Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Ronald L. Poland, MD: He could have ended it two BILLION dollars worth of mutilations ago...

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97

Listers/Posters: Please bear with my repetition - I realize that
infants only have to bear with circumcision once - but I think it's time
to end the mass mutilation.

Since 1987 when I first had contact with Ronald L. Poland, MD, he and his
cohorts have cost this country two BILLION dollars and counting - not
counting millions of infant screams, lost penises and a few deaths...

Don Morgan wrote:

<<<<Ronald L. Poland, professor and chair of the department of pediatrics
at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine....>>>>
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

I remember Dr. Poland well...

Over two BILLION dollars worth of infant mutilations ago, Dr. Poland and
colleagues wrote the 1987 American Academy of Pediatrics' Statement on
Neonatal Anesthesia [Pediatrics 1987:80:446] which perpetuated without
correction organized medicine's phony neurology - the notion that babies
can't feel pain for lack of myelin...

It was Poland et al.'s 1987 phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology
which caused me to write to AAP and the New England Journal of Medicine
and the California Medical Association (CMA) on October 11, 1987 and
demand an end to the mutilations. (In the same year, a national study by
nurses determined that doctors could not agree as to whether babies feel
pain. [J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1987;16(6):387])

In that Oct. 11, 1987 letter, I asked for an immediate end to the
mutilations because they clearly constituted child abuse - the infliction
of "unnecessary physical pain." There were not then (and there still are
not) medical indications - and the "babies can't feel pain" neurology was
obviously phony.

A month later (Nov 1987), the New England Journal of Medicine published
Anand and Hickey's admission that MDs had been using phony babies can't
feel pain neurology for decades... See forwarded "Pardon MDs in Advance"
post.

A month after that (Dec 1987), Dr. Poland wrote me a letter acknowledging
there were no medical indications and stating that AAP was going to
"study the matter."

I also sent the Medical Board of California a copy of my Oct. 11, 1987
letter to Poland. Medical Board consumer services representative J.
Kinnard responded on November 16, 1987:

“Unfortunately your correspondence touches on a religious issue...Your
best resource [for action] would be the religious groups that utilize
circumcision, not the government agencies.”

On the advice of the Medical Board (Ms. Kinnard), I contacted Del Rey
Beach Florida Rabbi Pinchas Aloof (1-800-FOR-BRIT, now disconnected).
Rabbi Aloof told me that it is spiritually wrong for a non-observant Jew
with an M.D. degree to circumcise Jews. In other words, Jews have no
need for the circumcision services of most M.D.s (unless most M.D.s are
observant Jews, in which case there may be a “religious” reason for the
CMA ignoring its own Scientific Board).

Later in 1987, based on my conversation with Rabbi Aloof, I began
writing to various governmental authorities suggesting a religious
exemption for Jews.

Then I discovered that there was indeed a "religious issue": rabbis
have their own primal commandment wrong. As alluded to above, rabbis
are telling Jews to ask ritual circumcisers to amputate far more infant
foreskin than God originally/allegedly intended. [For references to
early circumcisers leaving most of the foreskin on the penis see
Wallerstein. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46; and see The New Standard
Jewish Encyclopedia 1970, New York: Doubleday, p. 442; and see
Bertschinger J. Circumcision choices. Midwifery Today No. 17,
1991:22-3.]

Long-obscured by medical negligence (noted above), mutilating
infants for religious purposes has always been illegal - but tolerated:

"[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]

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Katz M. Circumcision. AJDC 1980;134:1098]

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Oregon
Employment v. Smith (1990), the American Jewish Congress co-sponsored
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, fearing that states would invoke
the Smith decision and child protection statutes - to end ritual
circumcision. [Greenhouse L. NY Times 5/11/90:A10].

But the American Jewish Congress needn't have bothered. As I just
noted, the ritual mutilation of infants was illegal (but tolerated)
before the Smith decision - and (most significantly) it is STILL illegal
(but tolerated).

Significantly, Jewish authorities (vigorously contested by other Jewish
authorities) offer Jewish parents an ideological basis not to
circumcise:

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] (Note: Adult Jews who wish to remain
uncircumcised are accepted under Israel’s Law of Return - and are
allowed to remain uncircumcised. This suggests that "religious"
circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until
adulthood and beyond. It makes sense for adults to be able to choose
which religion to embrace, and to choose whether or not to surgically
alter their bodies for religious reasons.)

2) Modern rabbis are advocating the amputation of FAR MORE infant
foreskin than God originally/allegedly intended. Quoting Wallerstein
(cited above), "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, a Jew, had previously won the
American Medical Writers Award for his 1980 book, "Circumcision: An
American Health Fallacy.)

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])

4) Some religions do not allow members to be circumcised. Therefore, a
baby who is circumcised is denied the choice of some religions. A baby
who is left intact, however, has true religious freedom, as he can
choose to be circumcised or intact when he is old enough to choose.

