Medical Forum / General / Alternative / August 2005
MDs forcing kids to take poison
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Todd Gastaldo - 01 Aug 2005 22:16 GMT Colorado professors: A cumulative poison that children are forced to DRINK may be causing cancer - just like AZT causes cancer. See the very end of this post.
Copied to CDC/ATSDR's Annette Ashizawa, PhD (ada8@cdc.gov)...
MDs FORCING KIDS TO TAKE POISON
"AZT...parents didn't want to give [it] to them." (See below.)
AZT is a POISON - complete with a skull and cross bones label. http://www.rethinking.org/aids/AZTLabel.html
Kids are being FORCED to take the poison AZT based solely on the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis. (More on the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis below.)
Liam Scheff reports:
"[Child care worker] Mimi Pascual gave the children drugs every day and every night,on schedule, as the doctors ordered...
"The drug Mimi remembers giving most often...is the nucleoside analog AZT... <snip> "More and more of the kids were there for compliance. They didn't want to take drugs, or their parents didn't want to give them, so they got put in ICC.
"'None of us ever blamed the kids for refusing. We all saw them throw up like clockwork after taking the pills, and then the diarrhea that followed...' <snip>"
[GASTALDO NOTES regarding "the diarrhea that followed": James P. Hogan says: "The 'side effects' [of AZT] look just like AIDS. Officially acknowledged effects of nucleoside analog drugs [like AZT] include diarrhea, dementia, lymphoma (cancer), muscle wasting, and T-cell depletion, which are also AIDS-defining" http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/aids-heresy-hogan.html]
New York Press Volume 18, Issue 30 July 27 - August 2, 2005 INSIDE INCARNATION As the debate over AIDS-drug trials at Columbia's Incarnation Children Center grows louder, a former ICC employee reveals what she saw. By Liam Scheff http://www.nypress.com/18/30/news&columns/liamscheff.cfm
JUST 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
Copied to Kicking the Sacred Cow author James P. Hogan via james@jamesphogan.com
SO WHY DID AMERICAN PHYSICIANS EMBRACE THE SHAKY HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS?
IN PART BECAUSE THEY WERE CAUGHT PERFORMING MASS CHILD ABUSE (OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL SURGERIES)...
California physicians embraced the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis to stay out of prison when I discovered in 1987 that they were ripping and slicing infant penises en masse - making babies scream and writhe and bleed - and telling parents that "babies can't feel pain" - and using obviously phony neurology...
In an Oct. 11, 1987 letter (copied to the New England Journal of Medicine) I noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics had just perpetuated in the journal Pediatrics the false notion that babies can't feel pain for lack of myelin. I pointed out that most of the nervous system never becomes myelinated that that unmyelinated nerves are thought to transmit the most excruciating qualities of pain.
The Nov. 19, 1987 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine published an article that exposed the lack of myelin fraud; but an editorial in the same issue claimed that BABIES incur the pain of their circumcisions.
MASS CHILD ABUSE
Since the "babies can't feel pain" mass infant penis ripping and slicing was (is) obvious mass child abuse...
I reported it - and called for a religious exemption...
STRANGE THINGS HAPPENED...
In late 1987 (BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant screams ago) I called for a religious exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the infant foreskin on the penis...
In Jan/Feb 1988, California physicians immediately came out opposed to ALL religious exemptions and in favor of anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse. (See the Jan and Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics.
In March 1988, California physicians ignored their own Scientific Board and by voice vote changed their "no medical indications" mass infant penis slicing operation into an ostensible HIV/AIDS-prevention "effective public health measure." (California Medical Association Res. 305-88 - still in force I believe.)
Why did American physicians ignore their own Scientific Board and call for anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse?
The answer is simple:
A religious exemption for the minimal ancient Jewish ritual (which leaves most of the foreskin on the penis) would have instantly identified total-foreskin-amputating American MDs as the mass child abusers they are. (Note: I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As med students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies - not just mass infant penis ripping and slicing. See below for discussion of other obvious felony surgeries "performed" by American MDs.)
Again, the mass ripping and slicing of baby penises should have ended billions of dollars' worth of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology.
GOOD NEWS
Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.
OTHER OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL SURGERIES...
ADULT VAGINAS
By using semisitting and dorsal delivery positions, American physicians are closing birth canals up to 30%.
It is EASY for women to offer their babies the "extra" up to 30% - just by rolling onto their sides - or kneeling - or squatting - or standing, etc.
The simple biomechanics have been in the medical literature since early last century. I myself reported the simple biomechanics to the medical literature late last century. See Gastaldo TD. Letter. Birth. 1992;19(4):230-231.
American physicians are closing birth canals up to 30% - then slicing vaginas - pretending to be doing everything possible to open birth canals even as they (I repeat) close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%. (Infant penis slicing and adult vagina slicing are American medicine's most frequent surgical behaviors toward males and females, respectively.)
With birth canals KEPT closed the "extra" up to 30%, American physicians pull with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.
ADULT ABDOMENS
With birth canals kept closed the "extra" up to 30%, American physicians are also slicing abdomens en masse (c-section).
The fact that MDs are LYING to cover-up is perhaps the most obvious clue that they know they are committing massive crime.
For the Four OB Lies...
> See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606 > > See also: RNs: 'Stitches, episiotomy, and postpartum complications' > (Maternal care > learning needs) > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3725 LAW ENFORCEMENT
Note: I have reported these crimes to Oregon law enforcement - Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers - but MDs are a protected class under our medico-"legal" "just us" system. Only rarely does law enforcement criminally prosecute MDs. The most MDs have to lose is their medical license - and even that is fairly rare. BTW, doctors of chiropractic/DCs are also protected - as are others who hold state licenses. State licensing is ostensibly to protect consumers - but the real beneficiaries are the health professionals who are getting away with obvious crimes.)
KEY POINT: Law enforcement compelling American physicians to allow birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30% is not going to prevent all episiotomies, c-sections and forceps deliveries - it's just that American physicians have no business closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.
UMBILICAL CORD SURGERY
American medicine's MOST frequent surgical behavior - umbilical cord clamping/cutting - is also obviously illegal - the way American MDs do it.
American MDs are clamping/cutting umbilical cords IMMEDIATELY - thereby robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG indicates that the massive baby blood robbery is being inflicted on EVERY CESAREAN BABY.
Keeping in mind that babies breathe through their umbilical cords...
Dr. Morley is recommending a "lesser" child abuse (TEMPORARY baby strangulation) to help his obstetrician colleagues learn that they shouldn't be robbing babies of so much blood....
Here is what I wrote when I recently reported this massive crime to Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers (via hardy.myers@state.or.us)...
> NOTE: AMERICAN MEDICINE¹S **MOST** FREQUENT SURGICAL BEHAVIOR IS OBVIOUS > CHILD ABUSE THE WAY OBSTETRICIANS PRACTICE IT... > > Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG is recommending > that his fellow obstetricians temporarily strangle babies - to help > obstetricians learn why they should not immediately clamp/cut umbilical > cords thereby PERMANENTLY strangling babies/robbing them of up to 50% of > their blood volume. > > Dr. Morley indicates that EVERY CESAREAN BABY is being robbed of up to 50% > of his/her blood volume. > > HERE IS DR. MORLEY RECOMMENDING THE **TEMPORARY** BABY STRANGLING ON THE > WEB... > > "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The > [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color > will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue > (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be > able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on > a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon > release the finger and thumb." > http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm > > Hardy [Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers], some OREGON obstetricians may be going to Dr. Morley's website and
> experimenting with his temporary baby strangling - as they engage in > PERMANENT baby strangling - robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood > volume. > > Dr. Morley MEANS well but it is simply (obviously) illegal for him to > encourage obstetricians to commit ³lesser² child abuse in order to encourage > them to stop committing greater child abuse - robbing babies of up to 50% of > babies¹ blood volume. > > See Michigan Baby Strangler George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3739 > > ...Hardy, I know that you may be unable to investigate MDs because you > part of the medico-"legal" "just us" system... > > But at least offer assistance to pregnant women in your circle of family and > friends, OK? > > END EXCERPT OF DR. GASTALDO'S RECENT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE REPORT TO OREGON ATTY GENL HARDY MYERS...
Back to MDs forcing kids to take poison...
Remember: Kids are being forced to take poison AZT in part because American MDs don't want to go to prison for their mass infant penis ripping and slicing behavior.
Again, American MD mass ripping and slicing of baby penises should have ended billions of dollars' worth of infant screams ago back in 1987 when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology.
Again that GOOD NEWS:
Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.
Ending the other bizarre MD practices discussed above will save BILLIONS per year.
Again: For the reason given above, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon todd@chiromotion.com
PS As alluded to at the beginning of this post, the cumulative poison fluoride ("fluoridation") may be causing cancer.
There is epidemiologic evidence that boys drinking fluoridated water have a 700% greater risk of suffering osteosarcoma than boys who do not drink fluoridated water.
CDC and dentists at the American Dental Association recently "celebrated" putting the cumulative poison fluoride into America's drinking water - even now that it is known that fluoride works TOPICALLY (if at all^^^) - i.e. - there was never any NEED for the cumulative poison to be in the water.
^^^Research indicates that fluoride saves less than 1 tooth surface in 128.
See www.fluoridealert.com.
People who still want their kids to have the cumulative poison fluoride on their teeth can use poisoned toothpaste. (Fluoride toothpaste is indeed poisoned. For the poison warning, check a tube of fluoridated toothpaste or go to www.aquasafe.us.)
As with the poison AZT, the cumulative poison fluoride is being forced into children without parents' consent - but (and this is key) the cumulative poison fluoride is being administered with no life-threatening disease to treat...
