If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
"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....... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Circ: MDs deliberately lied - was Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Babies can't 'verbalize' their pain - was Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The end of male circumcision in the USA? | Fair For All | General | 4 | June 15th 04 05:31 AM |
What about circumcision and pain relief for baby | T | General | 278 | December 20th 03 07:06 PM |
baby boys | Taulmaril | Pregnancy | 99 | November 27th 03 04:10 AM |
Dentist uses Nitrous Oxide? | Wendy Marsden | General | 255 | October 2nd 03 09:44 PM |
One SHORT post per day - help make CHIROPRACTIC HISTORY... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | August 11th 03 08:08 PM |