In the January 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP leaned on the Jews and
declared war on all religious exemptions to the child abuse statutes.
AAP members were to "vigorously oppose in the legislatures," all present
and proposed religious exemptions; and they were to "defend the rights
of all children to the protection and benefits of the law...".
(Translation: a religious circumcision exemption from the child abuse
laws means medical circumcision is indeed child abuse; therefore we
M.D.s must now restate our long-standing opposition to religious
exemptions. If we are prosecuted, the rabbis and mohelim are going down
with us.)

In the February 1988 issue of Pediatrics, the AAP recommended anonymity
for perpetrators of child abuse: "The American Academy of Pediatrics
recommends that all states adopt laws forbidding public disclosure...of
information that identifies victims of child abuse, their families, AND
PERPETRATORS [emphasis added]."

In a February 1988 letter to JAMA [(Feb3)1988;261:701-2], Howard Stang,
M.D. told AAP Circumcision Task Force chairman, Edgar Schoen, M.D., in
effect, the bald lie that local anesthetic injections given under
general anesthesia (for post-operative circumcision pain relief) are
equivalent to local anesthetic injections for the performance of
circumcision itself - without general anesthesia. (!)

For some reason, neither Schoen nor any other JAMA reader caught Stang’s
bald lie. (At least I saw no protest published in JAMA.) Schoen is
reportedly pedaling a circumcision training videotape in which it
appears that the infant is asleep.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Some Jewish persons swear they have watched babies
sleep through their circumcisions. This may well be. Robert Lowensohn,
MD, Chief of Obstetrics at Oregon Health Sciences University says he
injects babies with local anesthetic 15-20 minutes before the Jewish
ceremony starts: "I do circumcisions both in and out of the hospital
(at religious ceremonies), and have been using local injections for at
least 5 years. I agree that it takes about 5 minutes to set up, but what
I do is (in the hospital) inject a dorsal nerve block before
transferring the baby out of the bassinette, setting up, etc, using a
small pledgette of antiseptic on the skin. That way most of the 5
minutes is used up without my caring. At the home ceremonies I inject
before the ceremony starts, and that gives 15-20 minutes lead time."
Robert Lowensohn, M.D.
Chief of Obstetrics, OHSU
http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9701/0708.html

On March 8, 1988, the CMA ignored its own Scientific Board and proclaimed
routine infant circumcision “an effective public health measure.” Two
days later, the AMA issued a press release stating that it would be “more
humane” if babies were punctured twice with local anesthetic prior to
circumcision.

A week or so later, the Jerusalem Post of March 19, 1988 quoted the
Chief Circumciser of Israel stating in effect that the local anesthetic
punctures were OK under Jewish law. He noted in effect that Jews never
said babies can’t feel pain and noted also that a baby urinating into
his circumcision wound cries because he feels pain.

A week after the CMA and AMA proclamations, the AAP held the first
meeting of its Task Force on Circumcision, chaired by Edgar Schoen, MD
with Dr. Poland as a member.

One year later, Schoen and his AAP still hadn’t found any medical
indications for routine infant circumcision.

Three years later, Newsweek reporter Debra Rosenberg interviewed Schoen.
She began her article on the subject by stating that the AAP "twice
discounted the procedure [in the 70s]," and she closed by stating,
"though [AAP Task Force chairman] Schoen believes the pendulum will swing
back toward circumcision, the AAP has not changed its formal position
denouncing the procedure." [Rosenberg D. Circumcision circumspection.
Technology Review (Jul)1992;95(5):17. Debra Rosenberg, c/o Newsweek, 31
St. James Ave., Boston MA 02116, (617) 350-0300])

AAP Circumcision Task Force Schoen's 1992 discussion with Ms. Rosenberg
perhaps explains why the AAP's 1988-9 media propaganda was so thick that
when the AAP finally reported in Pediatrics that there STILL weren't any
medical indications for the mutilations, the Medical Tribune was moved to
inform physicians that the AAP actually (again) found NO medical
indications:

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

In 1995, Circumcisionist Edgar Schoen, MD told Australian physician Terry
Russell,

"We are now at a point that newborn circumcision is analogous to
immunisation." [Russell T. Letter. Medical Observer (20Jan)1995, Level
2, 100 Bay Road, Waverton, NSW 2060 AUSTRALIA]

Dr. Russell then embellished Schoen’s vaccination/circumcision
comparison by inferring that circumcision prevents "HIV seroconversion
and AIDS."

The following year (1996), in Scientific American, Australian authors
John and Pat Caldwell claimed that the African studies indicating that
circumcision prevents AIDS are sound; they just weren’t discussed by the
medical profession in the late 1980s because "many did not wish to
revive...[the notion]...that circumcision was a meaningless mutilation."
[Caldwell JC, Caldwell P. The African AIDS Epidemic. Scientific American
(Mar)1996;274(3):62-8]

Caldwell and Caldwell [1996] were wrong. In ignoring its own Scientific
Board and declaring newborn circumcision "an effective public health
measure," the California Medical Association (CMA) cited the African
studies as evidence that it had been "confirmed" that circumcision
prevents transmission of HIV. See forwarded post...