IT'S CRIMINAL
The California Supreme Court wrote in THOR 93 C.D.O.S. 5658:
"The common law has long recognized this principle: A physician who performs any medical procedure without the patient's consent commits a battery irrespective of the skill or care used." [Thor at 5659]
I am told that all states have similar common law.
1. Under the common law doctrine of informed consent, even GOOD medicine administered without consent is a battery.
2. Battery against children is child abuse.
MDs (and dentists) are getting away with mass child abuse.
Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers and the rest of America's attorney generals are letting it happen.
One citizen (me) reporting crimes is unlikely to change their medico-"legal" "just us" system behavior.
I urge others to forward this post to their state's attorney general.
As usual, as indicated above, this suspected child abuse report is being copied to Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers via hardy.myers@state.or.us.
COLORADO PROFESSORS: Colorado State Prof. Thomas Sanders reportedly won't drink the cumulative poison fluoride^^^; but he may be in favor of drinking it is isn't derived from the fertilizer industry. Would you ask him if he is in favor of drinking the "good quality" poison?
Sharlene K. Johnson wrote in Organic Style Magazine - July /August 2005:
"Was it true that the chairman of the [Fort Collins, CO] water boardThomas Sanders, PhD, a Colorado State University professor of civil engineering and water-quality expert who had supported fluoridation for 30 yearsstopped drinking our city tap water as a result of the board's research? The answer...turned out to be yes..."
Thomas Sanders, PhD was quoted:
"When I started reading the literature, I came to the conclusion that in this country, we were supporting fluoridation without enough facts...I thought [our city was] using a very good quality sodium fluoride as the additive. When I found out it was from a fertilizer factory, that it was hazardous waste, and we were using it because its cheaper, I was absolutely shocked."
^^^See Organic Style and Fluoridation http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3760
I was just about to send this out when I received Paul Connett, PhD's FAN CAMPAIGN Bulletin #281 titled: "Will the real conspiracy please stand up."
Paul is moaning about Harvard's Chester Douglass, PhD apparently covering-up epidemiologic evidence that fluoride may cause osteosarcoma.
I am moaning here, as usual, about Paul himself covering-up/remaining silent about 1) the criminal aspect of fluoridation; and 2) the "good quality" poison scam. (It's being used in at least two legal actions wherein fluoride opponents are hoping municipalities won't be able to afford "pure" fluoride poison.)
Unfortunately, real conspirators don't stand up. They remain silent - breathing together - potential cons - spiring - together.
I just hope we can stop the poisoning of children - and the other obvious crimes - soon.
I recently wrote to CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/ATSDR (Annette Ashizawa, PhD):
1. CDC/ATSDR "works with states and other federal agencies to prevent exposure to hazardous substances from waste sites." http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/DRO/r1.html
2. EMERGENCY: A hazardous substance (hydrofluorosilicic acid w/ arsenic and lead) from phosphate fertilizer waste sites/scrubbers is being injected into America's water supply. (Some municipalities are using "pure" poison - sodium fluoride.)
I said to Annette: CDC's ATSDR needs to simply DO ITS JOB and work with state attorney generals to stop/prevent this 60-year-old ongoing hazardous substance crime - NOW.
I'll copy Annette (yet again) via ada8@cdc.gov.
I say again to COLORADO PROFESSORS: Colorado State Prof. Thomas Sanders reportedly won't drink the cumulative poison fluoride; but he may be in favor of drinking it is isn't derived from the fertilizer industry. Would you ask him if he is in favor of drinking the "good quality" poison?
I would be much reassured if the answer were no and Prof. Sanders was comfortable discussing at Fort Collins, CO water board meetings the rather obvious CRIMINAL aspect of the fluoride poisoning. See again THOR quoted above. (Again, I am told that all states have similar common law.)
Perhaps Prof. Sanders could even talk Prof. Connett into finally ending his silence - instead of just moaning about Prof. Douglass' silence.
One last note...
Paul writes of the fluoride/osteosarcoma news...
"Had not a member of the Fluoride Action Network (my son in fact) gone to the rare books section of the Harvard Library, and copied the relevant chapter of Bassin¹s thesis, the public-at-large would never have heard of this work (see WSJ, B1, July 22, 2005)."
Bravo Michael Connett!
Michael, please work with your dad on the "public-at-large" hearing about the common law indicating that fluoridation is a CRIME because it is administered without consent.
Thanks.
Copied to Michael Connett via mconnett@fluoridealert.org.
COLORADO PROFESSORS, please scroll up a little...
This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "MDs forcing kids to take poison"
Jeff - 01 Aug 2005 22:36 GMT > Colorado professors: A cumulative poison that children are forced to > DRINK [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Kids are being FORCED to take the poison AZT based solely on the shaky > HIV/AIDS hypothesis. (More on the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis below.) The fact that HIV causes AIDS is well known in the scientific community. Obviously, it is not well known to all chiropractors, but science and facts were never considerations in chiropractic.
<garbage deleted>
Jeff
Todd Gastaldo - 02 Aug 2005 12:32 GMT HIV AND BABY STRANGULATION: MEDICAL "SCIENCE" vs. SCIENCE AND FACTS
ATTENTION Jeff P.Utz, MD: Even if you must believe the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis, you can still help stop your fellow MDs from engaging in mass baby strangling/baby blood robbery, etc.
READERS: Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley MB ChB FACOG indicates that EVERY CESAREAN BABY is being strangled.
Do I really mean that babies are being strangled?
Yes. Babies are born breathing through their umbilical cords. MDs are engaging in IMMEDIATE cord clamping - asphyxiating babies before they are ready to breathe on their own and in doing so robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
It's the damndest thing - obvious crime: Check out the verbiage of Dr. Morley's TEMPORARY strangulation recommendation below.
PREGNANT WOMEN: It is EASY to make sure your baby gets the "extra" up to 50% of blood volume: Just tell your obstetrician not to clamp your baby's cord until it has stopped pulsating and your baby is pink and breathing and not in need of resuscitation...
HIV...
> The fact that HIV causes AIDS is well known in the scientific community. > Obviously, it is not well known to all chiropractors, but science and facts > were never considerations in chiropractic. > > <garbage deleted> Todd D. Gastaldo, DC remarks:
Jeff P.Utz, MD ignores science and facts - babies be damned.
I only started to question the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis when I discovered medical "science" pretending that babies can't feel pain...
Here is some of the "garbage" Jeff deleted....
California physicians embraced the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis to stay out of prison when I discovered in 1987 that they were ripping and slicing infant penises en masse - making babies scream and writhe and bleed - and telling parents that "babies can't feel pain" - and using obviously phony neurology [to do it]...
In an Oct. 11, 1987 letter (copied to the New England Journal of Medicine) I noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics had just perpetuated in the journal Pediatrics the false notion that babies can't feel pain for lack of myelin. I pointed out that most of the nervous system never becomes myelinated that that unmyelinated nerves are thought to transmit the most excruciating qualities of pain.
The Nov. 19, 1987 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine published an article that exposed the lack of myelin fraud; but an editorial in the same issue claimed that BABIES incur the pain of their circumcisions.
MASS CHILD ABUSE
Since the "babies can't feel pain" mass infant penis ripping and slicing was (is) obvious mass child abuse...
I reported it - and called for a religious exemption...
STRANGE THINGS HAPPENED...
In late 1987 (BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant screams ago) I called for a religious exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the infant foreskin on the penis...
In Jan/Feb 1988, California physicians immediately came out opposed to ALL religious exemptions and in favor of anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse. (See the Jan and Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics.
In March 1988, California physicians ignored their own Scientific Board and by voice vote changed their "no medical indications" mass infant penis slicing operation into an ostensible HIV/AIDS-prevention "effective public health measure." (California Medical Association Res. 305-88 - still in force I believe.)
Why did American physicians ignore their own Scientific Board and call for anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse?
The answer is simple:
A religious exemption for the minimal ancient Jewish ritual (which leaves most of the foreskin on the penis) would have instantly identified total-foreskin-amputating American MDs as the mass child abusers they are. (Note: I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As med students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies - not just mass infant penis ripping and slicing. See below for discussion of other obvious felony surgeries "performed" by American MDs.)
Again, the mass ripping and slicing of baby penises should have ended billions of dollars' worth of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology.
GOOD NEWS
Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.
OTHER OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL SURGERIES...
ADULT VAGINAS
By using semisitting and dorsal delivery positions, American physicians are closing birth canals up to 30%.
It is EASY for women to offer their babies the "extra" up to 30% - just by rolling onto their sides - or kneeling - or squatting - or standing, etc.
The simple biomechanics have been in the medical literature since early last century. I myself reported the simple biomechanics to the medical literature late last century. See Gastaldo TD. Letter. Birth. 1992;19(4):230-231.
American physicians are closing birth canals up to 30% - then slicing vaginas - pretending to be doing everything possible to open birth canals even as they (I repeat) close birth canals the "extra" up to 30%. (Infant penis slicing and adult vagina slicing are American medicine's most frequent surgical behaviors toward males and females, respectively.)
With birth canals KEPT closed the "extra" up to 30%, American physicians pull with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.
ADULT ABDOMENS
With birth canals kept closed the "extra" up to 30%, American physicians are also slicing abdomens en masse (c-section).
The fact that MDs are LYING to cover-up is perhaps the most obvious clue that they know they are committing massive crime.
For the Four OB Lies...
> See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > learning needs) > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3725 LAW ENFORCEMENT
Note: I have reported these crimes to Oregon law enforcement - Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers - but MDs are a protected class under our medico-"legal" "just us" system. Only rarely does law enforcement criminally prosecute MDs. The most MDs have to lose is their medical license - and even that is fairly rare. BTW, doctors of chiropractic/DCs are also protected - as are others who hold state licenses. State licensing is ostensibly to protect consumers - but the real beneficiaries are the health professionals who are getting away with obvious crimes.)
