The Truth About Vaccines and Modern Medicine
Your Subtitle text
Circumcision/ CDC Info
There is yet a new storm brewing, in their medical monopoly world. The CDC, is again - up to their well known games and tricks! Guess what it is, this time?
After years of the public being falsely told that circumcision prevented urinary tract infections, UTI's, and rare penile cancer, (and millions of circumcisions being nearly routine); the Academy of Pediatrics (years later) changed their standing, finally admiting that the former studies were flawed and poorly conducted. Changes in policy were made that it was not supported; and that it, this, was since then, a non-medically supported parental choice. Now since, the CDC has attempted to change that; claiming studies done in Africa show that having a male foreskin increases the incidence of transmission of female to male, HIV. As if they haven't done enough damage - with the endless added vaccinations.
---------------------
Sign the petition to the CDC.
Newborn male circumcision is the most common surgical procedure performed in the U.S. Many people believe that there are tangible health benefits to male circumcision but, the truth is no medical society in the world recommends it. In fact, the American Medical Association calls the surgery "non-therapeutic." What's worse, over 100 babies die as a result of complications from circumcision in the U.S. each year.
Sign on here.
Should we be having to do this at all? If the whole program wasn't corrupted by improper motives?
---------------------
Sign the petition to the CDC.
Newborn male circumcision is the most common surgical procedure performed in the U.S. Many people believe that there are tangible health benefits to male circumcision but, the truth is no medical society in the world recommends it. In fact, the American Medical Association calls the surgery "non-therapeutic." What's worse, over 100 babies die as a result of complications from circumcision in the U.S. each year.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is developing public health recommendations for the U.S. on male circumcision – ignoring the serious risks such as hemorrhage, infection, surgical mishap, and death – in favor of highly debatable and inconclusive research.
The CDC is the foremost expert on public health in our country and, as such, has a responsibility to share the truth about circumcision.
I just took action, signing a petition to the CDC, demanding the organization release a truthful statement on the harms and risks of circumcision.
If you believe as I do, that we should protect newborn babies from harmful and unnecessary surgery, then join me by clicking the link below:
Sign on here.
http://www.intactamerica.org
---------------------------------
And here to, to sign the petition to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
American parents trust their pediatricians and rely on them for the best advice in caring for their children. As a matter of ethics, that advice cannot include neonatal male circumcision - a medically unnecessary, potentially risky surgery that no major medical authority in the world recommends.
That is why I am asking the committee charged with reviewing the American Academy of Pediatrics' current neutral position on infant circumcision NOT to revise that position in favor of the surgery. Further, I ask you to take an ethical stand against the removal of a healthy, functioning body part - the prepuce, or foreskin - from non-consenting newborn babies.
The United States is the only western nation today where doctors routinely circumcise infant boys in medical settings. Although the rate has fallen from above 90 percent 30 years ago to below 60 percent today, more than one million American babies still undergo the surgery every year to the tune of one billion dollars in health-care spending.
Now, based on studies conducted among adults in sub-Saharan Africa that found reduced transmission of HIV from women to men (though not from men to women, nor men to men), some are suggesting that the AAP should recommend circumcision for all newborn males in the United States.
Doctors have a responsibility to tell parents the truth: circumcision does not prevent disease. Most European nations, with circumcision rates near zero, have lower HIV/AIDS rates than the United States. Circumcision rates in America do not correlate with HIV rates in any ethnic population or geographical region.
Furthermore, circumcision has significant risks, including infection, bleeding, impairment of sexual function, and even death. Earlier this year, an Atlanta family was awarded $2.3 million because a physician accidentally amputated much of a baby's penis during a "routine" hospital circumcision. A Canadian baby bled to death in 2004, after being circumcised in a British Columbia hospital. In 2008, a baby from South Dakota bled to death, and his parents have filed suit against the hospital where he was circumcised, as well as the doctor who performed the surgery.
Infrequent though complications may be, because the surgery is performed on healthy babies who have no need for it, each injury and each death is utterly indefensible. And even an "uncomplicated" infant circumcision permanently removes healthy functional tissue from a person who did not consent to it.