It is nice to see Dr. Poland saying in 1997 that, "circumcision certainly
cannot be depended on for protection against a deadly virus."
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html

It would have been nice had Dr. Poland called for an immediate end to the
infant screams when I first exposed American medicine's massive criminal
negligence. (When my wife spoke to him by phone, he told her he wished
he'd never sent me his December 1987 letter.)

When the 1989-9 AAP Task Force report came out, Drs. Schoen, Poland et
al. didn't even mention the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology that
the AAP (Poland) had published in 1987 (see above). There was, however,
a generous mention of evidence SUGGESTING that babies feel pain during
circumcision.

Here is what some medical professionals are saying about the grisly
mutilation:

"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/]

"Performing a painful procedure on a newborn is assaultive and
inhumane." [Burt Richardson, M.D. quoted in Bass S. Maine Times January
2 - 8, 1997]

"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric
practice." [Wong DL(ed). Essentials of Pediatric Nursing 1997:205]

Strangely, after being informed of all the matters discussed in this
post, "the nation's most vigorous opponent of health quackery" - Stephen
Barrett, MD - did not take seriously my proposal that the National
Council Against Health Fraud (Dr. Barrett is an NCAHF board member)
should help America INSTANTLY stop the infant screams thus INSTANTLY
saving America $200 million dollars per year - while simultaneously
PRESERVING the mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for
themselves in adulthood.

Attention 1997 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on
Circumcision members:

Carole Marie Lannon, MD lan...@med.unc.edu
Ann Geryl Doll Bailey, MD aba...@aims.unc.edu
Alan R. Fleishman, MD aflei...@nyam.org
George W. Kaplan, MD
Craig Thomas Shoemaker, MD craigsh...@meritcare.com
Jack Tracy Swanson, MD fax: 515-239-4721
http://www.cirp.org/AAP/taskforce.html

1997 AAP Task Force Members: When the AAP got caught in 1988
perpetuating without adverse comment phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology [Pediatrics 1987;80:446], the AAP should have ended the screams
IMMEDIATELY. Instead of ending the screams immediately, AAP member Dr.
Poland wrote and admitted there were no medical indications - and told me
that the 1989 AAP Task Force was being formed to "study the matter."

1997 AAP Task Force Members, please finally stop the screams. THEN
"study the matter" (some more).

Interestingly, 1988-9 AAP Task Force on Circumcision Member Ronald L.
Poland, MD is claiming in 1997 that he is concerned about being
"ethical":

"...one could not design a definitive yet ETHICAL human study that would
randomly select whether or not a group of enrolled neonatal subjects were
circumcised." (emphasis added)
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html

Here is a picture of the very UNethical Dr. Poland:

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/peds/faculty/faculty.htm#anchor312693

I think this also may be a picture of the very UNethical Dr. Poland:

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/peds/mission/mission.htm

Inspite of Poland et al.'s unethical/criminal behavior, I'd STILL want a
governor or president to pardon all MDs - including the very UNethical
Dr. Poland - if we could finally end the senseless mutilation NOW, save
the country $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVE the mutilation as
a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood...

Subject:
Pardon MDs in advance
Date:
7 Sep 1997 20:16:43 GMT
From:
Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>
Organization:
gte.net
CC:
chiro...@silcom.com
Newsgroups:
sci.med
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6
Don Morgan wrote:

<<<<One of the things that bothers me most about the circ argument is
that so many people on either side of the fence seem so willing
to accept anything at all which supports their own viewpoint
while at the same time they are so willing to pooh-pooh anything
that doesn't.>>>>

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. remarks:

One of the things that bothers me most is that neither side regularly and
openly states a most obvious fact - a most obvious source of possible
pro-circ bias by MDs:

MDs could go to prison for having used phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology in their mass mutilation program. This most obvious fact may
explain why in 1988 - just months after I notified the CMA of the
long-standing phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - the California
Medical Association ignored its own Scientific Board and passed a
resolution stating that it had been "confirmed" in Africa that
circumcision prevents AIDS.

Caldwell and Caldwell alluded to this obvious source of bias when they
claimed in the March 1996 Scientific American that the difference between
AIDS in the West and AIDS in Africa has something to do with circumcision
status. [Caldwell JC, Caldwell P. The African AIDS Epidemic. Scientific
American (Mar)1996;274(3):62-8]

According to Caldwell and Caldwell [1996], the African studies indicating
that circumcision prevents AIDS are sound; they just weren't discussed by
the medical profession in the late 1980s because "many did not wish to
revive...[the notion]...that circumcision was a meaningless mutilation."