KEY POINT: Law enforcement compelling American physicians to allow birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30% is not going to prevent all episiotomies, c-sections and forceps deliveries - it's just that American physicians have no business closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30%.
UMBILICAL CORD SURGERY
American medicine's MOST frequent surgical behavior - umbilical cord clamping/cutting - is also obviously illegal - the way American MDs do it.
American MDs are clamping/cutting umbilical cords IMMEDIATELY - thereby robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
Retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG indicates that the massive baby blood robbery is being inflicted on EVERY CESAREAN BABY.
Keeping in mind that babies breathe through their umbilical cords...
Dr. Morley is recommending a "lesser" child abuse (TEMPORARY baby strangulation) to help his obstetrician colleagues learn that they shouldn't be robbing babies of so much blood....
Here is what I wrote when I recently reported this massive crime to Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers (via hardy.myers@state.or.us)...
> NOTE: AMERICAN MEDICINE¹S **MOST** FREQUENT SURGICAL BEHAVIOR IS OBVIOUS > CHILD ABUSE THE WAY OBSTETRICIANS PRACTICE IT... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Hardy [Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers], some OREGON obstetricians may be going to Dr. Morley's website and
> experimenting with his temporary baby strangling - as they engage in > PERMANENT baby strangling - robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > END EXCERPT OF DR. GASTALDO'S RECENT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE REPORT TO OREGON ATTY GENL HARDY MYERS...
ATTENTION Jeff P.Utz, MD: Even if you believe the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis you can help stop your fellow MDs from engaging in mass baby strangling/baby blood robbery, etc.
Again, I only started to question the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis when I discovered medical "science" pretending that babies can't feel pain...
JUST 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
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo todd@chiromotion.com
Copied to: Kicking the Sacred Cow author James P. Hogan via james@jamesphogan.com
Steve - 03 Aug 2005 17:05 GMT I am a personal trainer and have been for 8 years now. I work with a lot of pregnant women and post pregnant women who want to keep in shape
and the tummy area is what bothers them most. I get countless questions
for suggestions on books or articles on what they can do. I decided to do some research myself and found there to be a real lack of information on help for post pregnant females and anything i did find was either weak, difficult to understand or in some circumstances the exercises could actually be harmful. So i am putting an e-book together on the subject and collecting marketing data in the form of a survey. Anyone who responds to this survey and completes all the questions i will be giving away the e-book
FREE of charge as a thank you for participating. Please click on link below to access survey
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=925421250861
If you can not click on this link then please copy the URL above and copy it into your web browser.
To be eligible to get this e-book, you must respond to all questions. (I am not selling I am giving away!)
John Schutkeker - 06 Aug 2005 23:01 GMT ***PLONK***
> Colorado professors: A cumulative poison that children are forced to > DRINK may be causing cancer - just like AZT causes cancer. See the [quoted text clipped - 455 lines] > > Search http://groups.google.com for "MDs forcing kids to take poison" Todd Gastaldo - 06 Aug 2005 23:17 GMT > ***PLONK*** That'll teach me! : )
>> Colorado professors: A cumulative poison that children are forced to >> DRINK may be causing cancer - just like AZT causes cancer. See the [quoted text clipped - 455 lines] >> >> Search http://groups.google.com for "MDs forcing kids to take poison" PF Riley - 07 Aug 2005 04:03 GMT >> ***PLONK*** > >That'll teach me! : ) Oh yes, I'm sure that hurt Gastaldo's feelings that some random Usenetter thought himself important enough to quote an entire Gastaldo rant in order to tell us all that he's kill-filed him. In fact, further enhancing the stupidity of this move is the fact that now anyone who already had Gastaldo kill-filed still had to download his rant that you so nicely redistributed across the Usenet.
By the way, thanks to near-universal HIV prenatal testing along with antepartum and postpartum AZT, congenital HIV is now almost unheard of.
PF
Todd Gastaldo - 07 Aug 2005 20:44 GMT UW SURGICAL HIV/AIDS VACCINE HOAX - AND HIV/AIDS CLERGYMAN PF RILEY, MD
James P. Hogan, author of Kicking the Sacred Cow [2004] writes of those who blindly promote the very shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis:
"This is not the way of science, but of a fanatical religion putting down heresy." http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/aids-heresy-hogan.html
Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD is a clergyman in the fanatical HIV/AIDS religion...
UW SURGICAL HIV/AIDS VACCINE HOAX...
The journal Science - longtime promoter of the fanatical HIV/AIDS religion - is now promoting infant penis ripping and slicing as an "anatomical vaccine for life"...
King K. Holmes, MD, PhD of the University of Washington was so quoted in Cohen J. AIDS RESEARCH: Male Circumcision Thwarts HIV Infection. Science. 2005 Aug 5;309(5736):860.
I'll copy King K. Holmes, MD, PhD the "anatomical vaccine for life" guy via worthy@u.washington.edu.
King, you indicate that you and 100 other UW faculty members are sucking from the HIV/AIDS federal tit to the tune of $83 million per year... http://depts.washington.edu/daid/faculty/holmes.htm
And now you are rather explicitly using your fanatical HIV/AIDS religion to in effect promote infant screams...
American MDs should have stopped ripping and slicing infant penises BILLIONS of dollars' worth of infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed their phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology and called for a Jewish religious exemption from the child abuse laws (see Emerson on Circumcision at the very end of this post.)
Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.
King, if you must promote the infant screams (because of your federally-funded fanatical HIV/AIDS religion), why not at least stop your fellow MDs from closing birth canals up to 30% and robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume? Or does your overarching fanatical American medical religion prohibit that?
Immediate cord clamping forces babies to breathe through their lungs before they are ready - and robs them of up to 50% of their blood volume. This is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according to retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG, quoted below.
King, I urge you to stop promoting infant screams and help stop the other obvious American medical crimes...
John Schutkeker jschutkeker@sbcglobal.net.nospam expressed his displeasure with my post (quoted back below):
>>> ***PLONK*** I replied:
>> That'll teach me! : ) Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD replied:
> Oh yes, I'm sure that hurt Gastaldo's feelings... My feelings are indeed hurt (somewhat) when people respond negatively - but I maintain focus on the fact that PF Riley, MD's colleagues are senselessly hurting and sometimes killing babies. See below.
> that some random > Usenetter thought himself important enough to quote an entire Gastaldo > rant in order to tell us all that he's kill-filed him. I too think myself important enough to quote back my entire "rant" - especially since it is relevant this to response to PF Riley, MD, who in snipping it pretended that his fellow MDs aren't senselessly hurting and sometimes killing babies.
> In fact, > further enhancing the stupidity of this move is the fact that now > anyone who already had Gastaldo kill-filed still had to download his > rant that you so nicely redistributed across the Usenet. Delete buttons and killfiling are what make the usenet work. I agree with the sentiment of PF Riley, MD: When one is merely publicly expressing one's disdain ("PLONK") - there is no need to quote back.
> By the way, thanks to near-universal HIV prenatal testing along with > antepartum and postpartum AZT, congenital HIV is now almost unheard > of. > > PF HIV/AIDS Clergyman PF Riley, MD forgot to mention ABORTIONS as a means of preventing congenital HIV...
(Maybe "near-universal HIV prenatal testing" was PF's euphemism for abortion?)
In 1989, Rhame and Maki recommended that HIV be used to frighten women into abortions and contraception, i.e., into "preventing neonatal HIV infection" by killing fetuses. [See Rhame FS and Maki DG: The case for wider testing for HIV infection. N Eng J Med,(May11)1989;320(19):1248-1 254.]
A year later, a Johns Hopkins working group recommended, in effect, that health professionals should PERSONALLY frighten Black and Hispanic women - after which the working group had the audacity to state, "the decision [to abort] should clearly be made...without interference by the state and without unsolicited advice or other undue influence from health professionals." [Johns Hopkins Working Group on HIV Testing: JAMA, (Nov14)1990;264(18):2416-20]
The Johns Hopkins Working Group, acknowledging genocidal incidents in U.S. history, wrote: "It is not surprising that some read in a policy of targeting [HIV testing], not a desire to do good, but an agenda of genocide..."
IF the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis is wrong (I believe it is VERY shaky - and wrong; see below)...
...then abortions based on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis are wrong - with distinct overtones of genocide.
BTW, along with the Supremes, those unelected officials who somehow found the woman's right to abort in the US Constitution, I support a woman's right to choose - but SELECTIVE promotion of the right to choose looks a lot like genocide to me.
I've quoted Haldeman on Nixon before:
"[Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks...The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to. Problem with overall welfare plan is that it forces poor whites into the same position as blacks.
"[Nixon] pointed out that there has never in history been an adequate black nation, and they are the only race of which this is true. Says Africa is hopeless..." [Haldeman's diary entry regarding an April 28, 1969 meeting with Nixon. Haldeman HR. The Haldeman Diaries. NY: GP Putnam's Sons 1994:53]
There are various reasons Africa is hopeless.
It is noteworthy that Wall Street Journal staff reporter Schoofs' Pulitzer Prize-winning 'AIDs: The Agony of Africa' series was about the second African Holocaust (HIV/AIDS).
Did anyone ever read about the first African Holocaust caused by the colonial powers?
The World War Series started and everyone forgot about it.
I think the the book was King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild.
Maybe the War on Terror will cover-up the second African Holocaust as it continues?