Growing numbers of medical professionals and expectant parents are saying "No" to infant circumcision. I urge the AAP's committee charged with reviewing circumcision policy, as well as all pediatricians, to make the same decision on behalf of the babies who are their patients.
Thank you for your time and attention to this serious matter.
Sincerely,
Sign on here.
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5922/t/6483/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2396---------------------------------
And here to, to sign the petition to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
American parents trust their pediatricians and rely on them for the best advice in caring for their children. As a matter of ethics, that advice cannot include neonatal male circumcision - a medically unnecessary, potentially risky surgery that no major medical authority in the world recommends.
That is why I am asking the committee charged with reviewing the American Academy of Pediatrics' current neutral position on infant circumcision NOT to revise that position in favor of the surgery. Further, I ask you to take an ethical stand against the removal of a healthy, functioning body part - the prepuce, or foreskin - from non-consenting newborn babies.
The United States is the only western nation today where doctors routinely circumcise infant boys in medical settings. Although the rate has fallen from above 90 percent 30 years ago to below 60 percent today, more than one million American babies still undergo the surgery every year to the tune of one billion dollars in health-care spending.
Now, based on studies conducted among adults in sub-Saharan Africa that found reduced transmission of HIV from women to men (though not from men to women, nor men to men), some are suggesting that the AAP should recommend circumcision for all newborn males in the United States.
Doctors have a responsibility to tell parents the truth: circumcision does not prevent disease. Most European nations, with circumcision rates near zero, have lower HIV/AIDS rates than the United States. Circumcision rates in America do not correlate with HIV rates in any ethnic population or geographical region.
Furthermore, circumcision has significant risks, including infection, bleeding, impairment of sexual function, and even death. Earlier this year, an Atlanta family was awarded $2.3 million because a physician accidentally amputated much of a baby's penis during a "routine" hospital circumcision. A Canadian baby bled to death in 2004, after being circumcised in a British Columbia hospital. In 2008, a baby from South Dakota bled to death, and his parents have filed suit against the hospital where he was circumcised, as well as the doctor who performed the surgery.
Infrequent though complications may be, because the surgery is performed on healthy babies who have no need for it, each injury and each death is utterly indefensible. And even an "uncomplicated" infant circumcision permanently removes healthy functional tissue from a person who did not consent to it.
Growing numbers of medical professionals and expectant parents are saying "No" to infant circumcision. I urge the AAP's committee charged with reviewing circumcision policy, as well as all pediatricians, to make the same decision on behalf of the babies who are their patients.
Thank you for your time and attention to this serious matter.
Sincerely,
Sign on here.
Should we be having to do this at all? If the whole program wasn't corrupted by improper motives?
---------------------
HIV AIDS PUBLIC HEALTH REGION NORTH AMERICA SCIENCE CDC May Recommend Routine Circumcision. Contentious procedure reduces HIV transmission.
Circumcision: Change in medical opinion possible, Medical groups may recommend procedure on boys, but opponents say benefits exaggerated.
The Case Against the Case Against Circumcision. (Here it discusses the African studies).
[MSNBC - Video link below], the CDC is now considering - recomending and advocating circumcision for every male infant in the US, claiming it to prevent transmission of HIV, based on a study in Africa. Just HOW in the would you do a study like that? (That will be answered below, on the page).
Link.
CDC- document. In the document below it also quotes (a few said very limited supporting studies, in the US).
Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk.
