VITAL!!!: African AIDS circ study results bogus figures!
Taylor
No shortcuts in circumcision
CBC News Viewpoint | November 21, 2005 |
about the author: Stephen Strauss wrote articles, columns and
editorials about science and technology for the Globe and Mail for more
than 20 years. He has also authored three books, several book chapters,
and for his efforts received numerous awards. Through all his time in
journalism, he still remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the motto
of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is.
Snippety, snip, snip. Could that be the sound of AIDS in retreat in Africa?
The auditory metaphor and its effect come to mind if you spend any time
reflecting on a much-publicized South African study tying a dramatic
decline in HIV infection rates to circumcision. But well might you think
just the opposite if you were apprised of the sometimes putrid public
health politics underlying publication of said study.
The facts seem straightforward on the surface. Some 3,000 young men –
hardly any married – were selected from a semi-rural area near
Johannesburg. Half were put in a group that got circumcisions, half in a
non-circumcised group. After more than a year, 20 of the circumcised men
had become HIV positive versus 49 of the uncircumcised men, this even
though the circumcised men had more sexual encounters.
The scientists were jubilant. "The result is equivalent to saying that
during the period [of the study] the intervention prevented six out of
10 potential infections," wrote the French and South African researchers
who conducted the research, adding, "this provides a degree of
protection against acquiring HIV infection equivalent to what a vaccine
of high efficiency would have achieved."
The finding was so striking, the researchers stopped the trial before it
was supposed to finish because the "protective effect of male
circumcision was so high it would have been unethical to continue." That
is to say, they thought there was no doubt that circumcision protected
against HIV infection.
Finally, the effectiveness of circumcision led the scientists to argue
that decision makers should herewith consider making circumcision of all
African men a public health priority.
Wonderful, except for all the ethical and methodological mud splattered
on the findings.
As a background you should know the project grew out of more than two
decades of observation that places in Africa where circumcision was the
norm had less AIDS than the uncut places. We are not, by the way, simply
talking about Muslim Africa but also tribes where male circumcision is
part of a rite of passage into adulthood.
While scientists have been able to come up with numbers of physical
explanations for why what has sometimes been snidely called the "cut
cure" works, nobody has been certain about the connection. This is
because no previous studies have controlled for confounding factors –
age at circumcision, number of sexual partners, safe sex practices –
that could distort results. So the Johannesburg study was vital in
translating anecdote and intimation into believable science.
However, there was a fundamental ethical problem with its methodology.
The men were given HIV tests before the project began and 146 were found
to be HIV positive, but – underline the following in lipstick red – they
weren't told about their status as researchers "considered it unethical
to inform participants of their HIV status without their permission."
Gasp. You don't tell people with a life-threatening, highly infectious
disease they are both sick and dangerous to others because knowing
somehow violates their sense of privacy?
To justify this position, French and South African scientists involved
argued that they were just respecting a fear of AIDS stigma so intense
that "many of these people prefer to be dead than rejected by their
communities."
Gasp again. This is a public health position so obviously crazy – think
in the Canadian context of not telling people with SARS they had it
because they would be stigmatized and quarantined – it led the British
journal The Lancet to reject the publishing of the AIDS paper on the
grounds it was ethically flawed.
And there may be a worse confusion to come. Not everyone believes the
HIV infection numbers in men who hadn't been circumcised were so
conclusive they justified the trial being shut down early. Part of the
concern was caused by two recent papers that suggest that clinical
trials claiming huge, big, early effects from drugs or other treatments
as often as not turn out to be statistical blips and not true results.
Could that be the case here?
"My sense is that the circumcision study may have been stopped too early
and that there is a real danger we may be subjecting hundreds of
thousands or millions of men to having circumcisions that may not have
the benefit we assume," Jeremy Grimshaw, director of the Clinical
Epidemiology Program at the University of Ottawa, warns me about the
South African study.
Gasp a third time. So why stop a study when the number of people who had
become infected wasn't even half as large as the number who had the
disease to start with and weren't told they had it? My guess is a guilty
conscience. The doctors wanted an excuse to tell all the infected of
their condition, no matter the stigmatization, and the early, positive
statistics gave them just such an out.