Caldwell and Caldwell are wrong. As noted above, M.D.s in California
ignored their own Scientific Board and rather openly surfed the wave of
AIDS hysteria to declare that it had been "confirmed" in Africa that
circumcision prevents transmission of HIV. By declaring their
"confirmation," these same California M.D.s attempted to "confirm" that
circumcision was NOT a "meaningless mutilation" - one that could send
most of the medical profession to prison.

M.D.s could indeed go to prison. In a 1990 article on circumcision in
Midwifery Today (call 800-743-0974) I wrote, "California penal law,
which defines child abuse as the infliction of 'unjustifiable physical
pain' (Sec. 11165PC), does not require criminal intent for prosecution
(Notes on Decisions, Sec. 273aPC)."

This same Midwifery Today article also recounted my conversation with
Prof. KJS Anand who told me that the editors over at New England Journal
of Medicine had been sitting on "Pain and its Effects in the Human
Neonate and Fetus" (co-authored by Hickey) for over a year because,
ostensibly it was "too inflammatory."

Prof. Anand agreed that his article was certainly no more inflammatory
than just one routine neonatal circumcision.

The New England Journal of Medicine editorial that accompanied Prof.
Anand's article stated that the pain of circumcision is "incurred by the
infant."

Prof. Anand (and Hickey) admitted in their article that organized
medicine had been using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology for
decades...I suspect THAT'S why it was deemed "too inflammatory"...

[A month after Gastaldo pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology to AAP and NEJM, it suddenly wasn't "too inflammatory" to
publish.]

Were it up to me, I would pardon MDs for their rather obvious criminal
negligence. Indeed, in this regard, in 1987, I recommended that Governor
George Deukmejian do just this to expedite an end to this mass
mutilation.

Ending the mass child abuse for profit scheme would INSTANTLY save our
ailing health system $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVE the
mutilation as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in
adulthood.

<<<<<<<<<<<<< END Gastaldo's post to sci.med >>>>>>>>>>>

American medicine's grisly $200 million dollar per year most frequent
surgical behavior towards males is just one more grisly multi-million
dollar per year MD boondoggle - perpetuated by MD censorship, MDs looking
the other way - and that old standby, the community norm standard and a
separate discipline system for MDs administered so lamely (or admirably
if one is part of the MD club) by State Medical Boards.

Here is another grisly MD boondoggle:

MDs are jamming sacral tips up to 4 cm into fetal skulls as
4.6% of term neonates suffer unexplained brain bleeds and up to 10%
suffer unexplained neonatal encephalopathy - as Australian obstetrician
Norman Beischer reports that 10 to 15% of stillbirths are just fine
right before delivery. See Gastaldo. Birth 1992;19:230; and see
Gastaldo. Mothering (Jul/Aug/Sep)1997:17; and see Gastaldo's posts in
the OB-GYN-List archive. Gastaldo's posting was censored from
OB-GYN-List after making these posts - but not before two posts were
automatically made a part of the OB-GYN-List archive...
http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0128.html
http://forums.obgyn.net/forums/ob-gyn-l/OBGYNL.9707/0153.html

MDs are all quite "professional" - but only in the sense that a sheriff
says of a robbery or a murder - "It was done by a professional."

Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C.
--
IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not currently practicing chiropractic - except
insofar as the practice of chiropractic includes freedom of speech.
While in Oregon doing library research I have voluntarily forfeited my
California chiropractic license so as not to have to pay the annual
licensing fee. (Under California law, any licensed D.C. may voluntarily
forfeit his/her license, and may, at any time, reactivate said license
by providing the Board of Examiners with "twice the annual amount of
the renewal fee...[He or she]...shall not be required to submit to an
examination for the reissuance of the certificate." [Section 12, Act
Regulating the Practice of Chiropractic...Issued by the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners...Act Includes Amendments Through October 1993]

"Yes, I sold [Gastaldo] a modem. That was one of the biggest mistakes
of my entire life and I regret it more than any other error of my life."

Howard Leighty, D.C.

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/9/97

PennState Department of Pediatrics Faculty (names below): Please see my
"religious" note to you...

Chiro-listers; and newsgroup posters:

I just received a threat of a lawsuit (see below) from Ronald Poland, MD,
who in 1987 perpetuated (uncorrected) organized medicine's phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology...

Wrote Dr. Poland:

"I am seriously considering suing you for misrepresenting to the public
what I have said and written to the detriment of my reputation...I have
never advocated for routine circumcision for newborn infant boys nor have
I condoned the practice of circumcision without anesthesia..."

Dr. Poland demands: "..."[C]orrect the errors for the same readers that
you have communicated with about my part in this controversy and notify
me of the correction..."

Dr. Poland asks politely: "Please send me copies of any publications or
correspondence that you interpret differently from what I have just
said..."

Dr. Poland closes by giving me a deadline: "Respond within 14 days" - and
a polite "Thank you."

GASTALDO'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO DR. POLAND...

