Posted: July 27th, 2015 | Author: admin | Filed under: Babies, Circumcision, Foreskin, Speaking out | No Comments »
What do atheists say about circumcision?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali…
“The foreskin is cut off the penis. That’s a form of mutilation. You should leave the child as he is, as he comes out of the womb. Hes finished, hes complete. You shouldn’t take things off, especially when there’s no medical reason. I think male circumcision is worse than an incision of a girl. With boys, a lot of skin is removed. The consequences can be worse for boys than for girls.”
“I also survived circumcision, a barbaric practice designed to remind you as early as possible that your genitals are not your own.”
“Creator of the Universe went to great trouble to create the foreskin. Then insisted that you cut it off. Makes sense.”
“If circumcision has any justification AT ALL, it should be medical only. Parents’ religion is the worst of all reasons –– pure child abuse.”
“Handed a small baby for the first time, is it your first reaction to think, beautiful, almost perfect, now please hand me the sharp stone for its genitalia.”
“I can’t find the compulsory mutilation of the genitals of children a subject for humor… It’s designed to repress sexual pleasure… The full excision, not just the snip but the full mandatory covenant is fantastically painful, leads to trauma, leads to the dulling of the sexual relationship. And can be, in itself life-threatening at that moment. We have records, I can show them to you, of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds in the United States of boy babies who died or had life-threatening infections as a result of this disgusting practice.”
“The vast majority of the world knows there’s no reason to circumcise. Someone should tell the doctors.”
Penn & Teller…
“Shouldn’t our son have the choice whether he wants to wear a condom or cut off part of his dick? Put down the knife. Step away from the baby.”
“People mutilate their kids dicks because of visuals. That’s what circumcision is about. Look, Im circumcised, I didn’t ask to be. I’m sure a lot of you are circumcised. I’m sure a lot of you circumcised your kids. When you really stop and think about it, its kinda fuckin’ crazy… I would never circumcise my kid.”
“I think its stupid. If I had a boy I wouldn’t circumcise him… I got robbed. I got robbed. Sliced. I think its a fuckin’ gross tradition man… I just think its a weird fuckin’ tradition that we need to end. People get like, really bad infections. Its not completely innocuous – kids have lost their penises because of circumcision… It’s a dick it’s not a Jack-O-Lantern alright? You don’t have to chop parts off of it to make it look better.”
“I am circumcised, and I tell you something, I despise it. I despise it. I despise it… I am completely pissed off that Im circumcised.”
via Famous Atheist Quotes on Circumcision – The WHOLE Network: Accurate Circumcision & Foreskin Information.
Posted: July 26th, 2015 | Author: admin | Filed under: Children, Circumcision, Foreskin | No Comments »
What do Winnie the Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? (See Footnote 1, below.)
What do the tonsils, appendix and foreskin have in common?
Cutting the tonsils, appendix and foreskin from infants and children was high fashion in the 1950’s and 1960’s (as were hysterectomies for women). If a child had a history of too many sore throats, tonsils and adenoids were removed; if a child had a sore abdomen, the appendix was removed. If the child was born with male genitals, the foreskin was removed – and other parts were also cut from the genitalia of girls. “If in doubt, cut it out.”
Tonsils and appendixes usually were removed because they were considered to be diseased. Sometimes, however, they were removed to “prevent” them from becoming diseased. People figured nature had made careless errors when designing an otherwise amazingly brilliant machine.
One young boy I knew came home with an appendectomy. I asked why. He said his mom had taken him to the emergency room for a tummy ache. “What did you have for lunch?” I asked him. When he began to recount the food he had eaten before his surgery, it was obvious to me that he had suffered from severe gas in his intestines. His lunch with a friend had consisted of several bologna sandwiches, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches – all on white bread – that he had washed down with several glasses of lemonade. Jeez! I’d’ve had a tummy ache too – Wouldn’t you? But the doctor had neglected to ask. He just cut.
Then someone determined that the tonsils and appendix have important immune system functions. So a huge number of children who are now adults lost valuable parts of their bodies due to lack of that important understanding. Deficient in insight and wisdom, many members of the medical profession just cut and cut and cut. Tonsils and appendixes are now removed only in severe medical conditions.