My justification for this charge is that immediately after they closed
down the trial, the researchers changed the rules so they could inform
people of their disease, even if the people initially said they didn't
want to know.
Maybe other, still ongoing trials will support the cut cure, but for the
time being my faith in this one has gone snippety, snip, snip.
R. Steve Walz
NOT ONLY all THAT, but the methodological problem of assessing
transmission of an STD in patients recently post surgery, AND
patients who were operated in SPITE of some of them being immune
compromised and THAT UNTREATED!!! How can you hope to get ANY
valid assessment of transmission in two cohorts which differ
so much! Men who are circumcised as adults are NOT going to be
having sex any time real soon, so that MAJORLY confounds the
study of ONLY one year, forshortened AT THAT on its face!!
If the decrease in transmission among the circumcised was even
just in some part attributable to reduction of sex post-op,
or post-op infections at the site in immune compromised
individuals, then that ALONE makes it invalid, AND ESPECIALLY
invalid to use forrecommending the further expansion of
circumcision!!!
Steve
Jake Waskett
> [...]
Misrepresenting things, Taylor?
The article is a journalist, untrained in epidemiology.
He quotes a single person qualified to comment, who merely expresses some
caution.
Todd Gastaldo
Attention: California law enforcement looking into Atty Mike Schroeder's
activities (Attn: Senior Attorney General Gary Schons,
(gary....@doj.ca.gov) and Special Agent Barbara Shakowski
(barbara....@doj.ca.gov)...
FINK'S FRAUD, discussed below, started in California. It was designed to
keep MDs out of prison for their mass infant penis ripping and slicing child
abuse. Atty Schroeder ignored this mass child abuse too. Please
investigate and stop the infant screams finally.
JOURNALIST STEPHEN STRAUSS criticized the recent African HIV/penis study by
Auvert et al. [2005]...
See No shortcuts in circumcision
CBC News Viewpoint | November 21, 2005 |
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051121.html
Jake Waskett remarked...
>
> [Stephen Strauss] is a journalist, untrained in epidemiology.
>
> He quotes a single person qualified to comment, who merely expresses some
> caution.
A LOT of caution is in order in regard to the HIV/penis study by Auvert et
al.!
Journalist Strauss failed to mention the most important consideration of
all:
The ONLY "medical indication" for routine infant circumcision is to keep
American MDs out of prison.
Keeping American MDs out of prison also happens to be a "medical indication"
for studies intended to demonstrate what an American MD (Aaron Fink, cited
by Auvert et al.) claimed in 1986 - that it had been "confirmed" in Africa
that circumcision prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS...
On Oct. 31, 2005, I wrote the following to Barbara Cohen, senior editor of
PLOS the journal in which the recent African HIV study by Auvert et al.
[2005] was published...
PLOS Senior Editor Barbara Cohen has not responded.
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.
[Nov. 22, 2005 addendum: As noted below, the ancient Jewish ritual
originally/reportedly commanded by God leaves most of the foreskin on the
penis - a point Auvert et al. failed to make.]
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
bco...@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." [Nov. 22, 2005 addendum: I noted in my Oct. 11, 1987
letter to AAP copied to NEJM that most of nervous system never becomes
myelinated and unmyelinated nerves are thought to transmit the most
excruciating qualities of pain.] 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
to...@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"
>>>>END slightly edited excerpt of African HIV hysteria and American
baby penises...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/4009
As noted above, Barbara Cohen, Senior Editor of the Public Library of
Science Medicine: An Open-access, Peer-reviewed Journal HAS NOT RESPONDED.
Thanks for reading everyone.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com
As noted above, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical
students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
The mass infant penis ripping and slicing - bad as it is - is a relatively
MINOR felony "performed" by MDs...
For discussion of MAJOR felonies "performed" by MDs - i.e. - routinely
closing birth canals up to 30% and routinely robbing babies of up to 50% of
their blood volume...
See Did Wakefield discuss 'umbilical' autism? (Suspected (Mass) Child Abuse
Report)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/4073
Oregon law enforcement (Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers) has been ignoring the
mass child abuse. I will copy him, as usual, via hardy...@state.or.us.
I recently wrote to CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT....