1. DR. POLAND "CONDONED"...

Dr. Poland says he never "condoned" the practice of circumcision without
anesthesia..."

Here is how one dictionary defines "condone":

Condone \Con*done"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Condoned; p. pr. & vb. n.
Condoning.] [L. condonare, -donatum, to give up, remit,
forgive; con- + donare to give. See Donate.] 1. To pardon; to forgive.
[Example:] A fraud which he had either concocted or condoned. --W. Black.
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?condone

Dr. Poland, you rather NEGLIGENTLY condoned the physician practice of
using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to inform parents - thus
you DID condone the practice of circumcising without anesthesia. In a
1987 issue of Pediatrics (I am sure you have access to this), you
publicly perpetuated - uncorrected - organized medicine's phony "babies
can't feel pain" neurology...

As I wrote in the post to which you object:

<<<<< BEGIN excerpt from post to which Dr. Poland objects >>>>>

A month after that (Dec 1987), Dr. Poland wrote me a letter acknowledging
there were no medical indications and stating that AAP was going to
"study the matter."

<<<<< END excerpt from post to which Dr. Poland objects >>>>>

2. DR. POLAND "ADVOCATED"...

Dr. Poland writes, "I have never advocated for routine circumcision for
newborn infant boys..."

Au contraire...

By perpetuating uncorrected organized medicine's phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology, Dr. Poland has, IN EFFECT, "advocated" for routine
infant circumcision...

By failing to correct the AAP's/Poland's 1987 perpetuation of phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology in the AAP's 1989 Task Force on
Circumcision Report (co-authored by Dr. Poland), Dr. Poland further, IN
EFFECT, "advocated" for routine infant circumcision...

Dr. Poland also failed to correct the AAP's/Poland's 1987 perpetuation of
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in a more recent piece...
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html

To his credit, Dr. Poland states in this just cited more recent piece:

"A 1996 statement of the Canadian Pediatric Society concluded that there
are no medical reasons to perform a routine circumcision on a newborn
infant...an earlier American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Neonatal
Circumcision...did not see a compelling medical reason for recommending
routine circumcision either."

Unfortunately, Dr. Poland's (and the AAP's) ongoing advocacy of routine
circumcision of newborns appears when he states in the middle of the just
quoted sentence that the AAP (Dr. Poland and his fellows) "noted some
potential risks and benefits associated with the procedure..."
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html

By a rather gross act of omission, Dr. Poland and the 1989 AAP Task Force
on Circumcision allowed the promotion of the dangerous myth - promoted by
Task Force Chairman Edgar Schoen, MD and the California Medical
Association - that studies in Africa have "confirmed" that circumcision
prevents the transmission of HIV...

That is why I wrote in the post to which Dr. Poland objects:

"It is nice to see Dr. Poland saying in 1997 that, 'circumcision
certainly cannot be depended on for protection against a deadly virus.'"
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/medicine/medicine2.html

Ritual circumciser and nurse-midwife Ilene Gelbaum suggested in the pages
of editor Mary Ann Shah’s Journal of Nurse-Midwifery that when the AAP
issued its 1989 Statement on Circumcision, it did not mention the CMA's
ostensible "confirmation" of the HIV transmission characteristics of a
penis covered by a foreskin - because the AAP "did not get the
opportunity" to evaluate "recent African studies suggesting a possible
link between lack of circumcision and AIDS." [Gelbaum JNM
1992;37(2S):100S]

In fact, the AAP Task Force took a full year to deliberate, beginning one
week after the CMA House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board to
declare that reduced HIV transmission had been "confirmed” in circumcised
males. [CMA Res. 305-88]

Does Gelbaum (or anyone else) believe that CMA members Schoen and Hinman
(also AAP task force members) were not aware that the CMA had "confirmed"
that circumcision reduces HIV transmission?

Gelbaum didn’t reply to a published letter that informed her that the CMA
had ignored its own Scientific Board in declaring circumcision a public
health measure. [JNM 1992;37(5):354] After being so informed, Gelbaum
continued in 1993 to uncritically extoll the "health benefits" of
circumcision - even going so far as to unabashedly claim that one type of
circumcision - God’s circumcision ("mini-circ") - is inferior to another
type of circumcision (total amputation). [JNM 1993;38(2S):22S]

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the AAP’s 1989 report is that it advocates
foreskin retraction for cleaning the foreskin, a practice thought to
perpetuate circumcision:

<<<<< BEGIN Gastaldo's critique of AAP's 1989 circumcision report >>>>>

Not mentioned in the 1989 Report of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Task Force on Circumcision [Pediatrics 1989;84(4):388-91], was Øster's
landmark paper demonstrating that it is normal for the foreskin not to be
fully retractable until age 17. Nor did the 1989 AAP study mention
Øster's belief that his gentle "test" retractions in over 1900 boys
caused the need for the three circumcisions that had to be performed
during his study of 1968 children.