Why AREN'T other causes of immunodeficiency taken into account in the CDC surveillance definition of AIDS, i.e., why is it that,
"Regardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency, in the presence of laboratory evidence for HIV, any disease [we have] listed...indicates a diagnosis of AIDS."(?) [U.S. Centers for Disease Control: JAMA, 1987;258:1143-1154.
UC Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, PhD was reviled for pointing out such shaky aspects of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis...
See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpo ints/aids-heresy-hogan.html <--EXCERPT
I believe the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to be as wrong as the American medical hypothesis that babies can't feel pain for "lack of myelin" was wrong.
It was the exposure of this latter bizarre medical hypothesis that first prompted American MDs to embrace the very shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis as a "medical reason" they were ripping and slicing infant penises en masse.
American MDs stood (and still stand) to go to prison because American medicine's most frequent surgical behavior toward males is obvious child abuse.
See Brigman WE. Circumcision as Child Abuse: The Legal and Constitutional Issues. University of Louisville School of Law, Journal of Family Law, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1984-85.
Sometimes the child abuse escalates to murder.
Some babies DIE from American medicine's grisly no-medical-indication surgery. Some lose their penises. Fortunately, these outcomes are rare - but most all babies scream and writhe and bleed - and all lose PART of their penis.
NOTE: Brigman ("Circumcision as Child Abuse") did not include in his 1984-85 analysis the fact that American MDs were using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to "inform" parents.
American MDs finally admitted that babies can feel pain in 2000.
The very shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis is STILL being used to cover-up the fact that American MDs stand to go to prison for their ONGOING mass child abuse for profit scheme...
So it is quite understandable that HIV/AIDS Clergyman PF Riley, MD would promote poisoning children with AZT and not want people quoting back the following...
>> Todd Gastaldo <tgastaldo@earthlink.net> wrote in >> news:BF13DF77.837A%tgastaldo@earthlink.net: [quoted text clipped - 458 lines] >>> >>> Search http://groups.google.com for "MDs forcing kids to take poison" Emerson expressed tolerance for the ancient Jewish ritual.
See Emerson on Circumcision; also: Africa and [Fore]skin Freaks (American MDs) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3774
I too am tolerant.
I am in favor of pardons in advance for the MDs and ritual circumcisers who have been illegally performing TOTAL infant foreskin amputation - and an exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.
I hope people will help expose the UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax and other religious fanaticism in medicine.
This post too will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax - and HIV/AIDS Clergyman PF Riley, MD"
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 07 Aug 2005 21:17 GMT > By the way, thanks to near-universal HIV prenatal testing along with > antepartum and postpartum AZT, congenital HIV is now almost unheard > of. COMMENT:
In the US. In other countries, notably Africa, it's not true. Partly due to stupidity (they have some wacko Germans telling them that HIV is harmless, and some in the government are listening) and partly due to poverty, and partly due to more than a decade of REALLY dumb delays in how the vertical transmission drug prevention trials were run (since transmission occurs at birth, it really only makes sense to knock viral levels down JUST before birth, and cheaply give drug no longer than it takes to do that, but--- duh-- nobody thought of doing that for YEARS).
That said, this is not the best argument for circumcision. If a kid wants it at puberty as an adjunct HIV preventive, let him opt for the surgery then, the same way he would for a nose job or orthodontics. Why make irreversible and major decisions for people when you don't have to, and can wait till they are capable of participating? This isn't like giving childhood vaccines.
BTW, the universal hep B vac program seems to be working. I'll be glad to see that disease as a thing of the past. Now where's the dang hep C vaccine?
And if the cat FIV vaccine really works at all, why are they taking so long for people? Inquiring minds want to know.
SBH
Todd Gastaldo - 07 Aug 2005 23:17 GMT AZT AND WACKO AMERICAN MDs...
They are still promoting the DNA-chain-terminator AZT...
In 1995, Duesberg and Bialy asked of HIV/AIDS scientists:
"Are they aware that the manufacturer of AZT says in the Physician's Desk Reference that 'it was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with zidovudine [AZT] administration from underlying signs of HIV diseases...'?... Are they aware that the DNA chain terminators were developed 30 years ago to kill growing human cells for chemotherapy, not as anti-HIV drugs?..." http://www.sumeria.net/aids/howei.html
I recently quoted from a woman child care worker who observed what happened when children were forced to take AZT:
"[Child care worker] Mimi Pascual gave the children drugs every day and every night,on schedule, as the doctors ordered...
"The drug Mimi remembers giving most often...is the nucleoside analog AZT... <snip> "More and more of the kids were there for compliance. They didn't want to take drugs, or their parents didn't want to give them, so they got put in ICC.
"'None of us ever blamed the kids for refusing. We all saw them throw up like clockwork after taking the pills, and then the diarrhea that followed...' <snip>"
[GASTALDO NOTES regarding "the diarrhea that followed": James P. Hogan says: "The 'side effects' [of AZT] look just like AIDS. Officially acknowledged effects of nucleoside analog drugs [like AZT] include diarrhea, dementia, lymphoma (cancer), muscle wasting, and T-cell depletion, which are also AIDS-defining" http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/aids-heresy-hogan.html]
New York Press Volume 18, Issue 30 July 27 - August 2, 2005 INSIDE INCARNATION As the debate over AIDS-drug trials at Columbia's Incarnation Children Center grows louder, a former ICC employee reveals what she saw. By Liam Scheff http://www.nypress.com/18/30/news&columns/liamscheff.cfm
JUST 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
Copied to Kicking the Sacred Cow author James P. Hogan via james@jamesphogan.com
Pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD "responded" by further promoting use of AZT:
>> By the way, thanks to near-universal HIV prenatal testing along with >> antepartum and postpartum AZT, congenital HIV is now almost unheard >> of. Steve Harris, MD replied:
> In other countries, notably Africa, it's not true. Partly > due to stupidity (they have some wacko Germans telling them that HIV is > harmless, and some in the government are listening) LOL! Steve, what about those wacko AMERICAN MDs telling parents that babies can't feel pain as they ripped and sliced infant penises en masse?!
When I pointed out the phony "lack of myelin" neurology - and the fact that there were no medical indications - and demanded that they stop their mass child abuse...
Wacko American MDs in the California Medical Association House of Delegates instantly (by voice vote!) ignored their own Scientific Board and converted their "no medical indications" mass infant penis ripping and slicing into a "we've been preventing HIV/AIDS transmission all along" "effective public health measure." (LOL!)
That was 1988. The next year, the American Academy of Pediatrics committee looking 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 - amid a "potential medical indications" media scam...
The media scam was so successful that MDs had to be informed:
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
Talk about wacko - the ONLY reason American MDs didn't (and don't) go to prison (for this and other obvious MD crimes) is that they are a protected class under our medico-"legal" "just us" system.
Steve B. Harris, MD correctly noted that, in effect:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
I replied to Steve:
"You make a good point...I am learning only late in life that MDs can blithely commit crime because law enforcement doesn't prosecute it...I just don't think it fair (for example) that babies have to pay with their lives and limbs for such MD arrogance...I am particularly concerned that MD-obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and lying to cover-up... For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)... See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606 "
NOTE: I am also concerned that Steve's fellow MDs are immediately clamping umbilical cords - temporarily asphyxiating babies/forcing them to breathe with their lungs before they are ready - and in the process robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
This is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
See again: ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606
Steve B. Harris, MD continued...
> [More congenital HIV in Africa] is partly due to > poverty, and LOL! Ain't that the tooth (as a fine chap I know sometimes says)...
Speaking of poverty - and malnutrition - why aren't other causes of immunodeficiency taken into account in the CDC surveillance definition of AIDS, i.e., why is it that,
"Regardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency, in the presence of laboratory evidence for HIV, any disease [we have] listed...indicates a diagnosis of AIDS."(?) [U.S. Centers for Disease Control: JAMA, 1987;258:1143-1154.
UC Berkeley molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, PhD was reviled for pointing out such shaky aspects of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis...
See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpo ints/aids-heresy-hogan.html <--EXCERPT
> partly due to more than a decade of REALLY dumb delays in > how the vertical transmission drug prevention trials were run (since > transmission occurs at birth, it really only makes sense to knock viral > levels down JUST before birth, and cheaply give drug no longer than it > takes to do that, but--- duh-- nobody thought of doing that for YEARS). Vertical transmission/mother to child?
I remember years ago, an obstetrician ARGUED with me when I pointed out that cesarean section was now recommended to prevent putative vertical transmission of HIV/AIDS from mother to child - LOL!
C-sections to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission is just one more "fact" of the fanatical religion called HIV/AIDS "science" - like the spectacle of UW's King Holmes, MD, PhD (and 100 others) sucking at the federal HIV/AIDS tit ($83 million per year!) as King promotes routine infant circumcision as an "anatomical vaccine for life."
And in the journal "Science" no less! LOL!
See UW surgical HIV/AIDS vaccine hoax - and HIV/AIDS Clergyman PF Riley, MD http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3776
> That said, this is not the best argument for circumcision. Bravo Steve-O!
> If a kid > wants it at puberty as an adjunct HIV preventive, let him opt for the > surgery then, the same way he would for a nose job or orthodontics. Didn't most Muslims (and some African tribes) wait till puberty?
Regardless, HIV/AIDS is a RELIGIOUS "HIV preventive" "reason" to circumcise - to keep American MDs out of prison for their past ("babies can't feel pain") and ongoing mass infant penis ripping and slicing behavior.
> Why > make irreversible and major decisions for people when you don't have > to, and can wait till they are capable of participating? This isn't > like giving childhood vaccines. Well Steve-O, it's like you told me:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
> BTW, the universal hep B vac program seems to be working. I'll be glad > to see that disease as a thing of the past. Now where's the dang hep C > vaccine? Hep B only "seems" to be working?
