choice American males could make for
themselves in adulthood.


RELEVANT HISTORY OF HIV/AIDS CIRCUMCISION "SCIENCE"


In late 1987 I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and
called for an immediate end to the mass child abuse and for a religious
exemption for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on
the penis.


In the Jan 1988 issue of Pediatrics, America's pediatric priests- who are
supposed to protect babies - immediately came out against ALL religious
exemptions.


In the Feb. 1988 issue of Pediatrics, America's pediatric priests called for
anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse.


In March 1988, the American medical religion's largest state medical diocese
(the CMA) suddenly - by voice vote - declared the en masse ripping and
slicing of infant penises "an effective public health measure" - one that
prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS.


KEY POINT...


The CMA (California Medical Association) IGNORED ITS OWN SCIENTIFIC BOARD to
pass this brand new HIV/AIDS prevention "public health measure."


MDs were looking at prison terms. MDs are STILL looking at prison terms.


The ONLY things keeping MDs out of prison a 1) cultural authority
(including the foot-dragging inaction of MD-funded law enforcement officers
called attorney generals) - and 2) the still-ongoing "potential medical
indications" scam of America's pediatricians.


Incidentally, the pediatricians' "potential medical indications" scam began
the week after the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and declared the
massive crime "an effective public health measure" that prevents
transmission of HIV/AIDS.


Bizarrely, the pediatricians' failed to mention the CMA's new "effective
public health measure" in their final report in 1989.


Baeten et al.'s recent HIV/AIDS study of the sexual habits of African truck
drivers may or may not be flawed...


If flawed, the Baeten et al study may or may not be INTENTIONALLY flawed...


But as is being pointed out it most certainly is not a reason to rip and
slice a baby's penis.


Thanks for reading.


Sincerely,


Todd


Dr. Gastaldo



PS1 When America's pediatric priests finally decided in 2000 that babies
can feel pain - they REPEATED the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology
by citing Stang et al. who used the same phony neurology ("lack of
myelin") - not to say babies can't feel pain - but to "explain" why babies
are so stiff that it is hard to strap them down onto Circumstraint devices.
(Stang, who had designed a new padded "physiologic" restraint device, didn't
explain why babies suddenly become limp when they sleep - which -
incidentally - I've been told - is the reason most baby penises were (and
are still?) ripped and sliced at night.)


Significantly, America's pediatric priests still have not acknowledged what
I called to their attention in 1987 - the fact that they had perpetuated
uncorrected the American medical religion's phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology.


Most recently, America's pediatric priests again played their religious
card: They perpetuated the fraudulent notion that the American medical
religion's TOTAL amputation ritual is the same as the ancient Jewish ritual
that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.


See Pediatrician
'ethics' (Attn: Gesundheit et al.)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com*/grou...t/message/2908


I am still in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the
ancient Jewish ritual; and I imagine America's pediatric priests still
oppose all religious exemptions...


I am also in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students MDs
are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies - mass infant penis ripping and
slicing is just one obvious felony committed by the American medical
religion.


As indicated above, MDs are trained to perform other obvious felonies which
are far worse in my opinion.


See Club of Rome: Pregnant? Disgusting stimuli at UCLA (research)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com*/grou...t/message/3202


PS2 THE CIRCUMCISION DECISION:


PARENTS AREN'T GUILTY OF CHILD ABUSE


Parents who pay an MD to subject their child to ripping and slicing of his
penis are not guilty of child abuse.


This culture - via the American medical religion - still subtly puts parents
under intense psychic pressure to mutilate infants to look like their
mutilated fathers. (The ripping and slicing is a mutilation according to
encyclopedia definitions I will provide if asked. My own penis looks quite
normal to me - but it was mutilated and I myself wanted my eldest son's
penis mutilated to look like mine. Fortunately my eldest son's mother
prevailed after a vehement argument. My son was not made to scream and
writhe. He still has his foreskin - and the choice to amputate it.)


American pediatricians who perform routine infant circumcisi*ons violate
their own ethics every day:


"[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient* exist
independent of parental desires...


"...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously c*onstitutes
the -
TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] s*hould...carry
considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not
essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred witho*ut 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 Pediatr*ic
Practice(RE9510)
Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
http://www.aap.org/policy/0066*2.html


INFANT SCREAMS...


