NIH-SUPPORTED AFRICAN PENIS SLICING
According to the World Health Organization,
"[T]wo further randomized controlled trials, currently ongoing in the
Rakai region of Uganda and the Kisumu region of Kenya, are supported
by the National Institutes of Health of the United States…The
current position of WHO is that safe circumcision should be provided
where people want it but that a policy decision on whether to promote
it should wait until the results of the Kenya and Uganda trials are
available."
–Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Volume 84, Number 7, July
2006, 505-588
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/7/news10706/en/
DR. GASTALDO’S PREDICTION
The NIH-supported Kenya and Uganda penis-slicing trials will confirm
what American MDs ANTI-SCIENTIFICALLY declared in 1988: Penis-slicing
prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS (California Medical Association
Resolution 305-88).
NOTE: California Medical Association Resolution 305-88 was an obvious
hoax foisted onto the American public immediately after American
medicine’s phony "babies can’t feel pain" neurology was exposed in
1987.
Soon after I exposed the phony "babies can’t feel pain" neurology and
called for an end to the obvious mass child abuse by MDs…
I CALLED FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE CHILD ABUSE LAWS FOR THE
ANCIENT JEWISH RITUAL THAT LEAVES MOST OF THE FORESKIN ON THE PENIS.
America’s pediatricians immediately called for NO religious exemptions
– and for anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse…
See HIV: Keeping MDs out of prison: Dr. Poland, AAP and infant
circumcision
revisited
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/43c7261a4aafff5a
Immediately after the phony "babies can’t feel pain" neurology was
exposed, the California Medical Association House of Delegates ignored
the CMA’s own Scientific Board and by voice vote (no science) abruptly
changed "no medical indications" mass infant penis ripping and slicing
into "an effective public health measure" – "confirmed" in Africa to
prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS.
Immediately after that, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP (led by
California physician Edgar Schoen, MD) did a year long "potential
medical indications" song and dance for the media that created
headlines suggesting that AAP was now promoting the mass infant penis
ripping and slicing…
But there was no science so AAP issued a clarification:
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
Simply stopping the obvious mass child abuse would have been
tantamount to admitting it. THAT’S why the CMA ignored its own
Scientific Board and why AAP created/stimulated those bogus AAP pro-
circumcision headlines that had to be corrected.
American MDs wanted to stay out of prison.
American MDs STILL want to stay out of prison: They desperately need
a medical indication for their obvious "babies can’t feel pain" mass
child abuse.
The NIH-supported Kenya and Uganda penis-slicing trials will offer
American MDs a WHO-rubberstamped retroactive "medical indication" to
help keep them out of prison for their ongoing mass infant penis
ripping and slicing crime.
See again: HIV: Keeping MDs out of prison: Dr. Poland, AAP and infant
circumcision
revisited
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/43c7261a4aafff5a
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
t…@chiromotion.com
PS According to a WHO PRESS RELEASE – March 28, 2007:
"WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on
male circumcision for HIV prevention…Based on the evidence
presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending
the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized
as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of
heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men…There is now strong
evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu,
Kenya; Rakai District, Uganda (funded by the US National Institutes of
Health); and Orange Farm, South Africa (funded by the French National
Agency for Research on AIDS) that male circumcision reduces the risk
of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html
The WHO and UNAIDS experts likely did not include the fact that
American MDs stand to go to prison for their phony "babies can’t feel
pain" neurology and mass infant penis ripping and slicing. Failure to
disclose obvious bias renders the WHO and UNAIDS-convened experts’
recommendation highly suspect.
Hopefully WHO will publicize other obvious MD crimes being committed
against babies – like MDs senselessly closing birth canals up to 30%
and senselessly robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume.
See Infant penis ripping, vaccination and breastfeeding
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/3213d1e144c9b801
I will email the WHO and UNAIDS contacts offered at the end of the
above mentioned WHO press release…
In Paris:
WHO
Anne Winter
Mobile: +41 79 440 6011
E-mail: wint…@who.int
In Geneva:
WHO
Iqbal Nandra
Tel.: +41 22 791 5589
Mobile: +41 79 509 0622
E-mail: nand…@who.int
UNAIDS
Yasmine Topor
Tel.: +41 22 791 3501
Mobile: +41 76 512 8853
E-mail: top…@unaids.org
ONE LAST NOTE
I want to thank the pseudonymous Ruppert Bear for his most recent ad
hominem attack wherein he called my attention to the recent WHO/UNAIDS-
convened experts report.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/a0f3000a4f9c0e70
Sadly, Ruppert Bear changed my meaning by strategically snipping; so
here is the URL for that post: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/3213d1e144c9b801
Ruppert is so focused on promoting mass infant penis ripping and
slicing that he too ignores the obvious potential for bias due to
potential MD imprisonment for phony "babies can’t feel pain" neurology
and ongoing mass infant penis ripping and slicing.