The original aim of the hep B vac trial was measuring vaccine efficacy against liver cancer.
Hopefully by now they at least have FAKED such efficacy "scientifically."
In 1987, while they were still trying to figure out hep B vaccine efficacy against liver cancer, James E. Maynard, MD wrote:
"...[O]ver the next 5 to 10 years...[Third World countries] will need 350 million doses a year...By the year 2000 we will have accomplished our task if we see hepatitis B incorporated as the seventh universal immunogen for infant immunization in the Expanded Program on Immunization that is sponsored by the World Health Organization." [James E. Maynard, M.D., executive director of a nine physician international task force run by the Seattle-based Program for Appropriate Technology and Health (PATH), discussing the hepatitis B vaccine produced by Alfred M. Prince, M.D. of the New York Blood Center. In Marwick C: JAMA, Sept.18, 1987;258(1):1439]
As hundreds of millions of Third World children were being injected with hepatitis B vaccine, most of the world¹s physicians were refusing hepatitis B vaccine injections - for fear of catching AIDS....
Dr. AM Prince, developer of the hepatitis B vaccine, wrote in 1991:
"[M]any high-risk individuals...do not wish to be vaccinated. This applies surprisingly to about 50% of physicians and nurses in many countries, who despite all assurances remain unconvinced that HBV vaccine will not transmit unknown agents of disease." [Prince AM: Hepatitis B virus: active and passive immunization. In Cryz SJ (ed.): Vaccines and immunotherapy, 1991, New York: Pergamon Press.]
In one study MDs refused hepatitis B vaccination - even when it was offered free of charge:
"...the majority of physicians...failed to be vaccinated even when offered the hepatitis B vaccine free of charge." [Clancy CM, Cebul RD, Williams SV. Guiding individual decisions: a randomized controlled trial of decision analysis. Am J Med, 1988;84(2):283-8]
Even stranger than doctors not taking their own hepatitis B vaccine is the fact that Hepatitis B vaccine researchers discovered early on that nearly all the African children on whom they were experimenting, were testing positive for hepatitis B virus [The Lancet, May12, 1989, p. 1057-60] - but were almost never expressing symptoms of the disease called hepatitis. [Cancer Res, 1987;47:5782-87]
In 1999, I wrote to CDC's Walter Orenstein, MD:
And now a 1998 press release reports, in effect, that these same Hepatitis B vaccine researchers are indicating that unvaccinated infants WERE suffering from acute hepatitis - from infancy up to the age of ten years:
"The Gambia Hepatitis Intervention Study has clearly demonstrated that protection against persistent hepatitis B infection by infant vaccination continues up to the age of ten years. The study of this protection against...against acute hepatitis...should be continued into the adolescent years when new modes of exposure to the virus will occur." http://www.iarc.fr/preleases/1 21e.htm
Whatever the case with acute hepatitis, the 1998 press release to which I am referring was titled, "Recommendations for the control of hepatitis B-related CANCER" [emphasis added] - but upon reading the press release, one finds that the Gambian study is being conducted because researchers DON'T KNOW whether Hep B vaccine prevents cancer...
According to the press release:
"GHIS should ensure that cancer registration in The Gambia and linkage of individuals with liver cancer to vaccine records is made as effective as possible, in order for the study to fulfill its *ORIGINAL AIM* of measuring vaccine efficacy against liver cancer." [emphasis added] http://www.iarc.fr/preleases/1 21e.htm
I wrote further...
Dr. Orenstein, most of the world public is unaware that millions (billions?) are being spent to innoculate children to MAYBE prevent the adult cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma - as 50% of African children in some areas starve to death. [50% mortality rate is from Sachs MY and Martin AS (Eds.): Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 2: Africa, 7th ed., 1988, New York: Worldmark Press, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]
Interesting side note: I am truly surprised that the 1998 press release about The Gambian experiment (see above) did not explicitly mention the woodchuck studies and the epidemiologic studies being used to claim that Hep B vaccine prevents cancer. Also interesting is Duesberg and Schwartz's 1992 claim that "there is no convincing evidence that hepatitis B viral DNA is functionally relevant for the initiation and maintenance of hepatomas." [Duesberg PH and Schwartz JR: Latent viruses and mutated oncogenes: no evidence for pathogenicity. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology, 1992;43:135-204]
Dr. Orenstein, I believe, was recently exposed trying to cover-up thimerosal danger. Someone correct me if I am wrong about that.
> And if the cat FIV vaccine really works at all, why are they taking so > long for people?
> Inquiring minds want to know. Steve, it is good for MDs to have inquiring minds.
Your fellow MDs are immediately clamping umbilical cords - temporarily asphyxiating babies/forcing them to breathe with their lungs before they are ready - and in the process robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
This is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
See again: ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606
Steve, are you doing anything to stop your fellow MDs from asphyxiating babies and robbing up 50% of their blood?
Or are you just going to stand on your valid observation (see above) that if you MDs can get away with crime, in effect, you aren't committing crime?
Just curious.
Sincerely,
Your friend,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon todd@chiromotion.com
This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "Wacko American MDs"
Jeff - 07 Aug 2005 23:27 GMT > AZT AND WACKO AMERICAN MDs... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not as anti-HIV drugs?..." > http://www.sumeria.net/aids/howei.html what is not hard to distinquish is that people who have AIDS and take AZT live a lot longer than people who have AIDS and are not treated.
> I recently quoted from a woman child care worker who observed what > happened [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > drugs, or their parents didn't want to give them, so they got > put in ICC. I don't think anyone wants to take AZT. It is like chemotherapy for patients with cancer. No one would want to take chemotherapy either. But it is much better than the alternative of not taking AZT or chemotherapy: death.
> "'None of us ever blamed the kids for refusing. We all saw them > throw up like clockwork after taking the pills, and then the > diarrhea that followed...' > <snip>" Sounds like chemotherapy. And, just like thousands of children and adults are alive because of chemotherapy, thousands of people are alive because of AZT. The side effects stink. But it is better than than the alternative: death.
(...)
Jeff
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 08 Aug 2005 00:16 GMT > In one study MDs refused hepatitis B vaccination - even when it was offered > free of charge: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Guiding individual decisions: a randomized controlled trial of decision > analysis. Am J Med, 1988;84(2):283-8] COMMENT:
That was back when it was made from the blood of pooled donors. But it had been carefully tested for HIV and put through 3 different rounds of treatments, each of which was sufficient to kill HIV (not possible to do for blood factor products, but possible for the vaccine). Finally, the donor pool for the hep B vaccine protein was a closed one consisting of carefully chosen HIV-neg chronic hepatitis B patients, and not the same group of lowlife plasma donors that donated for factor concentrates, and who were more likely to have HIV (and who ended up transmitting HIV in factor concentrates in 1982-3). So many a doc made the opposite decision for hep B. Including me, who had my first Hep B vaccination shots in 1985.
By the time for my next booster in 1990, I believe a genetically engineered product had been around, which had never seen human blood. You could get one or the other, and I don't remember which one I chose. Since then, the issue you bring up has been a non-issue. The vaccine from human donors is long off the market.
SBH
Todd Gastaldo - 08 Aug 2005 07:04 GMT I wrote:
>> In one study MDs refused hepatitis B vaccination - even when it was offered >> free of charge: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Guiding individual decisions: a randomized controlled trial of decision >> analysis. Am J Med, 1988;84(2):283-8] Steve B. Harris, MD commented:
> That was back when it was made from the blood of pooled donors. But it > had been carefully tested for HIV and put through 3 different rounds of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Since then, the issue you bring up has been a non-issue. The vaccine > from human donors is long off the market. Steve,
A non-issue?
You snipped the bigger issue: Most African children with evidence of Hep B had no Hep B disease - and no (?) evidence that Hep B vaccine prevents hepatocellular carcinoma.
Also, you snipped the part about Hep B vaccinations injected into Third World children as American MDs refused the same Hep B vaccinations.
Maybe American MDs ("many a doc") made a public protest that Third World children should not be injected with a Hep B vaccine that American MDs weren't taking for fear of catching AIDS?
Maybe I just missed it?
I mention this because - recently - American MDs didn't go public about thimerosal going into Third World bloodstreams...
Or maybe they did and I just missed it? Robert Kennedy writes:
"Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but...CDC and FDA...[bought] up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries..." http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm
Whatever happened in those instances, there are the REALLY obvious crimes American MDs are committing.
For example...
Your fellow MDs are immediately clamping umbilical cords - temporarily asphyxiating babies/forcing them to breathe with their lungs before they are ready - and in the process robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
This is happening to EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
See again: ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606
Steve, are you doing anything to stop your fellow MDs from asphyxiating babies and robbing up 50% of their blood?
Or are you just going to stand on your valid observation...that if you MDs can get away with crime, in effect, you aren't committing crime?
Just curious.
Sincerely,
Your friend,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon todd@chiromotion.com
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 08 Aug 2005 22:59 GMT > You snipped the bigger issue: Most African children with evidence of Hep B > had no Hep B disease - and no (?) evidence that Hep B vaccine prevents > hepatocellular carcinoma. COMMENT:
There's lots of evidence the vaccine will prevent some fraction of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), though it's indirect evidence, since the virus takes 30-40 years or more to do this, and so the study would need to be a run a very long one. Very occasionally one sees in children, and the rates of this have declined a great deal in countries like Taiwan where vaccination was instituted first.
If you know anything about hepadnaviruses in animals and how they are connected with liver cancer, you'll have little doubt that the epidemiology in humans vis a vis our own particular hepadnavirus (hep B) is real.
In any case, the vaccine is of very very little risk (as seen in controlled studies in China), and there are many many reasons other than cancer to give it. Such as prevention of acute and chronic hepatitis B :). Duh.