Here two nurses discussed the screams...


"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal proced*ure 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/]


Here's a nurse calling it "barbaric"...


"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation *in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barba*ric
practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of
Pediatric Nursing [1997]


Here's an MD calling it "barbaric"...


"[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allo*w older
childrenor adults to be subjected to such practices, nor wou*ld they submit
to it
themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Tho*mas E. Wiswell,
MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of
Medicine]


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 wh*om we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report c*hild abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

It is simply wrong to rip and slice infant penises - and MDs* know it...




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

also wrote:
A potential decrease
in HIV transmission in no way justifies circumcising infants.
Circumcision does not prevent transmission of HIV and thus is not a
recommended way to protect ones self.

When a guy becomes sexually active and if he thinks that being
circumcised will decrease his chances of getting HIV then he can choose
to have the procedure done. It is impossible to justify circumcising
infant boys when they 1)may desire to have their foreskin and 2)may not
choose to take part in risky sexual practices (which are teh primary
risk factor for HIV).


The human foreskin is not a public health risk, it does not cause HIV,
HPV or any other virus. No major medical organization in the world
recommends that infant be circumcised for ANY preventive reason.


END junk's reply to Jones



Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,


Todd


Dr. Gastaldo



One last note...


Perhaps the American Medical Association will stop the mass MD felonies...


After all, the mass MD felonies are based on fraud and deception and...
Quoting AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics:


"[AMA physician[s] shall...strive to expose those physicians*...who engage
in
fraud or deception."
http://www.psych.org/psych_pra*ct/et...ions53101*.cfm


Again see: Club of Rome: Pregnant? Disgusting stimuli at UCLA (research)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com*/grou...t/message/3202



END GASTALDO'S RECENT CIRCUMCISION POST...

More for Gary S. Goldman, PhD...

American medicine's most frequent surgical behavior toward males - mass
ripping and slicing of infant PENISES - is mostly OBSTETRIC crime that
occurs around the time that obstetricians routinely (criminally) slice
VAGINAS....

Remember, I say that OBs routinely slicing vaginas en masse is criminal
because by slicing vaginas en masse OBs are surgically/fraudulently
inferring they are doing everything possible to open birth canals
maximally - even as they CLOSE birth canals up to 30%.

Thus TWO obvious genital crimes are "performed" routinely by obstetricians
perinatally.

Remember - American pediatricians recently perpetuated the false notion that
the American medical religion's TOTAL foreskin amputation is the same as the
ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

Again, I am in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the
ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

Finally, back to the notion stated above: It may be that the
anti-scientific power of American obstetrics over FEMALES resides in its
most frequent surgical behavior toward MALES.

The California Supreme Court (or was it a lower appellate
court?) looked at the issue of "no medical indication" surgery in the London
case and indirectly indicated that parents who pay an MD to rip and slice
are NOT guilty of child abuse - which - of course - means that MDs are not
guilty of child abuse when parents pay them to do ANY "no medical
indication"
surgery.

I believe the London case was the medico-"legal" "just us" system covering
for the medical profession. London does NOT mean that suspected child abuse
reports can't (or shouldn't) be filed in the matter of OBs closing birth
canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when
babies get stuck.

Women are NOT giving their consent for this bizarre obstetric procedure
called closing the birth canal up to 30%.

NO CIRC is actually MAYBE CIRC...


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.

One of the NO CIRC Board Members who voted for NO CIRC nurses not to report
it as child abuse - was Trudie London - mother of little Adam London.
Trudie London had consented to the ripping and slicing of little Adam's
penis - but she (ostensibly) decided that the MD should not have been
allowed to rip and slice - even with her consent. Trudie London voted
AGAINST NO CIRC nurses - "Child Abuse Begins With Circumcision" - doing the
minimum required by law to stop the mass ripping and slicing of baby
penises.

I think NO CIRC is a front organization for the obstetricians. I think the
London case was intentionally undertaken to PROTECT obstetricians (and
pediatricians) from being prosecuted for the obvious crime they are
committing.

I think the California Supreme Court went along with the gag.

As a side note: I was in the car with my future wife-to-be Julia Attwood
when NO CIRC President Marilyn Milos told us that SHE was responsible for
the London case not getting appealed - because she had taken time out from
typing mailing labels for NO CIRC - LOL! Good one Marilyn! I know you are
reading - SOMEONE will forward this to you...