Nature was vindicated. Fashion changed and American doctors no longer routinely performed tonsillectomies and appendectomies. Good riddance! Foreskins are still cut because they are still considered to be nature’s little mistake.
In the Victorian age, when puritanical values ruled, people thought it was risqué to show an ankle and pornography was hard to come by. No good American dared to speak of the penis or its foreskin except in hushed tones to a medical doctor. Doctors claimed they had found the solution to masturbation. They then declared that masturbation was the cause of a plethora of diseases. They began a war on male and female genitalia – healthy genitalia.
In 1888, John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., inventor of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, wrote in his Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects:
A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision… the operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice [masturbation], and if it had not previously become so firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him more cunning in his vice. (See footnote 2.)
In short, “Let’s discourage masturbation/pleasure with pain.” Circumcision has been a cruel and unsuccessful experiment. We now know full well that it didn’t work. One survey shows that men without foreskins masturbate more frequently and participate in more dangerous sexual activities (oral and anal) than those with foreskins. And yet both the good Doctor Kellogg’s cruel circumcision recommendation – and breakfast cereal – “stuck” in the public’s mind.
After the fear of masturbation became a less compelling reason to cut children’s private parts, the medical industry would still not let go of the practice, as it was so profitable. Since Kellogg’s time, claim after claim, excuse after excuse has contributed to holding the circumcision door open, In the 1970’s nearly every boy in America lost his foreskin. Unfortunately, most trusting American parents are glued to the “circumcision is good for you” sales pitch. They think of circumcision as a surgical panacea for what ails you. In truth, each and every attempt to justify the routine circumcision of infants has been disproved and discarded. Still, they test the waters, blaming every possible physical, mental and emotional aberration on genitals as nature made them.
Doctors continue to circumcise little babies for a few main reasons:
- They are business people who have bills to pay and circumcision is a quick snip, an easy buck – that unfortunately causes a lifetime of sexual dissatisfaction for the adult and his partner.
- They have not yet been educated in the important functions of the foreskin.
- They haven’t yet realized their legal liability. The American Medical Association (AMA) has warned its members to “take the high road of ethics,” but it has not yet warned them of the legal ticking time bomb inherent in this deceptively simple, profitable, profoundly abusive, non-medical procedure.
- They have not listened to their patients (the babies) as they scream, “No!” at the top of their lungs.
- They have not listened to their own hearts as their tiny patients scream, “No!”
Tonsils and appendices were finally determined to have important immune system functions, so they are now usually spared the knife. But foreskins are still routinely removed, even though they are healthy human tissue. Studies by Taylor and Cold reveal that the foreskin provides important immune system functions, as well as the tonsils and appendices. If you can teach an old doctor new tricks, perhaps there’s hope for the survival of future foreskins.
In the meanwhile, parents might want to practice saying, “Thank you, but no thank you,” to all their friends, family members and medical personnel who press for circumcision. And once the foreskin has been saved from the human tissue sales industry, you may also need to explain to doctors and nurses that it’s not ok to retract the foreskin – Let Junior do that for himself, in his own time. Foreskin retraction is dangerous, malpractice and should be pursued as such if the M.D. or nurse manages to do the deed. What is it about these people and babies’ genitals?
1. What do Winnie the Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? They have the same middle name.
2. Kellogg, John Harvey. Plain Facts for old and young: Embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life. I.F. Senger & Co., Burlington, Iowa, 1891, p.111.
Posted: July 8th, 2015 | Author: admin | Filed under: Dentistry, Health, Teeth | Comments Off on Root canal procedure risks exposed
Excerpts from a very important article about a subject that most people have not considered. A friend of mine, years ago immediately went to the dentist to have a root canal extracted, once he discovered this information about root canals. The “first principles” can be applied to many other medical procedures – circumcision and vaccinations, surgery, radiation and pharmaceutical drugs.
“The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
How do we decide what is correct and what is false in medicine and dentistry? In other words, how do we decide who or what to believe when it comes to healthcare, integrative or Western medicine? With so many opposing points of view on the same health topic how do we know which one to believe?