ATTENTION Senior Attorney General Gary Schons, (gary....@doj.ca.gov)
ATTENTION: Special Agent Barbara Shakowski (barbara....@doj.ca.gov)
Reportedly, you have implicated Attorney Mike Schroeder "in covering up the
investigation into...[Orange County Sheriff] Captain Christine Murray's
indictment for illegally soliciting campaign contributions for [Orange
County Sheriff Carona's] re-election effort."
http://www.caronachronicles.com/hall.asp
BE ADVISED...
Mass child abuse by obstetricians...
Attorney Mike Schroeder SLAPPed me, apparently in an attempt to cover-up his
involvement in perpetuating mass child abuse by obstetricians while working
as a public official...
See http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/30e2386adbd8891a?
PREGNANT WOMEN: Obstetricians are committing massive crimes of child abuse.
Obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to
50% of their blood volume and lying to cover-up.
The Four OB cover-up lies are whoppers...
See Dents in babies' skulls...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897
Fink's fraud started in California. It may still be California Medical
Association policy that it has been "confirmed" in Africa that routine
infant circumcision prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS.
California law enforcement should finally expose Fink's fraud and help end
the infant screams nationwide.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com
This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "The African HIV/penis study and
Journalist Stephen Strauss
winding...@aol.com
Jake Waskett wrote:
>
> Misrepresenting things, Taylor?
Yes, and this time its a whopper. If one didnt already know the depth
of Taylor's intellectual dishonesty, one might assume from his
hysterical "VITAL etc" heading that some catastrophic flaw had been
found in the study ...when in fact its just comments by a lay
journalist about some ethical issues in methodology which have nothing
to do with the basic findings. Or with the findings of more than 30
other studies that show that foreskins facilitate HIV transmission.
Taylor is an unbalanced fanatic who, as everybody here knows, rejects
any and all evidence from any source whatever that is unfavorable to
foreskins, while credulously accepting and disseminating any and all
evidence from any source whatever that is favorable to them.
He is a strange one, isnt he? He fetishizes foreskins, but by his own
admission his unseemly relish is purely theoretical, for he has only
sucked circumcised penises -- never uncut. And he has the bizarre
practice, which he has recommended to others here, of tying back his
foreskin with the elastic band of car air fresheners, in order to enjoy
the feel and appearance of being circumcised.
The poor fellow tells us he is on psychiatric medications, but perhaps
an increased dosage or different prescription is indicated?
Ian
stay out of prison" tirades ready to post for every possible thing you
read? If you think everyone is conspiring against you and against
every foreskin on earth, remember this:
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
Todd Gastaldo
See below.
I wrote: Fink's fraud: The African HIV/penis study and Journalist Stephen
Strauss
http://groups.google.com/group/
alt.circumcision/msg/46e7d701e48b1755
Ian asked:
> Do you have prepared "penis ripping and slicing; doctors doing it to
> stay out of prison" tirades ready to post for every possible thing you
> read?
Yep. : )
See African HIV hysteria and American
baby penises...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/4009
See also: Is Jesus really God? (also: NO CIRC = MAYBE CIRC)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/4074
Ian wrote further...
> If you think everyone is conspiring against you and against
> every foreskin on earth, remember this:
>
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
>
They already got me - when I was a baby.
I persistently protest because they are getting (ripping and slicing the
penises of) thousands of babies per day. Some MDs may still be using phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology.
Incidentally Ian, did you mean to say "Just because you're paranoid doesn't
mean people ARE out to get you?"
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
to...@chiromotion.com
PS The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of
infant screams ago back in 1987 when I exposed American medicine's phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology.
Stopping the infant screams now (finally) will save an estimated $400
million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can
make for themselves in adulthood.
Taylor
Pointing out the fact the mens' sex partners weren't kept track of it
and other facts shown reveals a sloppy test w/ radical results that show
no need their recommendations should be taken into consideration in a
rational sense.
Taylor
winding...@aol.com wrote:
Hey, I'll happily suck an uncircumcised one and tell you the difference
in taste or smell if that's what you want. Now, to be equally fair, you
guys should suck one of each, too even if you're heterosexual. Then you
can tell your experience. If you're a hetero guy and haven't sucked
neither and are circumcised, then you have no business talking about
what you don't know. I know MY uncircumcised penis doesn't smell and
according to my (RIC'd) American partner, my penis in his words doesn't
smell or taste bad. That's what I know.