BTW, under London case precedent, California parents can conceivably hire an
MD/surgeon to slice an organ out of one of their children and give it to
another of their children who is dying... I am uneasy with that concept - I
think courts in other states have expressed THEIR unease rather forcefully.

And under Roe v. Wade of course, ALL American parents can hire an
MD/obstetrician/gynecologist to slice a live BABY out of a womb early -
thereby killing it. (I don't support this choice - but I am glad those
unelected officials at the US Supreme Court found it in the U.S
Constitution - though I don't see it there.)

Gary, you still reading?

It may be that the whole obstetric lying house of cards exists to support
abortion and ritual ripping and slicing of baby penises - the ostensible
Biblical scripture reason for the existence of Israel.

I think there is a GEOPOLITICAL "reason" that newborn circumcision has
not yet ended in the U.S. ..

BEGIN substantial excerpt of "Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr.
Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6c1973de965354


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..."


END substantial excerpt of "Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr.
Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6c1973de965354

BACK TO GARY S. GOLDMAN, PhD...


In regard to OBs closing birth canals up to 30% and lying to cover-up - you
suggested that I should "share how the TRUTH became distorted so that the
LIE replaced the truth." (Again, your post is forwarded below.)

Again, I think American obstetricians illegitimately tapping into the
cultural power of Biblical Scripture is the root cause of MANY ongoing
medical lies. I think the London case was the California Supreme Court
providing "legal" cover.

Again, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students,
MDs are TRAINED to perform felonies.

And I am in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient
Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

The ancient Jewish ritual is NOT the same as the American medical religion's
TOTAL foreskin amputation ritual...

TOTAL FORESKIN AMPUTATION...
AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED...


"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced
off." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHl*th.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman,
PhD,
author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)


"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into
about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin."
http://www.infocirc.org/MensHl*th.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author
of
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

Gary, THANKS for saying that you would not hesitate to call OBs closing
birth canals up to 30% child abuse.

Gary, thanks to you, I am - FINALLY - moving on!

How cool that your Pearblossom School promotes homeschooling.

We used UNschooling. Our to children are both now in college getting A's
and B's.

Homeschooling WORKS!

I suspect the Bible-based/curriculum-based homeschoolers are responsible for
the legal groundwork that makes unschooling possible.

THANKS GARY!

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


DID I MENTION? I'M FINALLY MOVING ON! YAY!

I think a LOT of people will be glad - all my detractors on the usenet for
example - I lost count of the number who called me "psychotic" - LOL!

To my supporters on the usenet - THANKS! I will not be back until I
receive my share of the whistle-blower MILLIONS that are due me for spending
nearly 20 years of my life exposing a multi-BILLION (TRILLION?) dollar
criminal enterprise called medical "science." (Yeah right - I'm going to
receive millions for my work - LOL!)

Finally, I say again...

Gary S. Goldman, PhD exclaimed in one of his emails to me: "My specialty is
vaccine adverse reactions!"

Eventually, I hope Gary and others will look into physicians CONCEALING a
serious vaccine adverse
reaction (failure-to-immunize) as they fraudulently promote their
vaccinations as being 100% effective as they also (in effect) deny massive
numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

See again: Breasts as doctors (also: Medical Veritas)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...325ac661f5807f

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Additional thoughts...


Dear Todd,

Knowing what I have learned from you and the others writing in the Forum,
I would not hesitate to call what is being practiced Child Abuse. I am not
sure, though, that I would agree, that all doctors know better and that some
would not change once they were made aware of the important issues.

Todd, please go back over the Introduction, Place in the OB Lies, these
same to be very important to you. Please, describe the suppression you were
subject to in pointing out the errors in the manuals. I feel this is
critical information. I feel you are the best one to revise the narrative
provided to indicate this.

Todd, I am on your side and I want you to do your part and send me back
the revised, edited manuscript.

Sincerely,
Gary

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:53 PM
Subject: Revised thinking...


