Family Forum / Pregnancy / Pregnancy / October 2005

PREGNANT WOMEN:  American obstetricians aren't just senselessly slicing your
babies' penises - they are also senselessly slicing your vaginas and
abdomens - pretending to be doing everything possible to open birth canals -
even as they close birth canals up to 30%.

It's easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%.  See
below.

Note: I am in favor of a religious exemption from the child abuse statutes
for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

For details on "God's" circumcision, see the end of this post....

HIV HYSTERIA AND BABY PENISES

Auvert et al. write in 2005:

"[We] think that [total foreskin amputation - TG] should be regarded as an
important public health intervention for preventing the spread of HIV..."
--Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, et al.
(2005) Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for
Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2(11): e298.

Kirkup noted in 1988:

"...[C]ircumcision...continues...often during a
state of mass hysteria." [Kirkup. In Mann RD (ed.): The History of the
Management of Pain. Parthenon Publishing Group. 1988:17]

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)

Barbara Cohen
Senior Editor
Public Library of Science Medicine: An Open-access, Peer-reviewed Journal
U.K./European Editorial Office
Public Library of Science
7 Portugal Place
Cambridge CB5 8AF UK
phone +44(0)1223 463 330
fax +44(0)1223 463 348
bcohen@plos.org

Barbara,

I too - like Auvert et al. - once blindly believed the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis/hysteria - until I observed
American MDs embracing HIV/AIDS hypothesis/hysteria to stay out of prison
for
their mass infant penis ripping and slicing...

In 1984, Brigman suggested criminal prosecution of American MDs - without
noting that American MDs were using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology
to obtain "informed consent":

"[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]

Circa 1986, prominent media physician Dean Edell actually admitted on
national television that his instructors at Cornell Medical School taught
him that babies don¹t feel pain.  (He "bought it," he said, as in: "Aw, do I
have to do the circs today?...Nurses line up a bunch of babies...You don¹t
think about it...Most doctors believe that babies can¹t feel pain...Most
doctors today...I bought it..." [Edell D. KGO-TV, San Francisco circa
1986, NO CIRC conference tape, National Organization of Circumcision
Information Resource Centers, P.O. Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94960].

To "perform" their roughly 1.5 million assaults and batteries per year,
M.D.s use a device called the Olympic Circumstraint (manufactured in
Washington state):

"In less than 30 seconds a nurse can immobilize the struggling infant
securely in the correct position with Circumstraint.  Soft, wide Velcro
straps encircle the infant's elbows and knees, depriving him of
leverage.  He's held securely without danger of escape...[The
Circumstraint elevates the hips]...perfectly presenting the genitalia."
[From an ad for the Olympic Circumstraint, manufactured in Washington
state, emphasis added.]

Incredibly, two members of the Board of Directors of this Washington
State Circumstraint manufacturer wound up on a California jury hearing
NO CIRC-affiliated attorney Charles Bonner try a botched circumcision
case.  A mistrial was declared when the bizarre coincidence of having
two Circumstraint manufacturer representatives on the jury was
discovered.  [Personal communication with the judge¹s chambers and with
Mr. Bonner's office, 1994; NO CIRC is the National Organization of
Circumcision Information Resource Centers.]  

The only thing more bizarre than two Circumstraint jurors in a botched
circumcision case, is the fact that another NO CIRC-affiliated attorney
argued another circumcision case - the London case - and presented the
court with no testimony to rebut the claim of little Adam London's
doctor that there are medical benefits to infant circumcision.  (At the
time, every respected medical association in North America was on record
stating that there are no medical indications.)

Even as little Adam¹s mother represented her son, his/their attorney
stated in writing that parents are liable to be prosecuted for child
abuse because they consent to circumcision. (Little Adam¹s NO CIRC
attorney "forgot" that parents must give INFORMED consent; and he forgot
also that little Adam¹s mother, Trudie London, had gone on national
television and told Phil Donahue that the doctor had told her that
babies can¹t feel pain.  Adam¹s father, a Jewish physician, in essence
opposed his son in the lawsuit; because, as he said in Edell¹s national
television spot, circumcision put Adam "on my team."  Edell, another
Jewish physician, was announcing the London case on national
television.)  