Taylor
Ian wrote:
There are men who when reach the word of 18, try to sue the doctors who
in their feelings and words, mutilated them without their consent during
infancy. Doubt you could get these guys to jail time, but they have
every right to get a settlement. If they (the doctors) don't like it,
they shouldn't take the risk in the first place.
winding...@aol.com
Taylor wrote:
> Hey, I'll happily suck an uncircumcised one and tell you the difference
> in taste or smell if that's what you want.
It would be interesting. Try several though, just to make sure you
are getting a representative sample. There is no need to actually
slurp on them -- remember, they are much more likely than cut penises
to harbor HIV and HPV! Just get within good sniffing range. Check
out a backroom bar or T room for some candidates.
> Now, to be equally fair, you
> guys should suck one of each, too even if you're heterosexual. Then you
> can tell your experience.
Done that. I tried really hard to get over my digust for uncut, many
times. But they are just revolting. I finally gave up on them
completely.
>if you're a hetero guy and haven't sucked
> neither and are circumcised, then you have no business talking about
> what you don't know.
And if youre a hetero guy and havent sucked either and are
uncircumcised, then the same applies, and you have no business talking
about what you dont know -- right?
>I know MY uncircumcised penis doesn't smell
They all say that.
>and
> according to my (RIC'd) American partner, my penis in his words doesn't
> smell or taste bad.
Do you think your habit of keeping your foreskin tied back with an
elastic band has anything to do with that? Maybe keeping it dry and
ventilated like that offers some of the hygienic benefits of
circumcision?
Its nice that you chose a circumcised partner.
Briar Rabbit
> STEPHEN STRAUSS:
> No shortcuts in circumcision
> CBC News Viewpoint | November 21, 2005 |
>
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and everyone is entitled to
one.
It is interesting to see the skin freaks desperation to play down the
results. Not to worry there are two other RCT's in progress which will
put the matter beyond doubt, either way.
Hugh Young
<chill...@hotmail.com> said:
>The article is a journalist, untrained in epidemiology.
Stephen Strauss wrote articles, columns and
R. Steve Walz
>
> Taylor wrote:
>
> > STEPHEN STRAUSS:
> > No shortcuts in circumcision
> > CBC News Viewpoint | November 21, 2005 |
> >
>
> Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and everyone is entitled to
> one.
Unfortunately in your case, you're just the asshole.
Steve
Jake Waskett
And what is his qualification in epidemiology?
Hugh Young
<chill...@hotmail.com> said:
>Hugh Young wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:10:47 GMT, Jake Waskett
>> <chill...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>>The article is a journalist, untrained in epidemiology.
>>
>> Stephen Strauss wrote articles, columns and
>> editorials about science and technology for the Globe and Mail for
>> more than 20 years. He has also authored three books, several book
>> chapters, and for his efforts received numerous awards.
>
>And what is his qualification in epidemiology?
Ah, the fallacy of appeal to authority.
winding...@aol.com
O come off it, Hugh. You just used the appeal to authority yourself!
Briar Rabbit
Yes Hugh you are correct to draw Jale's attention to the _obvious_fact_
that *any* skin freak is more _qualified_ than any mere scientist or
medical expert to comment on matters relating to the foreskin. He should
have known.
Briar Rabbit
Yes, I suppose as times are so desperate for skin freaks such opinion
must be hyped and spun to maximum effect.
Ian
> There are men who when reach the word of 18, try to sue the doctors who
> in their feelings and words, mutilated them without their consent during
> infancy.
Yes, they do. And that's a problem. At least in the US, it's a
*general* problem that people can sue for just about anything, whether
there's any miniscule merit to the claim or not. I wouldn't entrust our
well being, at the moment, to the people who are running the US (into
the ground) to protect the public's best interest, but at a better &
more sane time, I would insist that our laws be changed to prevent this
kind of abuse of the legal system. After all, if a doc removes the
wrong limb, there should be liability because it's a terrible mishap.