Dear Todd,

The more I contemplate your being censored, the more incensed I get. Todd,
here is my updated assessment. If you would please, write a one or more page
narrative of your experience, including the information concerning the
obstetrics manual, and complete with perhaps a chronological development of
how the current WRONG practice came to the fore, this would be enlightening
to the readers; but please emphasize what the correct practice was before it
got corrupted. Also you would include the 4 OB Lies that are told and the
AMA ethics that should be upheld.

I would then include your name as one of the authors comprising the forum
material and you could detail your research and your experience in trying to
bring about change.

Sincerely,
Gary


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 5:17 PM
Subject: Revised thinking...


Dear Todd,

I will wait for your version as the deadline for this is not until March
18th. So hopefully you will get a view of the 2005 edition. I am also hoping
you will generate a narrative that we can show with your name as author. We
would also include your highest degree such as DCH if you are a doctor of
chiropractic. You can develop the points in a nice logical, chronological
sequence, and share how the TRUTH became distorted so that the LIE replaced
the truth.
The 4 OB LIES can be related as you desire along with the applicable AMA
points. Readers would like to know any applicable background, perhaps how
you started to investigate these issues, what your research has uncovered,
etc. The very old references dating back to the early 1800's are most
interesting. If these practices were implemented today, likely U.S. would
not rank 28th in infant mortality (where it is reported that more than 7 per
1,000 babies die; the 1st ranked country has only 3 per 1,000 babies die).

Even if the 2005 edition does not come out in time, you still have some
significant points to be made concerning the earlier editions, and how the
material was only partially updated, thus leaving a conflicting message that
was at best a half truth!

You could enumerate the policies that are fraudulent--sometimes a nicer
term for fraudulent is "medical malfeasance"--wherein, the policies are
harmful to the mother and child. You can call for Dr. Dave Weldon, or
Congressman Burton to investigate the "child abuse" being committed in the
name of established "standard of care protocol" and that this crime is on a
large scale, perhaps exceeding that caused by the Thimerosal and other
adverse vaccine reactions that these politicians have been currently
investigating.

The above are only ideas I have gathered based upon the information you
have shared.

Todd, it is important to get this material published. This is a starting
point and serves as a reference that can stimulate others to also come
forward and take the courageous stand that you have. From my experience, I
can tell you that one epidemiological study establishes virtually nothing
and is insufficient to evoke change. But when two or more studies come to
the same conclusions, in different populations, using different methodology,
then the strength of the association becomes evident. In a similar manner,
this one "Forum" discussion, in itself, will hopefully serve as a
prime-mover, bringing attention to an issue that is uncomfortable to many
physicians, but that pregnant mothers will immediately derive benefit from.
When material is related truthfully, people can discern such honesty, and
then finally recognize the greedy motives that have led to current
practices.

Your narrative will truly be considered a valuable
contribution--especially if it has the proper degree of emotion and balance.

Sincerely,
Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Medical Veritas

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 1:30 AM
Subject: Subtleties in medical writing...


Dear Todd and Donna,

I wanted to make mention of a rather subtle point in relating medical
information.

In one manuscript written by another person, the author stated that the
vaccines caused "deep problems." Here the word "deep" really should be
rendered "severe" problems. The change is minor, but it is the difference
between stating something in an "emotional" way verses a more descriptive
way.

Similarly, you might consider that "OB Lies", which we know is generally
correct, indicates a judgment that the OB "knows the truth and factual
information, yet is purposely lying and hiding the truth." However, it may
in fact, be the case that some OB's have been incorrectly taught, or the
truth was obscured by incorrect reference sources, such that they were truly
unaware they were telling a lie. Readers would better respond to wording
such as "OB Errors". Those in Obstetrics that are truly the "liars" will see
that their lie has been exposed; however those who were honestly taught
incorrectly will not be offended by calling them "Liars" and will be able to
understand they were "in error."

I don't know if I have presented this subtle distinction clearly enough;
but it deserves some consideration--at least from an editorial viewpoint. We
certainly do not want to water down the narrative, but at the same point,
readers will respond much more favorably to "corrective" material if it is
presented in a well-balanced manner.

Dr. Philip R. Krause, lead research scientist of the FDA biologics
laboratory is responsible for teaching me this lesson in balance as my
writing of scientific reports was over-emotional, and this was caused by the
fact that the data and results were being suppressed. But it is important to
let the facts speak for themselves and not let emotion override the
narrative.

Sincerely,
Gary