In 1986, while these sham NO CIRC-affiliated cases were being litigated, Dr.
A. Cullen Richardson chairman of ACOG District IV stated: "[I]f the court
finds in favor of the plaintiff in either of these two circumcision
cases under litigation, informed consent would be worthless...'It's a
little scary...[that the] two suits...weren't thrown out of court
automatically,' he said...A finding for the plaintiff would...wipe out
routine infant circumcision...Dr. Richardson said." [Richardson quoted
in Ob.Gyn.News (Nov15-30)1986;21(22):18]

What's "a little scary" is the fact that two board members of a
Washington state Circumstraint manufacturer ended up on the jury in a
California circumcision case.  

1986 was the year that Aaron J. Fink, MD decided that routine infant
circumcision might prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS. (Auvert et al. note:
"The first paper suggesting a protective effect of MC against HIV infection
was published in 1986 [citing Fink AJ (1986) A possible explanation for
heterosexual male infection with AIDS. N Engl J Med 315: 1167].")

In 1987, a national study by nurses determined that American MDs
could not agree as to whether babies feel pain. [J Obstet Gynecol
Neonatal Nurs 1987;16(6):387]

In late 1987, I exposed American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology and called for an end to the no-medical-indication mass infant
penis ripping and slicing. (MDs were claiming that babies can't feel pain
for "lack of myelin."  Interestingly, MDs indirectly used the "lack of
myelin" hoax AGAIN - in 2000 - when they finally admitted that babies can
feel
pain.  See below.)

When I called for an end to the mass child abuse by MDs, I also called for a
religious exemption for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the
foreskin on the penis. (Auvert et al. briefly discuss ancient circumcision
but fail to mention this key fact.)

BIZARRE THINGS IMMEDIATELY HAPPENED...

In Jan, 1988 (Pediatrics), American MDs called for NO religious exemptions
from the child abuse laws.

In Feb. 1988 (Pediatrics), American MDs called for anonymity for
PERPETRATORS of child abuse.

In Mar. 1988, the California Medical Association House of Delegates, by
voice vote, instantly changed mass infant penis ripping and slicing from "no
medical indications" to "effective public health measure that prevents
HIV/AIDS" NOTE: CMA Res. 305-88, authored by the abovementioned Aaron J.
Fink, MD, is still in force, I believe.]

That's when I found Duesberg's criticism of the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

How shaky is the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?

VERY shaky...

See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable
and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]...
http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/aids-heresy-hogan.html <--EXCERPT

Incidentally, the year after California MDs lied to stay out of prison for
their mass infant penis ripping and slicing, the
American Academy of Pediatrics committee that looked into routine infant
circumcision FAILED TO MENTION the California Medical Association's brand
new "effective public health measure" in reporting there were still no
medical indications. (Auvert et al. also failed to mention CMA Res. 305-88,
which, again, is still in force, I believe.)

AAP did though allow a "potential medical indications" media scam that was
so successful that MDs had to be informed that AAP was still against routine
infant circumcision:

MEDICAL TRIBUNE 30:16 (8 June 1989)
         FORGET THOSE HEADLINES ABOUT CIRCUMCISION
            AAP IS AGAINST ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION
http://www.cirp.org/CIRP/news/ 1989.06.08%3aMedicalTribune

There are STILL no medical indications for American medicine's grisly most
frequent surgical behavior toward males - and American MDs still stand to go
to prison - which may explain why some
African gentlemen had their penises sliced recently for fear of HIV -
which likely does not cause AIDS...

For one of my earlier reactions to the African HIV/circ study of Auvert at
al.

See UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax - and HIV/AIDS Clergyman
PF Riley, MD
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3776

As indicated above, in 2000, American MD "scientists AGAIN used the phony
"lack of myelin" neurology; that is, in finally admitting that babies can
feel pain, American MDs cited Stang et al. who proposed that it is hard to
strap babies down to rip and slice their penises - because because babies
don't have enough myelin on their nerves. Stang et al. "forgot" something:
It's EASY to strap sleeping babies down at night - which is why (I'm told)
MDs used to (may still?) perform the infant penis ripping and slicing at
night.  (Maybe Stang et al. were proposing that babies shed myelin by day
and grow new myelin every night - LOL!)

In 1997, Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell, MD indicated that - because they are
performed without anesthetic - most infant circumcisions are "barbaric"...

"[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]

Most infant circumcisions violate law and stated medical ethics...