Here in this article it shows they even involved and acquired the Cochrane Collaboration Data reviews, as support. Yet the CDC refuses to allow that same data base to evaluate their flu and other vaccines, as a bases to show they are near worthless; if not entirely worthless. There has to be a rationale for injecting toxic substances to make you healthy; but you can scratch your head forever CDC, beyond the decades you already have, and never find it, nor the rationale for whole scale circumcision. It's the same rationale used for irradiating women's breasts and clamping them in a vise, and claiming it finds all the cancer, so you can irradiate and poison them again and call it a cure? Mammograms were outdated years ago; in its place is now the better form of detection, Thermography. Why am I still seeing that pink bus driving by; and the ACS adds? The soil and the seed concept was in the original health care plan, decades ago; what happened to that? And darkfield blood microscopy; I bet there is no use for that anymore; not when you refuse to look at any cause of disease? If that Rockefeller dude was still riding around in his wagon, instead of bottles of strained and altered crude oil; he would be selling Liptor and Viagra; and it would be the same snake oil medicine. Go to the History of Medicine pages and find out if that is truth? :)
So in other words; if at the CDC - that change happens - EVERY pediatrician and doctor in the country will be going back to again recommending them, (circumcisions); and by set policy; with no regard to nor for the rights of the child nor as they become an adult. As well, nor will any truth be put forth to the parents, about the risks, nor anything else. THAT "anything else", I am going to outline quite well, later on this page, and detail EXACTLY what that is!
--------------
If you THINK you CAN trust those said African circumcision studies, I suggest you read this article below, and which details how they were done!!! (There is a link to the pdf file in that article, and on that study as well). No conflict of interest, ever?
Effect of Male Circumcision on HIV Incidence (ANRS 1265)
Male Circumcision and the HIV/AIDS Myth.
The World Health Organization got behind this immediately, and the WHO's HIV/AIDS Department director, Dr. Kevin De Cock (yes, that's his real name) stated unequivocally that circumcision would give a significant "additional benefit" to men trying to avoid HIV infection.
So how do you go about conducting a randomized, controlled intervention trial looking at HIV infection in circumcised adult men? Probably not the way that these researchers did.
First, to be included in the study, men had to be HIV-negative and uncircumcised. The men also had to consent to "avoid sexual contact (except with condom protection) during the 6 weeks following the medicalized circumcision."
The experimental group which underwent the circumcisions was given the following instructions:
"When you are circumcised you will be asked to have no sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery. To have sexual contact before your skin of your penis is completely healed, could lead to infection if your partner is infected with a sexually transmitted disease... If you desire to have sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery, despite our recommendation, it is absolutely essential that you use a condom."
So the males in the study that underwent circumcision were not only told to abstain from sex for a significant time period after the operation -- reducing their exposure time by six weeks compared to the uncircumcised (control) group -- but told to use condoms, taught how to use them, and educated about their benefits. During this six week period, the men in the uncircumcised group did not have the same restrictions.
There also doesn't seem to be any mention of the researchers calling up the circumcised men after six weeks to say, "Okay, time's up. Ease up on the condom use from here on." The possibility that many of these men might have become accustomed to using condoms, armed with knowledge about their benefits, didn't seem to be much of a concern.
Also, other routes of HIV transmission like blood transfusion, IV needle sharing, or a dentist with dirty instruments (not unimaginable in Africa) don't seem to have been taken into account. Individual variables like hygiene were also poorly controlled for.
Casting further doubt on the theory that circumcision prevents HIV transmission is a simple look at the prevalence of circumcision and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in different parts of the world.
As a continent, Africa has the highest percentage of circumcised men, over 60%. Africa also has -- as most people know -- the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS, with South Africa housing the world's largest HIV-infected population. In countries like Nigeria and Kenya, (the latter being one of the countries where the study was conducted) over 80% of males are circumcised, yet they contain the second and fourth largest HIV-infected populations in the world respectively.
Among industrialized nations, the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS is in the United States, which has the 10th largest HIV-positive population in the world. And yes, the USA also ranks number one among all industrialized nations in its number and percentage of circumcised men: 56% as of 2003, compared to countries in Europe, where circumcision is markedly less common -- as is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS.
Finally, let's address a question that seems to have been largely overlooked: what about the women?
Well, last month, The Lancet -- which refused to publish the male circumcision trials due to certain ethical concerns -- published a study led by Dr. Maria Wawer at the Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, concluding that circumcising men did not reduce HIV transmission to their female partners.
Read the complete article here.
Also go here below, and then realize how badly we have been lied to AGAIN, and with the true fallacy of what these said studies have put forward.
Dr. Dean Edell (video) on Circumcision and HIV; plus numerous fact information articles/studies.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision HIV Statement.
