The circumcision decision: Parents aren't guilty of child abuse

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/...1349b10908bca5


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/group...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 surgey 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 a 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/group...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/group...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/00662.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...


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_pract/eth...nions53101.cfm

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