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"[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

One cannot anesthetize child abuse away.  There are NO medical indications.
Injecting anesthetic for a no-medical-indication procedure is itself child
abuse.

Gerald Weiss, MD wrote in 1988:

"It has never been proved that a neonate undergoing surgery experiences
pain." [Gerald M. Weiss. JAMA 1988;260:637]

Rabbi SAMUEL Weiss knew the score three years before:

"If it was painful, then doctors wouldn't do it." [Rabbi Samuel Weiss
quoted in Mitric JM: Merits of circumcision a subject of dispute.
Washington Post Health, Oct. 23, 1985, p. 9]

THAT'S why American MDs dreamed up their phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology.

The ONLY medical indication for routine infant circumcision is to keep
American MDs out of prison - it's the reason they suddenly declared it "an
effective public health measure" when I pointed out their phony babies can't
feel pain neurology.

I submit further that keeping MDs out of prison is the only reason for
studies such as that by Auvert et al. (See the relevant history above which
Auvert et al. failed to mention.)

If American MDs suddenly stopped ripping and slicing infant penises, it
would be tantamount to their admission that they have been committing mass
child abuse.

Ending the infant screams would instantly save America an estimated $400
million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males could
make in adulthood.

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

PLEASE NOTE: The mass infant penis ripping and slicing is just the tip of an
iceberg of
criminal obstetric behavior - complete with other obvious cover-up lies...

MD-obstetricians are actually closing birth canals up to 30% and KEEPING
birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies get stuck.

For the Four OB cover-up lies (they are whoppers)...

See Dents in babies' skulls (and SJ Doc)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897

NOTE FOR PREGNANT WOMEN: It is easy to allow your birth canals to OPEN the
"extra" up to 30%....just roll onto your side as you push your baby
out...BUT BEWARE...some obstetricians will let you "try" alternative
delivery positions but will roll you back to semisitting or dorsal (close
your birth canal the "extra" up to 30%) for the actual delivery...so talk to
your OB today.

MORE OBSTETRIC CRIME

The mass infant penis ripping and slicing is American medicine's most
frequent surgical behavior toward males...

American medicine's most frequent surgical behavior toward both males and
females is umbilical cord clamping/cutting.

IMMEDIATE umbilical cord clamping/cutting is also an obvious crime:

Babies are asphyxiated, denied umbilical cord oxygen, forced to breathe with
their lungs before they are
ready - as they are robbed of up to 50% of their blood volume.

The baby asphyxiation/baby blood robbery is inflicted on EVERY CESAREAN BABY
- and in most "cord blood banking" births - according to retired
obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.

See Dr. Morley's TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation experiment in: Water birth and
breathing without lungs...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3936

My thanks, BTW, to Donna Young for calling my attention to the mass baby
asphxiation crime of obstetricians - and to Kelly Moscarello for calling my
attention back to the fact that Dr. Morley suggested that I am perpetuating
the mass child abuse by urging MDs to report it.

NOTE FOR PREGNANT WOMEN:  It is SIMPLE to make sure your baby gets the
"extra" up to
50% of blood volume.  Talk to your obstetrician or midwife today.  Tell them
you do not want your baby's umbilical cord clamped until it has stopped
pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and not in need of
resuscitation.

THE PROBLEM:  Trusted cultural authorities are telling obvious lies - and
law enforcement is blithely looking the other way....

As Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly boasts: "Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime.  These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9

My thanks, BTW, to Donna Young for calling my attention to the mass baby
asphxiation crime of obstetricians - and to Kelly Moscarello for calling my
attention back to the fact that Dr. Morley suggested that I am perpetuating
the mass child abuse by urging MDs to report it.

MDs RELY ON THE ILLUSION OF SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY

In 1963, psychologist Stanley Milgram demonstrated that the illusion of
scientific authority caused average American men and women to obediently
display an "extreme willingness" to injure and kill others. [Milgram S.
Obedience to Authority New York: Harper and Row 1974.  Restates the
results of Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 1963;67:371-378.]

After performing his remarkable obedience
experiment, Milgram asked readers to,

"Imagine an experiment in which a person¹s little finger was routinely
snipped off...not only is such an experiment reprehensible, but within
hours the study would be brought to a halt as outraged participants
pressed their complaints on the university administration, and legal
measures were invoked to restrain the experimenter.  When a person has
been abused, he knows it, and will quite properly react against the
source of such mistreatment." [From Milgram¹s reply, Obedience to
Authority, to Welsh playwright Dannie Abse, who condemned Milgram¹s
experimental illusions of science and agony.]