> Also, you snipped the part about Hep B vaccinations injected into Third > World children as American MDs refused the same Hep B vaccinations. COMMENT: They weren't done at the same time, you ninny. Please look at your facts. While hep B was being made from human blood it was WAY to expensive to be shipping to Africa, I assure you.
> Maybe American MDs ("many a doc") made a public protest that Third World > children should not be injected with a Hep B vaccine that American MDs > weren't taking for fear of catching AIDS? > > Maybe I just missed it? COMMENT:
Yeah, you missed it. There was nothing to miss. The two cases didn't involve the same vaccine.
I personally, BTW, wouldn't give a patient any standard preventive thing I wasn't willing to take myself. I've had every vaccine you can name, and some you've never heard of.
COMMENT:
> I mention this because - recently - American MDs didn't go public about > thimerosal going into Third World bloodstreams... > > Or maybe they did and I just missed it? Thimerosol's a political problem. Epidemiologically it's a no-show.
> Robert Kennedy writes: > > "Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of > injections given to American infants -- but...CDC and FDA...[bought] up the > tainted vaccines for export to developing countries..." > http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm COMMENT:
Robert Kennedy's a no-show, too. Sucked into one of the stupider liberal causes, when the world is full of very genuine problems that need fixing. Such as how to vaccine the third world cheaply. Here we have one child die of preventable measles EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY in Africa, and this moron JFK,Jr is worried that we might be giving them **autism**? Of the 1.8 million vaccine preventable deaths in the third world, HALF are measles. Screw the thimerosal. Those kids need MMR and they need it *yesterday.* And RFK,Jr seems something to keep him busy, like organized crime.
Say, if he could just get a brother elected president, maybe he could get to be attorney general.... Meanwhile he's a pretty pathetic characature of his relatives.
This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct "poison" like thimerosal, and regardless of the evidence for, or against, liberals will try to hamstring a program that will save 3/4 million kids a year, to keep it from being used. Unintended consequences. They don't care. If the solution doesn't fit their utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it used at all.
Disgusting!
SBH
1: Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 1999 Dec;13(4):511-7.
Prospects for hepatitis B virus eradication and control of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Chang MH, Chen DS.
Department of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Hepatitis B virus infection is the most common cause of chronic hepatitis, liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma worldwide. In areas hyperendemic for HBV infection, the related complications occur mostly during adulthood. However, nearly half of all primary infection in chronic carriers occurs in the perinatal period through maternal transmission, the other half arising from horizontal transmission mainly through intrafamilial spread or injection using unsterilized needles. A universal vaccination programme is better than immunization for at-risk groups. Hepatitis B vaccination should be integrated into the Expanded Programme on Immunization in children. Universal immunization against hepatitis B virus has proved to be effective in reducing the hepatitis B carrier rate to one-tenth of the prevalence before the vaccination programme in highly endemic areas, and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children has also been shown to be significantly reduced. Continued efforts to implement universal vaccination programmes worldwide will very likely reduce the incidence of hepatitis B virus-related diseases, particularly liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.
Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial
PMID: 10654916 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: JAMA. 2000 Dec 20;284(23):3040-2.
Hepatitis B vaccination and hepatocellular carcinoma rates in boys and girls.
Chang MH, Shau WY, Chen CJ, Wu TC, Kong MS, Liang DC, Hsu HM, Chen HL, Hsu HY, Chen DS; Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group.
Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. mhchang@ha.mc.ntu.edu.tw
CONTEXT: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a male predominance and is closely related to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Hepatitis B virus vaccination was launched in 1984 in Taiwan for neonates of mothers carrying hepatitis B e antigen, resulting in a decreased incidence of HCC in children. The effect on boys vs girls is not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between a HBV vaccination program with incidence of childhood HCC by sex. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of data collected from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry System and the Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group between 1981 and 1996. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 6 to 14 years who were diagnosed as having HCC (201 boys and 70 girls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of HCC in boys and girls before and after implementation of the vaccination program. RESULTS: The boy-girl incidence ratio decreased steadily from 4.5 in 1981-1984 (before the program's introduction) to 1.9 in 1990-1996 (6-12 years after the vaccination program was launched). The incidence of HCC in boys born after 1984 was significantly reduced in comparison with those born before 1978 (relative risk [RR], 0.72; P =.002). No significant decrease in HCC incidence was observed in girls born in the same periods (RR, 0.77; P =.20). The incidence of HCC in boys remained stable with increasing age, while an increase of HCC incidence with age in girls was observed. These age and sex effects remained the same regardless of birth before or after the vaccination program. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that boys may benefit more from HBV vaccination than girls in the prevention of HCC.
PMID: 11122592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Cancer J. 2004 Mar-Apr;10(2):67-73.
Hepatocellular carcinoma: paradigm of preventive oncology.
O'Brien TR, Kirk G, Zhang M.
Viral Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA. obrient@exchange.nih.gov
Morbidity and mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which is primarily caused by hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus, can be prevented. Public health interventions have eliminated transfusion transmission of these viruses and, in endemic countries with effective hepatitis B virus vaccination programs, have greatly reduced incident hepatitis B virus infections (and HCC) in children. Antiviral treatment can eliminate detectable hepatitis C virus in 50%-80% of chronically infected patients, presumably reducing their risk of cancer. HCC survival rates remain universally poor, but early detection and treatment in developed countries has improved survival in selected patients. Despite these advances, worldwide HCC rates remain high, and additional preventive efforts are needed. The most important opportunity is wider distribution of hepatitis B virus vaccine in endemic areas. Development of an HCV vaccine, improved antiviral therapies, and better methods for HCC detection would also help decrease morbidity and mortality from HCC. HCC prevention efforts provide a paradigm for preventive oncology in cancers of viral etiology.
Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial
PMID: 15130266 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Zhonghua Min Guo Xiao Er Ke Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi. 1998 Nov-Dec;39(6):366-70.
Hepatocellular carcinoma in children.
Chang MH.
Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. mhchang@ha.mc.ntu.edu.tw
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most frequent malignancies in humans. Although it occurs mainly in adults of 40 to 60 years of age, it may develop in children. It mainly occurs in children older than six years of age, with male predominance. Children with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and underlying metabolic diseases are the two main high risk groups for childhood HCC. HBV infection is the main cause of childhood HCC in areas hyperendemic for HBV infection. In Taiwan, nearly 100% of HCC children were hepatitis B surface antigen seropositive. Maternal transmission (94%) is the most important route of transmission of HBV infection in HCC children. For HBV related HCC in children, immunization is the most effective way for the control of childhood HCC. The first universal vaccination against HBV in the world was launched in Taiwan in July 1984. The prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigenemia in children declined from 10% in 1984, prior to the vaccination program, to < 1% in 1994, 10 years after the implementation of the program, in children less than 9 years of age. The annual incidence of HCC in children aged 6 to 9 years of age also decreased from 0.52 per 100,000 born in 1974-1984 to 0.13 per 100,000 born in 1984-1986.
Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial
PMID: 9926508 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 26;336(26):1855-9.
Comment in: N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 26;336(26):1906-7.
Universal hepatitis B vaccination in Taiwan and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children. Taiwan Childhood Hepatoma Study Group.
Chang MH, Chen CJ, Lai MS, Hsu HM, Wu TC, Kong MS, Liang DC, Shau WY, Chen DS.
Department of Pediatrics, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei.
BACKGROUND: A nationwide hepatitis B vaccination program was implemented in Taiwan in July 1984. To assess the effect of the program on the development of hepatocellular carcinoma, we studied the incidence of this cancer in children in Taiwan from 1981 to 1994. METHODS: We collected data on liver cancer in children from Taiwan's National Cancer Registry, which receives reports from each of the country's 142 hospitals with more than 50 beds. Data on childhood liver cancer were also obtained from Taiwan's 17 major medical centers. To prevent the inclusion of cases of hepatoblastoma, the primary analysis was confined to liver cancers in children six years of age or older. Data were also obtained on mortality from liver cancer among children. RESULTS: The average annual incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children 6 to 14 years of age declined from 0.70 per 100,000 children between 1981 and 1986 to 0.57 between 1986 and 1990, and to 0.36 between 1990 and 1994 (P<0.01). The corresponding rates of mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma also decreased. The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children 6 to 9 years of age declined from 0.52 for those born between 1974 and 1984 to 0.13 for those born between 1984 and 1986 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Since the institution of Taiwan's program of universal hepatitis B vaccination, the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children has declined.
PMID: 9197213 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Semin Oncol. 2001 Oct;28(5):441-9.
The epidemiology and prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Monto A, Wright TL.
GI Research, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer. Its incidence is higher in countries where hepatitis B is endemic. HCC is substantially a complication of liver cirrhosis. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are the predominant causes of cirrhosis, and as such, HCC. The link between HCC and alcoholic cirrhosis is less strong. Other less common forms of chronic liver disease can also lead to HCC. HBV is the HCC-determining disease worldwide. In endemic regions, it tends to be acquired early in life. The largest strides in prevention of HCC have been made with the HBV vaccine. HCV has a lower global prevalence than HBV, but HCV causes the most HCC in economically developed regions. In these areas, where the incidence of HCC is low, HCV now accounts for more than 50% of HCCs. There is no vaccine for HCV, so prevention of HCV-associated HCC will focus on prevention of initial infection and elimination of infection through antiviral therapies. HBV-HCV coinfection, and the combination of either with alcohol abuse or aflatoxin exposure seems to raise the risk of HCC development further. Liver transplantation and other adjuvant therapies may offer better options for secondary prevention of HCC than resection alone. Copyright 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company.
Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial
PMID: 11685737 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Cancer Detect Prev. 1991;15(4):313-8.