Interestingly, the AAP's 1989 Task Force report diverged significantly
from information provided in the AAP's 1984 circumcision pamphlet. [Care
of the Newborn Penis. 1984 American Academy of Pediatrics, Publications
Department, P.O. Box 927, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007]

Where the 1989 Task Force report states, "It is particularly important
that uncircumcised boys be taught careful penile cleansing," the 1984 AAP
pamphlet virtually exclaimed, "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep
clean. No special care is required! Leave the penis alone."

The 1989 Task Force report states, "As the boy grows, cleansing of the
distal portion of the penis is facilitated by gently, never forcibly,
retracting the foreskin only to the point where resistance is met...Full
retraction may not be achieved until age 3 years or older,"

In contrast, the 1984 AAP pamphlet stated (in italics), "It is not
necessary to retract any part of the skin in order to wash under it..."

The 1984 AAP pamphlet stated further (emphasis added),

"Do NOT retract the foreskin in an infant, as it is almost always
attached to the glans. Forcing the foreskin back may harm the penis,
causing pain, bleeding, and possibly adhesions. The natural separation
of the foreskin from the glans may take many years. AFTER PUBERTY the
adult male learns to retract the foreskin and cleanse under it on a daily
basis."

Does the 1989 AAP Task Force really want American mothers and fathers
attempting to "achieve" full retraction in 3-year-olds? Does the AAP
really think it necessary that 3-year-olds be taught "careful penile
cleansing," i.e., "retracting the foreskin only to the point where
resistance is met?"

An "academy" of pediatricians offering parents this "careful cleansing"
advice, is CAUSING phimosis, paraphimosis and balanoposthitis.

How many parents will finally "achieve" getting the foreskin behind the
glans only to fail to get the foreskin back over the glans, i.e., how
many parents will cause paraphimosis? And how many parents will
permanently scar "preputial rings," i.e., causing phimosis and
balanoposthitis by daily attempting retraction of the foreskin in an
attempt to "achieve" full retraction by age 3? And just exactly what is
the definition of “force” in regard to foreskin retraction? Again, Øster
[1968] thought his "gentle" retraction tests caused the need for three
circumcisions, and Roberton [1992] advises that parents not even try to
retract the infant foreskin:

"All newborn males have 'phimosis'; the foreskin is not meant to be
retractile at this age, and the parents must be told to leave it alone
and not try and retract it. Forcible retraction in infancy tears the
tissues of the tip of the foreskin, causing scarring, and is the
commonest cause of genuine phimosis later in life." [Roberton NRC. Care
of the normal term newborn baby. In Roberton NRC (ed). Textbook of
neonatology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2nd ed., 1992. Roberton
is Consultant Paediatrician, Addenbrook's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.]

Immediately after stating that full retraction may not be "achieved"
until age 3 years or older, the AAP Task Force wrote, perhaps
prophetically:

"A small percentage of boys who are not circumcised as newborns will
later require the procedure for treatment of phimosis, paraphimosis, or
balanoposthitis."

The very next paragraph is a shameless penile cancer scare tactic:

"The incidence of penile cancer is related to hygiene...The decision not
to circumcise a male infant must be accompanied by a lifetime commitment
to genital hygiene to minimize the risk of penile cancer developing..."

A significant number of parents hearing this advice will REALLY want to
get their infant's penis clean - and they are going to cause foreskin
problems in doing so. Certainly, though, no one can quarrel with a GOOD
infant genital hygiene recommendation (like the AAP's recommendation in
1984: "It is not necessary to retract any part of the skin in order to
wash under it...").

The 1989 AAP Task Force Report fails to advise physicians that penile
cancer prevention is NOT a reason to circumcise in infancy, and instead
takes the opportunity instead to call forth one last vestige of
medicine's recently abandoned "babies can't feel pain" philosophy.
According to the 1989 Task Force, "When performed after the newborn
period, circumcision may be a more complicated procedure."

Circumcision is a LOT more complicated once a human male gets so big that
he can't be held down by the velcro straps of a Circumstraint board. And
circumcision becomes even more complicated once the human male gets old
enough to shout and scream using actual WORDS that mean pain. Indeed, as
human males get bigger and bigger, it gets harder and harder to claim, as
the AAP Task Force did in 1989, that, "physiological responses
SUGGEST...that they are experiencing pain (emphasis added)."

Actually, circumcision got MOST complicated when AAP Task Force
member-to-be Ronald L. Poland perpetuated phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology in his 1987 AAP Statement on Neonatal Anesthesia [Poland et al.
Pediatrics 1987;80:446]. Since the AAP was on record three times (1971,
1975 and 1983) as having found no medical indication for circumcision,
and since the "babies can't feel pain" hoax had just been exposed, the
pediatricians either had to justify the physical pain - or their
obstetrician-brethren would eventually be prosecuted for taking $200
million dollars per year for lying to parents using phony neurology and
inflicting "unjustifiable physical pain" onto helpless infants strapped
to boards. ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the precise definition of
child abuse in California, each count of which is punishable by six years
in state prison. [Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a] This is why the
California Medical Association abruptly ignored its own Scientific Board
to declare newborn circumcision "an effective public health measure," and
why the AMA two days later advised that circumcision be made "more
humane" by first puncturing babies twice with local anesthetic. Both of
these actions took place one week before the AAP Task Force held its
first meeting in March 1988.)