According to Milgram, when infants are abused, they cannot "take legal
measures to restrain the experimenter"; they must rely instead on
adults, some of whom are mandated by law to take legal measures to
restrain abusers.

Milgram (entirely erroneously) predicted in 1974 that if, in future
experiments, adults were required to harm children, "disobedience would
be much greater." (p. 12)  He stated, "Of all moral principles, the one
that comes closest to being universally accepted is this:  One should
not inflict suffering on a helpless person..." (p. 13)

At the time Milgram was doing his experiment on adults, another, more
grisly experiment was being performed on young adults called medical
students:  

"I was a medical student, so a lot of the responsibility was mine. I
clearly violated, all in one instant, the Golden Rule (I certainly would
not have wanted that done to me); the major tenet of medical practice,
First, Do No Harm; and all seven Principles of the American Medical
Association's Code of Ethics. Mind you, I did not realize it then, as
unwary medical students do not realize it today." George Denniston,
M.D., M.P.H. http://www.gepps.com:80/circexp.htm
http://weber.u.washington.edu/d60/gcd/DOC/

As noted above, prominent media physician Dean Edell actually admitted on
national
television that his instructors at Cornell Medical School taught him
that babies don¹t feel pain.  He "bought it," he said. ("Aw, do I have
to do the circs today?...Nurses line up a bunch of babies...You don¹t
think about it...Most doctors believe that babies can¹t feel pain...Most
doctors today...I bought it..." [Edell D. KGO-TV, San Francisco circa
1986, NO CIRC conference tape, National Organization of Circumcision
Information Resource Centers, P.O. Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94960].

Aronson notes in Social Animal, "In this society, we have been
conditioned to believe that scientists tend to be responsible,
benevolent people of high integrity...that no scientist would issue
orders that would result in the death or injury of a human as part of
his experiment."

AGAIN: THE PROBLEM:  Trusted cultural authorities are telling obvious lies -
and law enforcement is blithely looking the other way....

As Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly boasts: "Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime.  These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9

I was pleased that Auvert et al. faintly suggested that there is no need to
rip and slice infant penises...

Auvert et al. wrote:

"[M]en can be circumcised over a wide age range, from childhood to
adulthood."

The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant
screams ago - back when I first exposed American medicine's phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology.

Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an
estimated $400 million per year - unless - of course - the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis is correct and Auvert et al. are correct in forwarding Fink's
1986 hypothesis that circumcision prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS.

At the very least, in any future African penis mutilation studies, Auvert et
al. must mention to African "volunteers" the evidence that the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis is shaky - and the fact that MDs in many countries including
America face prison for lying to parents and using phony neurology to claim
that babies can't feel pain (see above) - in their ONGOING mass infant penis
ripping and slicing crime.

Again quoting Kirkup:

"...[C]ircumcision...continues...often during a
state of mass hysteria." [Kirkup. In Mann RD (ed.): The History of the
Management of Pain. Parthenon Publishing Group. 1988:17]

The ONLY "medical indication" for the mass infant penis ripping and slicing
is to keep American MDs out of prison.

Thanks for reading everyone.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
todd@chiromotion.com

PS GOD ORIGINALLY/REPORTEDLY SAID TO LEAVE MOST OF THE FORESKIN ON THE
PENIS...

As noted above, when I called for an end to the mass child abuse by MDs, I
also called for a religious exemption for the ancient Jewish ritual that
leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.

I also noted above that Auvert et al. briefly discuss ancient circumcision
but fail to mention that the circumcision originally/reportedly commanded by
God leaves most of the foreskin on the penis....

Further details regarding this key fact...

Certified Nurse Midwife and "Mohelette" Ilene Gelbaum reported in 1992 that
parents and siblings would "rarely" accept a child who had not
been subjected to total foreskin amputation.
[Gelbaum I. JNM 1992;37(2S):97S-113S]

Ms. Gelbaum noted in 1992 that sometimes most of the foreskin is left on the
penis and claimed that it is "questionable" whether leaving most of the
foreskin on the penis confers health benefits. [1992:102S]

By 1993, though, Ms. Gelbaum was sure:  Leaving most of the foreskin on the
penis provides "neither health benefits nor cosmesis."
[JNM 1993;38(2S):18S-30S.]