Design and compliance of HBV vaccination trial on newborns to prevent hepatocellular carcinoma and 5-year results of its pilot study.
Sun Z, Zhu Y, Stjernsward J, Hilleman M, Collins R, Zhen Y, Hsia CC, Lu J, Huang F, Ni Z, et al.
Cancer Institute, Chinese Academy of Medical Science, Beijing, PRC.
A large-scale, controlled study of universal immunization of newborns against HBV infection has been conducted in the high incidence area of hepatocellular carcinoma, Qidong County of China. This area has a stable population, standardized cancer registration system, and an epidemiological base for measurements of liver cancer prevention by vaccine. Randomization was done on the community level. The vaccination and the control group each will consist of 38,000 children by the end of 1990. It is anticipated that the design will provide high statistical power to detect 50% reduction in the prevalence rate of chronic hepatitis among the vaccinees vs. the controls at 6 to 10 years of age, and 50% reduction in the incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma at 35 to 40 years of age. The vaccine used is Hep-B Vax, donated by Merck and Co. through WHO. The vaccine was administered at 0, 1, and 6 months after birth, the dosage of 5 or 2.5 micrograms in the pilot study as used before 1985 and of 5 micrograms dose level during the main study starting from January 1, 1985. About 85% of the cohorts have now entered the protocol. The vaccination coverage during 1984 to 1989 was 98.0% (35,064/35,789). Follow-up of the vaccinees and the age-matched controls at 5 years has exceeded 97%. The cumulative mortality in the vaccinated group up to 1988 was 1.29% (354/27,450). No single death nor serious adverse reaction was found that was associated with vaccination. The use of HBV vaccine at a reduced dose was especially important for the developing countries at the present time in order to achieve widespread immunization. Five-year results of the pilot study of this vaccination project showed that significant protection against HBV infection was achieved with the 5 or 2.5 micrograms per dose regimen plus a booster of 5 micrograms given at 3.5 to 4 years of age.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 1665400 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> Sincerely, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hillsboro, Oregon > todd@chiromotion.com Eric Bohlman - 08 Aug 2005 23:48 GMT > This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison > paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > utopian vision, they'd rather *prevent* a reasonable version of it > used at all. Don't tar all liberals with the same brush. The subset you're correctly railing against are largely motivated by Romantic ideology and would more correctly be described as "pseudo-liberals" just as many authoritarians have been described as "pseudo-conservatives." Their world-view is actually rather comparable to that of nineteenth-century aristocrats who looked down on anyone who acquired wealth through "trade" rather than his ancestors' use of the battle-axe (they're anti-capitalist not because they think there are better alternatives to capitalism that could be implemented in the future, but because they think that the better alternatives *were* implemented in the past).
One similarity is that they tend to view third-world people in "noble savage" terms, worrying greatly that their "traditional ways of life" might come to an end. They never seem to ask the objects of their concern whether or not they *want* to continue living the same way they did millennia ago (I'm reminded of a quote from a woman in Africa who said she wished she could afford (gasp!) *herbicides* to spray on her crops. When asked why, she said she wanted her children to go to school and learn to read and write instead of spending their days stooping in the fields picking weeds). They consist largely of upper-middle-class women, but they idealize societies in which women spend most of their time barefoot, pregnant, and completely at the mercy of men. They take at face value the claims of the most reactionary and authoritarian elements of any "oppressed" society, oblivious to the fact that those "leaders" are simply third-world equivalents of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (www.butterfliesandwheels.com discusses this in great detail).
This branch of the Left really consists of reactionaries in progressives' clothing. Romanticism has historically rather quickly led to authoritarianism, even fascism. It contains a streak of anti-urbanism that often has a sub-streak of anti-semitism. Ultimately, it stems from the conviction that humans are inherently evil. How it came to be seen as part of the Left is unclear, though it appears that a lot of it entered through the 1960s counterculture; old-school leftists and their ideological descendants don't seem to be much affected by such nonsense.
I've become convinced that when neo-Romantics talk about "health," they're actually talking about achieving a sense of personal *purity*. I think much of the "poison paranoia" is actually a feeling of being ritually unclean.
sbharris@ix.netcom.com - 11 Aug 2005 23:45 GMT > > This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison > > paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > correctly be described as "pseudo-liberals" just as many authoritarians > have been described as "pseudo-conservatives." COMMENT:
Thanks for the thoughtful message.
>Don't tar all liberals with the same brush. The subset you're correctly >railing against are largely motivated by Romantic ideology and would more >correctly be described as "pseudo-liberals" just as many authoritarians >have been described as "pseudo-conservatives. COMMENT:
I'm of course using the words conservative and liberal as we use them in the US, which is not the same way they are used in the UK or Canada (say). I don't think the US conservative even has a counterpart in politics in most places (maybe the Israeli Likud). The US liberal in most places would be a called conservative, and the liberal of Canada and the UK, would be closer to a US socialist. The John Stuart Mills classical liberal (my own affiliation) is nowadays called a libertarian, and isn't understood by any major party, except in bits.
"Conservative" classically means somebody who harkens back to the past, but if we're stuck in post-modernism, it's rather difficult to tell what conservatives are supposed to believe in. You can call properly them reactionaries, since they are usually to be found opposing the "progressive" ideas of the progressives, where the progressive idea is usually to make the central government responsible for it (whatever it is), at some cost in your taxes. Note the "conservative" politicians can have "progressive" ideas, with the classic one here in the US being Bush's idea to have the Feds more closely control K-12 education (now there's a brilliant idea-- Feds on your schoolboard). Mostly in the US, we just use the term "conservative" for religious Christians who don't trust the government, but (as with that Bush K12 initiative, not to mention Homeland Security) they can be confusing when they get into office. Our "conservatives" often don't include the Roman Catholics, who may be religious and Christian, but who have as much faith in government as Teddy Kennedy or author Tom Clancey does. Which is a lot. Teddy is not a conservative. As for Tom Clancey, who knows? He does have the Catholic love of, and faith in, bureaucracy, including military bureaucracy, so is hard to place. Teddy has the same, but hates the military, so is easy to place.
> One similarity is that they tend to view third-world people in "noble > savage" terms, worrying greatly that their "traditional ways of life" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "leaders" are simply third-world equivalents of Jerry Falwell and Pat > Robertson (www.butterfliesandwheels.com discusses this in great detail). COMMENT:
Yes, yes. But I think you're wrong to view this as "pseudo-liberalism." It's real gold-standard liberalism, a part of the maternalistic liberalism of Hilary "It takes a village to raise a child" Clinton and a lot of others. And sure, they're reactionaries when it comes to technology--- that doesn't mean they're not "progressives" when it comes to everything else. But that doesn't make them pseudo-liberals. Ralph Nader is not a pseudo-liberal. Nader didn't split the Republican party in the 2000 election, he split the Democratic party. He split the liberals and the Left. The Right paid no attention to him at all, except to thank Jesus for him.
> This branch of the Left really consists of reactionaries in > progressives' clothing. COMMENT: Nah, it consists of progressives who happen to be reactionary when it narrowly comes to matters of technology, because they don't understand it. And, often, because being female they are missing any love of technology for its own sake (which I think is written into the genes of most men). But that's it. I don't think they distrust technology because they're romantics. As often as not, they're romantics for entirely different reasons (like the Nazis) and *would* be lovers of technology if they had the gonads for it (like the Nazis).
> Romanticism has historically rather quickly led > to authoritarianism, even fascism. It contains a streak of anti-urbanism > that often has a sub-streak of anti-semitism. COMMENT Oh, that's WAY overgeneralized. A romantic moment was part of an authoritarian process in France, Germany and Italy, but not in England or America. Peoples have their own personalities and make each influence their own. Every country has its romantic movements in the arts or politics. Sometimes it leads to violence and authoritarianism, and sometimes not. Certainly fascism was built on a peculiar romanticism in Italy and (if you insist on calling Nazis fascists) in Germany also. But the emotionalism and idealism of romanticism is merely a way of controlling the masses and getting the votes, especially when times are hard and the past is easy to look to. Romanticism is also a way of resurrecting any country or people from the past. Romantic movements gave us modern Poland, and some of those same Romantic Poles gave us modern Israel.
As for antisemitism, I would argue that it was most often a feature of German romanticism merely because the Germans themselves were so often antisemitic. So if the German romantics happened not to like Jews, like Wagner and Wagner's major fan Hitler, you find it in their work. But you don't find it in Nietzsche, and I don't think it's particularly somehow necessary or promoted by Romanticism. Yes, you'd think it would be natural in pastoral movements to vilify urbanites like Jews. Thus I've heard Rousseau accused of antisemitism, and it's a good myth, but as I read him there's no truth in it.
> Ultimately, it stems from > the conviction that humans are inherently evil. How it came to be seen [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think much of the "poison paranoia" is actually a feeling of being > ritually unclean COMMENT:
Ritual unclean if the paranoics are Jewish, but just "unclean" if they aren't. Yes, indeed, it's handwashing-type personal purity. We hear of people who worry if the inside of their colons aren't clean. Clearly nuts. But how did this get to be part of the Left? Because there was no other place to put these folks. These people usually think of themselves as progressives, and what else do you call them? Are you going to argue with them? Asking people about nuclear power or pesticides is nearly a perfect litmus test for which side of the political spectrum they're going to be on. The same with liability law. When somebody sues his way into being a governor like Sid McMath, or a Senator like John Edwards, he's never a Republican. Injury lawyers are not high on the list of people Republicans admire.