In 1986, the AAP "updated" its 1984 pamphlet by deleting the following
paragraph that clearly indicated that circumcision is a mutilation, i.e.,
the amputation of healthy functional tissue:

[Deleted by AAP in 1986] "The glans at birth is delicate and easily
irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans; with
circumcision this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and
especially the urinary opening [meatis] may become irritated or infected,
causing ulcers, meatitis [inflammation of the meatis], and meatal
stenosis [a narrowing of the urinary opening]. Such problems virtually
never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans
throughout life." [Deleted by AAP in 1986]

The 1986 edition of the AAP pamphlet also deleted mention of the book
from which the pamphlet drew its illustration of the penis (Wallerstein's
Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy 1980 New York: Springer).
Mention of the words "health fallacy" - especially in the title of a book
which documents the health fallacy (Wallerstein won the American Medical
Writers Award in 1981) - makes obstetricians uncomfortable about
strapping babies to boards and assuring parents that their babies aren't
feeling pain as they scream and writhe and bleed.

The only addition to the 1986 pamphlet was the following:

"The AAP is an organization of 29,000 pediatricians dedicated to the
health, safety, and well-being of infants, children and adolescents in
North, Central and South America."

An academy that tells parents to begin foreskin retraction as part of
washing the infant penis (in response to exposure of the fact that M.D.'s
had long been offering parents phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology
as infants screamed and writhed) - is NOT dedicated to the health, safety
and well-being of infants in North, Central and South America. The AAP
should take its own 1984 advice: Leave the penis alone.

Finally, it must be noted that the AAP's influence is not limited to the
Americas. Concerned that the AAP was "under pressure" and fearing that a
call for universal circumcision would soon "sweep the European
continent," five Swedish physicians suggested, instead of routine newborn
circumcision, squatting home births, breast-feeding and application of
maternal fecal matter to the infant penis. [Winberg et al. The prepuce: a
mistake of nature? The Lancet March 18, 1989.]

<<<<< END Gastaldo's critique of AAP's 1989 circumcision report >>>>>

<<<<<< BEGIN Dr. Poland's "Lawsuit" post to Gastaldo >>>>>>

Subject:
Law suit
Date:
Tue, 09 Sep 1997 08:25:43 -0400
From:
"Ronald L. Poland, M.D." <rl...@psu.edu>
To:
Todd Gastaldo <gast...@gte.net>

Mr. Gastaldo:
I am seriously considering suing you for misrepresenting to the
public what I have said and written to the detriment of my reputation.
Please review your sources and correct the errors for the same readers
that you have communicated with about my part in this controversy and
notify me of the correction. I have never advocated for routine
circumcision for newborn infant boys nor have I condoned the practice of
circumcision without anesthesia. Please send me copies of any
publications or correspondence that you interpret differently from what I
have just said.
Respond within 14 days. Thank you.
Ronald L. Poland, M.D.

<<<<<< END Dr. Poland's "Lawsuit" post to Gastaldo >>>>>>

In summary, Dr. Poland and cohorts condoned and advocated routine infant
circumcision, by responding to exposure of Dr. Poland's 1987 perpetuation
of phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology with an utter failing to
openly admit the gross negligence; and by "not[ing in 1989] some
potential risks and benefits associated with the procedure." In
addition, Schoen and Poland et al. [1989] in effect reversed AAP's wise
"Do NOT retract the infant foreskin" advice and substituted advice which
can only create the "need" for more circumcisions.

In America, anyone can sue anybody - or so it seems. I personally think
Dr. Poland could spend his time and money far more wisely - by finally
actively working to END the mutilation. This was my hope when I
contacted him about his perpetuation of phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology about two BILLION dollars of mutilations ago.

As I've said many times before, ending the screams INSTANTLY saves the
country $200 million dollars per year and PRESERVES the mutilation as a

CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.

Dr. Poland, I say again: When one discovers that one's profession has
been conducting American medicine's grisly $200 million dollar per year
most frequent surgical behavior toward males by "informing" parents with
phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - one does NOT appoint a Task
Force and "study the matter."

One stops the screams IMMEDIATELY - and THEN one studies the
matter...perhaps with the assistance of the sheriff.

Dr. Poland, I don't think there is a judge in the land (except perhaps
those who have been politically installed by organized medicine) who
would publicly disagree with me on this last point...

Good luck - I think you'll need it if you sue me.