As always, I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical
students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
The mass infant penis ripping and slicing felony – grisly as it is –
is relatively minor mass child abuse relative to the mass birth-canal-
closing and mass baby blood robbery felonies that Ruppert Bear
ignored.
See again the post Ruppert Bear strategically snipped: Infant penis
ripping, vaccination and breastfeeding
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/3213d1e144c9b801
Again thanks for reading everyone.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
t…@chiromotion.com
This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet
archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "NIH-supported African
penis slicing: Dr. Gastaldo’s prediction"
Dynamic Chiropractic
February 7, 2000, Volume 18, Issue 04
The Cost of Voicing "Opinions" on the Internet
Court Orders DC to Pay $25,000 in Damages
The internet is a marvel. It allows people everywhere to enter chat
rooms, bulletin boards and list servers and "speak one’s mind." While
there is a certain feeling of anonymity and an "anything goes"
atmosphere in the cyber realm, it is an environment where one comment on
a single email can, for instance, be replicated and re-emailed to a few
people or even millions of people around the world in seconds.
This revolutionary technology is taking free speech to a new level. Yes,
you can say anything you want on the internet, but just as in any other
context of communicating with our fellow terrestrials, you may pay the
consequences for what you say.
What some people apparently are failing to comprehend is that presenting
your opinions in a chat room, on a bulletin board or an email list is
not like shooting the breeze with friends or new acquaintances at a
party. Everything displayed on any aspect of the Web is documented,
recorded and reproducible. It is the electronic equivalent of
publishing, not talking. All of the liabilities of slander and
defamation are in full force.
Todd Gastaldo,DC, just learned that lesson the hard way. Dr. Gastaldo
made comments about Michael Schroeder, an attorney who worked for the
California Chiropractic Association. Apparently assuming he was safe to
say anything on the Web, Dr. Gastaldo made this comment on Chiro-List, a
chiropractic email discussion list:
"…Mr. Schroeder bilked $800,000 in DC licensing fees when he jumped
from CCA to the Chiro. Licensing Board…"
Legally, slander of someone’s trade or business carries with it damages
that are assumed by the court. As an attorney, Mr. Schroeder knew Dr.
Gastaldo’s false comments were actionable. He demanded a retraction and
public apology. When Dr. Gastaldo did not meet that demand, Mr.
Schroeder filed a lawsuit in California, initially seeking $500,000 in
compensatory damages, and later requesting an additional $500,000 in
punitive damages.
Dr. Gastaldo, a resident of Oregon, asked the court to move the venue to
Oregon "to make for the fairest trial possible." The venue question was
interesting because of the global aspect of the internet. The judge
reasoned that because the comments were made on a chiropractic
discussion list, and at least twice as many chiropractors live in
California than in any other state in the country, that California was
the appropriate venue for the trial.
Not successful in getting the trial moved to Oregon, Dr. Gastaldo simply
failed to respond to the lawsuit. This gave Mr. Schroeder a victory by
default, although Mr. Schroeder still had to demonstrate to the court
that he had suffered damages.
Perhaps the only good news for Dr. Gastaldo is the challenge the court
faced in determining who and how many people read the comment, whether
on the post or via email. On January 5, 2000, Mr. Schroeder was awarded
$25,000 in damages (that’s almost $1,400 per word of Dr. Gastaldo’s
defamatory comment), plus court costs of $192.
Now begins the process of filing the judgment in Oregon in order to have
the right to recover his damages. Once Mr. Schroeder does that, he can
seek damages from Dr. Gastaldo’s bank accounts, put liens on any real
property (such as his home), and garnish his wages until the $25,192
judgment is paid in full.
We don’t image that this case is the first lawsuit against a DC spawned
by comments made on the Web, but it should help remind doctors who post
messages and sent emails that the liabilities are quite real. There are
at least two ways to protect yourself. Discuss issues, not people. And
if you want to talk about people, purchase a minimum of $5 million of
liability insurance specifically for the internet.