It isn't the evangelicals that form the core of the right who seem to be too worried about being detoxified and having poisons in their environments. They are washed in the Blood of the Lamb, don't you know, so they don't need the EPA. I can only conclude that they've been inoculated against such fears by their particular brand of protestantism. Neither Catholics nor Jews, and certainly not secularists, trust providence to protect them from this stuff. And that's the left-right divide in the US: Do you really believe in an imminent god, who's good against toxins? Or do you actually have to (tikkun; Kashrit) "do-it-yourself"?
SBH
Jeff - 09 Aug 2005 11:32 GMT (...)
> This is where liberalism really bugs me. Liberals are the poison > paranoia people. Somebody finds some kind of politically correct [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Disgusting! And then you have conservatives who sent people to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction that don't exist. I think the estimate of the number of people who have died has to be around 15,000 directly and around 200,000 directly and indirectly.
This is where labels really bug me. Not all conservatives are in favor of the war. And not all liberals are against thimerasol. I am quite liberal and in favor of vaccination. In fact, because of vaccination, I have yet to see a case of Hib menigitis. And there are thousands of kids who are in high school would have otherwise been in the ground. I am also in favor of using GM foods and dislike organic foods.
I guess logic can overcome my liberalism.
Jeff
> SBH > [quoted text clipped - 374 lines] >> Hillsboro, Oregon >> todd@chiromotion.com sbharris@ix.netcom.com - 11 Aug 2005 23:55 GMT > (...) > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > number of people who have died has to be around 15,000 directly and around > 200,000 directly and indirectly. COMMENT:
Yeah, but don't blame me for them. I'm a libertarian, and never liked that war.
COMMENT
> This is where labels really bug me. Not all conservatives are in favor of > the war. And not all liberals are against thimerasol. I am quite liberal and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff COMMENT:
You must be a lonely, lonely man, then. :)
Vaccination does cut across party lines, because parental concern does. However, vaccine liability and tort law reform usually doesn't. Liberman is the only major liberal in congress I can think of who's come out in favor of tort law reform (without which you historically wouldn't HAVE any vaccines). There must be some others, but they're not very visible. Historically, The Democrats didn't give in to legal protection of vaccine-makers until there very nearly weren't any vaccines or vaccine producers left in the US (I think we're down to about 4 from about 30). That's how out of touch they are.
SBH
Todd Gastaldo - 09 Aug 2005 23:53 GMT THE MD WHO SLAPPED THE NURSE...
See the very end of this post.
Steve B. Harris, MD verbally slapped a nurse online years ago...
Steve B. Harris, MD LIED to the nurse.
Again, see the very end of this post.
A NATION OF "NINNIES"
Steve B. Harris, MD just called me a "ninny." (See below.)
Dictionary.com says: Ninny: A fool; a simpleton. [Perhaps alteration of innocent.]
Part of the reason Steve B. Harris, MD suggests I am a "ninny" is because I believe that law enforcement should enforce laws and stop obvious MD crimes.
Steve wrote:
"Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you."
I replied:
"You make a good point...I am learning only late in life that MDs can blithely commit crime because law enforcement doesn't prosecute it...I just don't think it fair (for example) that babies have to pay with their lives and limbs for such MD arrogance...I am particularly concerned that MD-obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30% and lying to cover-up...
NOTE: For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)... See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606 "
I wrote further to Steve that I am also concerned that his fellow MDs are immediately clamping umbilical cords - temporarily asphyxiating babies/forcing them to breathe with their lungs before they are ready - and in the process robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
This latter massive MD crime is being committed against EVERY CESAREAN BABY, according retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG.
See again: ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3606
Dr. Morley recommends TEMPORARY asphyxiation experiments with babies (temporary strangulation of the umbilical cord) to help obstetricians understand that they should not rob massive amounts of blood from babies...
"[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be able to observe, without interference, a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds. Common sense will soon release the finger and thumb." http://www.cordclamping.com/acog-cp.htm
Dr. Morley has admitted that he is protecting obstetricians...
See Michigan Baby Strangler George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3739
To my knowledge, NO MDs are reporting the obvious child abuse.
Steve B. Harris, MD GLOATS ("get an adult to explain it to you") as his fellow MDs "earn" BILLIONS abusing babies and treating the grisly effects of their abuse.
The massive criminal enterprise called medicine can commit obvious crime, tell obvious lies to cover-up, and (I say) manufacture and publish "scientific" studies which support the crime and the lies after the fact.
I cannot prove that the "scientific" studies are manufactured - but I can prove the obvious crime and obvious cover-up lies - and I know full well that failing to disclose such obvious bias in "scientific" studies is unethical.
For example, it was unethical of MDs to fail to disclose in celebrating their recent "Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS transmission" study that - years ago - American MDs anti-scientifically embraced the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to stay out of prison after I exposed the fact that they were ripping and slicing infant penises and using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology to obtain "informed" consent from parents.
This obvious bias (MDs stand to go to prison) should be included in any discussion of the notion that their ripping and slicing of infant penises prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS. But the obvious bias is always excluded. That's the "scientific" game.
Steve B. Harris, MD may be - wittingly or unwittingly - proffering manufactured "scientific" studies to support his Hep B argumentation below.
Steve B. Harris, MD is DEFINITELY ignoring obvious mass child abuse - snipping it - failing to report it - which is a crime.
Without suspected child abuse reports from **MDs** (and RNs) - law enforcement is unlikely to act. We live under a medico-"legal" "just us" system where the legal profession studiously protects the medical profession from CRIMINAL prosecution.
CIVIL actions - where insurance companies lose money - are the norm. Only rarely do MDs lose their licenses and only VERY rarely do they risk being imprisoned/subjected to criminal prosecutions.
It happened in 1995...doctors were "frightened out of their wits."
In 1995, after an MD (Einaugler) was prosecuted and imprisoned, American Medical Association (AMA) executive vice-president, Dr. James S. Todd stated that doctors were "frightened out of their wits" - they feared criminal prosecution for their medical decisions. [Nossiter A. A mistake, a rare prosecution, and a doctor is headed for jail. New York Times (Mar16)1995:front page]
According to the New York Times article, Dr. Einaugler contended that he shouldn't have been criminally prosecuted - in part because criminal prosecution of doctors is "unprecedented."
AMA general counsel Kirk Johnson (who resigned in the AMA/Sunbeam fiasco) echoed Einaugler's sentiment, telling the Times that physicians have "never before" been subject to criminal prosecution in New York; and that criminal prosecution is "extraordinarily uncommon" anywhere in the nation.
AMA executive vice-president James Todd, MD chimed in, assuring the Times that "Society has been poorly served by this decision" - doctors "traditionally" handle such matters through "peer review and malpractice," he said.
LOL!
Traditional "peer review" resulted in NO Medical Board penalty for Einaugler, because the Medical Board found that his "clear and obvious" failure to act - after subjecting his patient to an "enormous anatomical insult" - was not a "flagrant or dramatic departure from standards." (!)
FACT: MDs are a protected class - able to commit obvious (sometimes fatal) crime with impunity. To my knowledge, it isn't written anywhere that MDs are above the law. That's just the way it is. I suspect I am not the only one reading who was not aware of this. I suspect I am not the only one who (paraphrasing Steve B. Harris, MD) needs an adult to explain it.
We are a nation of "ninnies"...Paying BILLIONS to have our children abused by trusted cultural authorities called MDs.
Again, Steve B. Harris, MD may be - wittingly or unwittingly - proffering manufactured "scientific" studies to support his Hep B argumentation below.
My responses are interspersed...
in article 1123538388.713412.221560@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com at sbharris@ix.netcom.com wrote on 8/8/05 2:59 PM:
>> You snipped the bigger issue: Most African children with evidence of Hep B >> had no Hep B disease - and no (?) evidence that Hep B vaccine prevents [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), though it's indirect evidence, since > the virus takes 30-40 years or more to do this, Three medical physicians [Ganiats et al. 1993] concluded that hepatitis B vaccination failed four of five criteria - criteria which, according to Frame [1986], must be satisfied before a preventive measure is accepted as a public health measure. [Ganiats et al. Universal neonatal hepatitis B immunization - are we jumping on the bandwagon too early? J Fam Prac 1993;36(2):144-9. Citing Frame PS. A critical review of health maintenance... J Fam Pract 1986;22:341-6.]
Ganiats et al. [1993] concluded that up to 37,000 vaccinations are needed to prevent one case of hepatitis B carrier state....
Since hepatitis B carrier state ostensibly can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma, Ganiats et al. [1993] noted ("for those who believe that hepatocellular carcinoma is a valid rationale") that up to 6 million vaccinations are necessary to prevent one case of hepatocellular carcinoma....
Have the numbers changed since Ganiats et al. published in 1993?
> and so the study would > need to be a run a very long one. MDs rushed in to declare that Hep B vaccine prevents cancer.
Neither CDC nor WHO have gotten back to me regarding my request that they stop DISHONESTLY promoting hep B vaccination as having "demonstrated important benefits including the prevention of cirrhosis and cancer..." http://www.who.int/gpv-safety/hottop/hepb.htm <--URL no good anymore
> Very occasionally one sees in > children, and the rates of this have declined a great deal in countries > like Taiwan where vaccination was instituted first. Steve, you simply ignored the fact that researchers reported that African children weren't showing symptoms of Hep B disease.
How do you account for that? Did children in Taiwan show symptoms of Hep B disease?
The campaign to show that Hep B virus causes cancer seems as strange as the campaign to show that HIV causes a new disease called "AIDS."
Can it be possible that the Taiwanese children who were jabbed with Hep B vaccine did not really need to be jabbed?
Can it be possible that the Africans who recently had their penises sliced did not really need to endure the penile slicing?
In regard to the latter, it may be that MDs are slicing ADULT penises in Africa to help cover-up t
|
|