Oh, one last note...

You perhaps inadvertently referred to me as "Mr." Gastaldo. I
legitimately earned the title "Dr." - in part by learning the neurology
necessary to expose as a grisly hoax the phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology which you perpetuated uncorrected back in 1987. If you don't
think I rate the title "Dr.," then by all means don't address me as "Dr."
- but know that when a title is to be used, I prefer the title I earned -
"Dr."

A "religious" note to PennState Faculty Members:

Mark S. Baker, M.D., Todd F. Barron, M.D., Cheston M. Berlin, Jr., M.D.,
Gary Ceneviva, M.D., Michael W. Consevage, M.D., Ph.D., Stephen E. Cyran,
M.D., Margaret Rose D'Arcangelo, M.D., Michael D. Dettorre, D.O., Attila
G. Devenyi, M.D., John H. Dossett, M.D., Daniel A. Evans , M.D., Douglas
G. Field, M.D., Jordan W. Finkelstein, M.D., Andrew S, Freiberg, M.D.,
Maureen M. Gilmore, M.D., Elena Goldberg Man, M.D., Brandt P. Groh, M.D.,
Maryellen E. Gusic, M.D., Timothy F. Hoban, M.D., Sarah M. J. Iriana,
M.D., Karen Kaplan, M.D., Deborah Kees-Folts, M.D., Howard E. Kulin,
M.D., Roger L. Ladda, M.D., Richard L. Levine, M.D., Samuel Licata, M.D.,
Steven E. Lucking, M.D., Eric B. Mallow, M.D., Keith H. Marks M D.,
Ph.D., Christopher R. Mart, M.D., Andrea C.S. McCoy, M.D., Barbara A.
Miller, M.D., Patricia M. Millner,M.Ed, CRNP, Dennis J. Mujsce, M.D.,
John E. Neely, M.D., Nicholas M. Nelson, M.D., Barbara E. Ostrov, M.D.,
Charles Palmer M.D., Evan G. Pattishall III, M.D., David S. Phelps,
Ph.D., M. Lynne Price, M.D., Jeanette C. Ramer, M.D., Diane E. Schuller,
M.D., Alawia K. Suliman M.D., Philip Thuma, M.D., David R. Ungar, M.D.,
Robert C. Vannucci, M.D., W. Stuart Warren, M.D., Steven J. Wassner,
M.D., Kristi L. Watterberg, M.D., Howard S Weber, M.D., Mark D. Widome,
M.D., Ronald J. Williams, M.D., Christopher H. Zachary, M.D., Steven D.
Zangwill, M.D.

<< BEGIN "religious" excerpt from Gastaldo's "Ronald L. Poland" post >>

<< END "religious" excerpt from Gastaldo's "Ronald L. Poland" post >>

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

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 bastardization 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 sure: 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..."

Scientific American: Is it really scientific? Who owns Scientific
American?

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Galvin

unread,

Sep 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/12/97

Boy do YOU have too much time on your hands or what?

Later,
aag

Todd Gastaldo

unread,

Sep 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/13/97

Andrew A. Galvin wrote:

<<<<Boy do YOU have too much time on your hands or what?>>>>

Mr. Galvin apparently disagrees with all or part of my post, "Ronald L.
Poland, MD"...

Or perhaps he thinks the information was entirely true, common knowledge,
and therefore not worthy of the time it took to type it out...

Dr. Poland in effect claimed that nothing I said about him was true. He
said he was "seriously considering" suing me...

In response, I posted "Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??" (available to any who
missed it by searching "Todd Gastaldo" with the Alta Vista NEWSGROUP
search engine. If it's not there, e-mail me and I will e-mail a copy).

In effect, I am saying that, had Dr. Poland acted ethically and
responsibly in 1987, he would have done his level best (called the
sheriff if necessary) to end the massive infant mutilation - IMMEDIATELY
on learning that he had perpetuated medicine's phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology.

Instead, Dr. Poland waited two months and sent me a letter admitting that
there were no medical indications and that AAP was going to "study the
matter."

When one's profession is caught using phony "babies can't feel pain"
neurology as part of the process of "informing" parents about a surgical
procedure for which there are no medical indications, one does NOT "study
the matter" - one STOPS the mass infant mutilation.

Dr. Poland did not act ethically and responsibly in 1987 and he is not
acting ethically and responsibly now. If Dr. Poland's behavior in this
regard is common knowledge or erroneous, I hope that someone will point
out their source or my error...

Stopping the screams saves $200 million dollars per year - by PRESERVING
the mutilation as a CHOICE American males may make for themselves in
adulthood.

I said this to Dr. Poland in 1987, two BILLION dollars worth of
mutilations ago.

In regard to how much time I have on my hands, I have the usual 24.

Given that thousands of infants per day are screaming, writhing and
bleeding - and sometimes dying or losing their penises - I wish I had
more time to work on this project.

0 new messages