---------------------
Just like the HPV vaccine Gardasil rant, one less! Look what we now know about that! It was all BS! Now we have Gardasil deaths and endless permanent unrecovered from outcomes. Go to my Gardasil page, as well as the Vax Damage Proof page.
---------------------
More studies.
Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial.
Background
Observational studies have reported an association between male circumcision and reduced risk of HIV infection in female partners. We assessed whether circumcision in HIV-infected men would reduce transmission of the virus to female sexual partners.
Interpretation
Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed. Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention.
Here's a Johns Hopkins study that said women in Rwanda were more likely to get HIV if their partners WERE circumcised! National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team.
Here's a study (below), that even claims female circumcision reduced incidents of HIV infection.
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?
1ORC Macro, Calverton Maryland, United States of America, 2National Bureau of Statistics, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania
Circumcision cuts men's HIV risk but raises women's?
Circumcision Doesn't Protect Gays From AIDS Virus.Large US study finds circumcision doesn't protect gay men from AIDS virus
Study Finds Male Circumcision Does Not Shield Woman From HIV. (That reason, would and should be obvious).
--------------
Again, here are the petitions!!!
TELL THE CDC CIRCUMCISING BABIES DOES NOT PREVENT HIV - INTACT AMERICA – WWW.INTACTAMERICA.ORG –
The petition: URGES THE CDC TO STUDY THE RISKS AND ETHICS BEFORE RECOMMENDING NEONATAL MALE CIRCUMCISION. MEDICAL ETHICS, HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUE STUDIES OF ADULT MEN IN AFRICA CANNOT BE EXTRAPOLATED TO INFANTS IN AMERICA ON THE CHANCE THEY WILL ENGAGE IN UNSAFE BEHAVIOR DECADES LATER.
The petition: URGES THE CDC TO STUDY THE RISKS AND ETHICS BEFORE RECOMMENDING NEONATAL MALE CIRCUMCISION. MEDICAL ETHICS, HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUE STUDIES OF ADULT MEN IN AFRICA CANNOT BE EXTRAPOLATED TO INFANTS IN AMERICA ON THE CHANCE THEY WILL ENGAGE IN UNSAFE BEHAVIOR DECADES LATER.
http://www.intactamerica.org/
Thank you. Some little boy is going to appreciate that; and some later day as well.
Sign on here as well, A.C.P send.
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5922/t/6483/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2396Thank you. Some little boy is going to appreciate that; and some later day as well.
----------------
Status of CDC Male Circumcision Recommendations. Aug. 27, 2009 (No decsision at that time; is said still under consideration).
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions: Implications for the United States.
Excerpt. In 2005, men who have sex with men (MSM) (48%), MSM who also inject drugs (4%), and men (11%) and women (21%) exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact accounted for an estimated 84% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in U.S.
----------------------------------------------
Open Letter To The Academy of Pediatrics.
Sign the Petition, (to oppose and not allow the CDC to continue to advocate for this said decision).
Intact America - Say NO to circumcision.
Info Flyer.
Pamphlets and Handouts.
Anatomy of a Circumcision. What, precisely, does the procedure entail?
Read more: Anatomy of a Circumcision -- New York Magazine
How Much Does It Hurt?
(Local anethetics are sometimes now used, but the truth is that the shot is painful in itself and does not entirely block the pain, due to location; it doesn't work).
If you would wonder why?
Would You Circumcise This Baby? Why a growing number of parents, especially in New York and other cities, are saying no to the procedure.
Read more: Why a Growing Number of Parents Are Saying No to Circumcision -- New York Magazine http://nymag.com/health/
10 Reasons NOT to Circumcise Your Baby Boy
Informational Flyers.
THE FACTS BEHIND CIRCUMCISION
Care Guide for Parents.
Resources.
------------
How Male Circumcision Impacts Your Love Life
by Dr. Christine Northrup (2004)
Effects of Male Circumcision on Female Arousal and Orgasm
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009
Male Circumcision Hurts Women
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009
Improve Marital Sex: Keep the Foreskins
by Dr. Dean Edell
Circumcision Myths
External Links
25 Reasons Not to Circumcise.
Anatomy of the Penis, Mechanics of Intercourse.
Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction
The human foreskin is highly innervated,5 21 29 and vascularized29 sensitive erogenous tissue.6 29 It plays an important role in normal human sexual response and is necessary for normal copulatory behavior.40 An understanding of this role is now emerging in the scientific literature. Removal of the foreskin (circumcision) interferes with normal sexual function.
Circumcision Reference Library.
Circumcision Deaths. The reality of the carnage! Multiple references to allot of information, here.
Chapter Six: Long-Term Adverse Effects of Circumcision
Chapter Four: The Immediate Complications of Circumcision
Chapter Eleven: Medical Ethics and the Circumcision of Children
Who's Body Who's Rights.
Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association (9/12/2003) Vol 116: No.1181 s
Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009
A Change in How Intercourse Works
The following is an excerpt from the National Organization of Circumcision Information & Resource Centers, Colorado site.
Sexual Effects of Circumcision.
Links to other sites.
38 reasons NOT to circumcise.
JUDGEMENT OF INQUIRY
INTO THE DEATH OF
McWILLIS[,] RYLEIGH ROMAN BRYAN
Death From Circumcision.
AUTOPSY FINDINGS.
PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, pp. 686-693
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Circumcision Policy Statement
Medical Statements on Circumcision
No national or international medical organization in the world recommends newborn circumcision.
In order to justify newborn circumcision, the overall medical benefits sought must outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure, it must be the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits, and the benefits must be necessary to the well-being of the child. Newborn circumcision fails all of these tests.
British Medical Association:
BMA: The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors (2006)
"The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view."
Doctors Opposing Circumcision.
Doctors Opposing Circumcision Genital Integrity Policy Statement.
Further information.
Publications - Doctors Opposing Circumcision publishes leaflets in PDF files, which may be downloaded, printed, photocopied, folded, and used as handouts. The two pages of the leaflet should be printed on opposite sides of one sheet of paper.
The Prepuce: A D.O.C. video
An explanation of embryonic development, and further reasons to oppose circumcision.
Nurses for the Rights of the Child.
Foreskin Curriculum, for everyone studying the healing arts.
----------------
Tight: A circumcision (whether "high" or "low") is called "tight" when the penis's owner has more of his skin and mucosa taken from him. Tight circumcisions are likely to cause painful erections (maybe even tearing at the scar) and draw the pubic hair up the shaft.
Like THIS! (Picture link below). How many guys do we have like that? Note: These links may not be active; if not you may have go to the site and get them directly.
Amazing.
High: A circumcision is called "high" when more shaft-skin and less mucosa is removed. This leaves the scar relatively high up the flaccid penis when its owner is standing up. Compared to a low one, this has the advantage of leaving the penis' owner with more of his frenulum, though it is probably done to remove all folds. Methods that involve drawing the foreskin forward before cutting it, such as clamp methods, all produce a high result. The terms "high" and "low" describe a different variation from "loose" and "tight". Apart from those concerned about the nature of the damage they've sustained, the terminology is mainly of interest to circumfetishists.
Picture of high circumcision
Picture of low circumcision
--------------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009.
The Foreskins in Oprah's Facecream, FOR REAL! (The true ignorance and lunacy of our society, on parade, right here)!
Male Genital Mutilation/MGM (Male Circumcision).
Peaceful Parenting.
MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision.
Deciding Whether or Not to Circumcise Your Baby Boy.
by Dr. Sears. Explanation of the former false medical dogma, and factual truth.
Male Circumcision in the USA.
Hanny Lightfoot-Klein-Advocate for personal rights.
Gliding action
Death By Circumcision.
Explore the Wiki- articles.
Banners
Also go to the Circumcision Facts page.
Painful needless sexual mutilation of an infant that God made perfect, is NOT medicine! Did they not do enough harm all those years it was recommended, based on sham and faulty science, that it prevented urinary tract infections, etc.? Now it's just," TRUST US", again?!
How's all that sitting with YOU? Mad yet? Tired of the lies and BS yet? "First do no harm", again, means about as much to these people, as a dried up flying turd - in a dirt storm.
________________________