If you are more inclined to prefer a more natural approach to medicine does that mean discarding everything that allopathic medicine has to offer? Conversely, if one chooses to follow a predominately mainstream medicine approach, then should all natural alternatives be discarded as useless? Naturally, the answer is, ‘of course not.’ There are good and bad in both camps. But how do you distinguish the good from the bad – the correct from incorrect?
How to protect your health by using ‘first principles’
You do this by first distilling any conclusion down to the fundamental principles upon which the conclusion is based and reason up from there. When either accepting or challenging current belief systems, it is imperative that all reasoning and conclusions be drawn from the level of established science, and not on assumptions, preconceived prejudices, or analogy. This is the concept of first principles. Fundamental truths upon which any hypothesis or theory is based must conform to both rational consistency and empirical observation. Any deviation from these principles will often lead to false conclusions.
If any of the parameters upon which a theory is based fails to conform to both rational consistency and empirical observation, then this theory must be discarded as incorrect.
So what does that mean? It means that all conclusions must be first based on rational consistency of what can be possible as defined by the accepted laws of physics, chemistry and biology. That doesn’t mean that it is possible, only that it can be possible. Is it rational? Can it happen? If so, then the first condition of establishing correctness is satisfied. If not, then we can immediately dismiss it as incorrect…
Applying first principles to a root canal procedure and risk analysis
So how do we apply this to our analysis of the risks involved with root canal-treated teeth?
Currently accepted beliefs and accepted truths, such as the American Association of Endodontists (Dentists who specialize in performing root canals) assertion that root canal teeth cannot cause or contribute to systemic disease and do not leak bacteria and toxins systemically, must be distilled to the first principles upon which this claim is based.
We first must define all of the properties of root canal teeth. Then, we can ask the question on how these objective properties of root canal teeth relate to known biological and physical principles. We continue the analysis from the ground up until we reach a logical conclusion. Then, we test this conclusion with direct observation.
Let’s look at the role of root canal teeth and heart disease. It has been established that a main driving factor in cardiovascular disease and heart attack is inflammation and the resulting damage to the lining of the coronary artery (endothelium). We know that infection and bacterial toxins are one source of this inflammation and endothelial damage. But, how does a root canal contribute to cardiovascular disease?
It is established that all root canals remain infected and become more infected over time. The American Dental Association has acknowledged this. It is also true that these bacteria produce potent exotoxins. Dr. Boyd Haley has demonstrated the presence of potent toxins leaching directly out from the root canal tooth root.
The untold truth about a root canal procedure
The American Association of Endodontists states that toxins are not released from root canal teeth. It claims that both bacteria and toxins that are inside the tooth remain “entombed” within the tooth and that they do not travel systemically to other sites in the body. And if bacteria do make their way out of a root canal tooth this organization further asserts that the infection will remain local and not travel to distant sites in the body…
- All root canal teeth remain infected and become more infected over time.
- Pathogenic bacteria inside the root canal-treated tooth produce potent exotoxins that leak out of the tooth and travel systemically.
- Bacteria inside the root canal tooth leak out of the tooth into the adjacent bone and can travel to distant sites of the body.
- The immune system does not always eliminate these pathogenic bacteria.
- Bacteria from root canal-treated teeth have been found in distant sites of the body such as coronary artery plaque, pericardial fluid in coronary diseases patients, and in ruptured cerebral aneurysms. This has been positively confirmed by documenting the presence of the DNA unique to root canal pathogens at these sites.
By using first principles analysis, we can conclude that root canal teeth do spread both bacteria and bacteria-produced exotoxins systemically throughout the body, and that these toxins and bacteria may cause or contribute to a variety of systemic diseases.
About the author: Dr. Kulacz had extensive training in implant dentistry through the Brookdale Hospital implant training mini residency and placed many implants during the first half of his private practice career. The second half of his career was entirely devoted to the surgical treatment of root canal extractions and cavitations. Dr. Kulacz continues to do research on the oral/systemic connection. His website is Coletrex.com. His latest book, The Toxic Tooth: How a Root Canal Could Be Making You Sick, co-authored with Thomas E. Levy, MD is available through MedFox publishing at ToxicTooth.com – See more at: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/western-medicine-root-canal-procedure-1481.html#sthash.jelej7dO.dpuf
Read much more at Root canal procedure risks exposed