It is a little known fact that ancient rabbis switched to TOTAL infant
foreskin amputation when Jews started lengthening their foreskins to appear
uncircumcised. See the quotes from historians below.

Thus - as a consequence of an ancient decision of mere mortal ancient Jews -
modern Jewish mohelim (including MD mohelim and non-Jewish MDs) are
amputating from Jewish infant penises FAR more infant foreskin than God
originally commanded.

In 1997, Hershel Shanks, PhD editor of Moment, noted that "the rabbis of the
Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added)...

"....[I]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the
Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old
tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical
rules (emphasis added)..."
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for his
book,  Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy [NY:
Springer 1980].

Wallerstein wrote in a 1983 article:

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]

Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia, published in
1901, which
indicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCE
when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who
adopted the athletic Greek way of life.  Jason, high priest of
Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute to Antiochus IV if he would
build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem.  The gymnasium was built.  
As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minority
of Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a
"mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar.  Compounding the horror
(of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews -
including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"
circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially
because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the
Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision.  Nevertheless, for
a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...
[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish
Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]

"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by
epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer
I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John
Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think they
were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of
Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993.  Judah Gribetz is
president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]

It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that
stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of
those Jews who stretched their foreskins:

"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,
has the following:  '...God's anger will be kindled against the children
of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those
of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the
earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.
New York: Ktav 1901.]

But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decree
to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of
John Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and
killing his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee
- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]

The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one
hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against
the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):

"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the
covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb.
l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the
glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.
xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the
glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I
(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

The notion that the penile mutilation^^^ originally/allegedly commanded by
God left most of the foreskin on the penis is supported by the
historical evidence that the ancient rabbis threatened to "exterminate"
Jews who tried to appear uncircumcised and then made a switch to TOTAL
foreskin amputationS?

^^^See "Circumcision is indeed a mutilation" below.

Fortunately, modern rabbis offer American Jews an ideological basis not
to mutilate:

1) "[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into
Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New
York: Macmillan, 1973,1993]  Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised
are accepted under Israel?s Law of Return, which indicates that even
"religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed
until adulthood and beyond; and

2) "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])

CIRCUMCISION IS INDEED A "MUTILATION"

Various
encyclopedias use the term "mutilation" to describe circumcision.

Some relevant 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..."
[According to the Bible:  "[E]very man purchased with money of yours
must
without fail get circumcised..." [Genesis 17:13] - TDG]

[Gomme L. Mutilation.  In Hastings J (ed). Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics. Vol. IX NY: Charles Scribner?s Sons 1922:62-3]

<<<<<<<<<<<

"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]

<<<<<<<<<<<

My own penis was mutilated though it looks quite normal to me; indeed, it
looks so normal to me that I insisted my eldest son's penis be mutilated -
to look "normal" - like mine.

It was one of the most heated arguments I ever had with his mother - but
fortunately she prevailed - he is whole - and has the option to CHOOSE to
amputate his foreskin if he wishes.

I SAY AGAIN...

The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant
screams ago - back when I first exposed American medicine's phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology.

Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an
estimated $400 million per year - unless - of course - the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis is correct and Auvert et al. are correct in forwarding Fink's
1986 hypothesis that circumcision prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS.

At the very least, in any future African penis mutilation studies, Auvert et
al. must mention to African "volunteers" the evidence that the HIV/AIDS
hypothesis is shaky - and the fact that MDs in many countries including
America face prison for lying to parents and using phony neurology to claim
that babies can't feel pain (see above) - in their ONGOING mass infant penis
ripping and slicing crime.

Again quoting Kirkup:

"...[C]ircumcision...continues...often during a
state of mass hysteria." [Kirkup. In Mann RD (ed.): The History of the
Management of Pain. Parthenon Publishing Group. 1988:17]

The ONLY "medical indication" for the mass infant penis ripping and slicing
is to keep American MDs out of prison.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA

This Open Letter to Barbara Cohen, Senior Editor of the Public Library of
Science Medicine: An Open-access, Peer-reviewed Journal will be archived for
global access in the Google usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "African HIV hysteria and American baby
penises"