If a wall collapses on someone because there's more profit for a
building owner in neglecting repairs to the wall, then there should be
liability. But to claim that a routine circumcision at birth caused
damage at age 18, is a big stretch of the imagination. Give us a
break!!
> Doubt you could get these guys to jail time, but they have
> every right to get a settlement. If they (the doctors) don't like it,
> they shouldn't take the risk in the first place.
No, you don't go to jail for such a thing. Not in the US, anyway. They
have a "right" to a settlement? Wrong. The only "right" is determined
by a court, if not in the constitution or the legal history.
The only reason the doctors settle is because they don't want to be
bothered with these nonsense, and it's cheaper to do it. And they are
NONSENSE legal abuse cases. Not knowing any more, I'll bet the docs
plead "no contest" rather than guilt. So there's no admission of guilt
but they pay the award to get rid of the case, which is a very bad
precedent (not a legal one, just a "business" one) because the
parasitic lawyers who make money off this kind of legal fraud see
dollar signs in the future if they take these kind of cases from guys
with mental disorders and claim some sort of damage. Taylor, you and
the anti-circ'ers think you have a legal precedent in place but really
the scumbag lawyers who gain from the easy settlements are the one
making out here.
And these settlements all come out of the pockets (in the US) of those
of who pay health insurance premiums, because who do you think pays off
these bastards? The doctors? NO. Their malpractice insurance, which
raises their rates in response. And since insurance companies are in
tthe business of making money, they raise premiums to the doctors,
which causes people to become uninsured. I don't really think it's a
good thing to force people to go without health coverage so some wacko
who thinks he's been harmed by a routine circumcision can get money
from the doc who did his circumcision -- at request of his parents!
It's not about doctors taking chances or something YOU think is wrong.
Anyone in business in the US runs the risk of an unhappy customer who
won't stop at a reasonable point -- often at the urging of a money
hungry lawyer. All businesses have unhappy customers, so there's
insurance for such things. But when these "I hate circ" or "I don't
like the way I was raised" cases come up, the answer isn't litigation,
it's going to a shrink.
Ian
> in taste or smell if that's what you want. Now, to be equally fair, you
> guys should suck one of each, too even if you're heterosexual.
Taylor, you think heterosexual guys would want to suck a dick?
> Then you
> can tell your experience. If you're a hetero guy and haven't sucked
> neither and are circumcised, then you have no business talking about
>what you don't know. I know MY uncircumcised penis doesn't smell and
>according to my (RIC'd) American partner, my penis in his words doesn't
>smell or taste bad. That's what I know.
So now we find out the truth... Taylor's in a "mixed marriage" --- with
a RIC guy. Maybe you aren't as anti-circ as you lead us to believe.
Does your partner know you're willing to cheat on him and go out and
test the taste of a circumcised guy and an uncircumcised one?
Ian
again... if 2 messages show up, my apologies.
----
So, Taylor, now we get the truth -- you're in a "mixed marriage"? Hmmm.
Meaning a circumcised partner who was done at birth, and you don't even
mind. Good for you, enjoying the other half, and even more credit to
him enjoying the half he's "missing".
But really, do you think he'd appreciate you going around and tasting
other guys dicks, one to one circumcised to uncircumcised, just to rate
the similarities and differences?
Besides, didn't you go thru a few guys before your partner? Could they
have all been circumcised, or all uncircumcised, so you wouldn't know
the difference already?
winding...@aol.com
Ian wrote:
>
> Besides, didn't you go thru a few guys before your partner? Could they
> have all been circumcised, or all uncircumcised, so you wouldn't know
> the difference already?
Actually, Taylor has already told us that he has never sucked an uncut
penis, despite his foreskin fetish. He has told us that he has only
sucked two cut penises, which he claims were leathery and with
unpleasant scars. One of these belongs to his boyfriend. Go figure.
Ian
figure out why my messages weren't getting thru.
So, Taylor, you surprised me more than once. First being in mixed
marriage (uncut/circumcised) and then finding out you never even had an
uncircumcised penis in your mouth!! And you've been trying to get us
straight guys to get into it!!?? I have to go by my g/f, who says it's
very unpleasant to have a foreskin in the mouth and that they're never
clean ... I know that comment will start a new round of true/false/"you
should love the way nature made it", but I won't go beyond this.