edwino,
> OK Jack. Here is all it takes. I’ll do you a favor. Here is a nice, balanced discussion in a peer reviewed journal. <
There can be no "balanced discussion" on circumcision because no one has ever studied the physiology of the foreskin. All that can happen under the best circumstances is a balanced discussion of the experimental results of having amputated a lot of foreskins. You're mixing apples and oranges.
> It comes down on your side. Maybe if you see what a legitimate cite is, then you can go and do it yourself… The American Association of Pediatricians’ Task Force on Circumcision <
The AAP may come down on my side, but it's position is a crock of ****, anyway. In the first place, there can be little doubt that attorneys had as much input on this paper as any researcher. The message that is being sent is the following: STOP CIRCUMCISION NOW ! ! ! The reason that this message is being sent out in such a cryptic manner is to protect the medical establishment from financial liability. IOW's, money is more important than protecting babies from this attack.
> Madre dios, Jack. Again, you use your psychic abilities, this time to tell me what I am going to do in the future. <
No, I'm know what many doctors tell the parents. I've dealt often with people who talk as you do. That's experience that I'm using to make an educated guess as to what you will do. I mean, it's not as if you took any offense when I listed off several of the very obvious things that you should be informing parents of, and said that you would not give the parents this Info.
> After I criticize circumcision. After I say I will give a balanced, unbiased statement on circumcision. <
I read everything that you said. I want to hear some of the precise points that you are going to bring up to the parents in order to make them understand what a circumcision is. Are you going to give me any of those points?
> One question – do you see the lunacy in your argument? <
No, I don't see that my argument is lunacy. No one is showing me how my argument is invalid or unsound. You're simply dragging red herrings all over the place.
> Here’s a tip : Try to avoid statements starting like "Oh, I think that when you are a pediatrician, you will do (fill in the blank). <
No, I think I will go ahead an make a few educated guesses as to what you will and won't say to parents of newborns. You can correct me if I'm wrong. How's that?
> The foreskin is intensely studied, if because it is the source of many lab fibroblast cultures.<
It hasn't been studied at all.
> People know all the tissue types in there. <
No, of course, they don't. They know that there are stem cells, of course, because that is what is being sold on the open market. They may know a few other details that come up as a result of harvesting these baby's foreskins, also.
>PubMed doesn’t do well with links, but I can give you 100 studies in 20 seconds about penile physiology. I’m gonna try a PubMed link, I don’t know if it will work. 107 articles about the foreskin physiology. <
These are not "studies" of the foreskin. These are apparently various doctors giving their opinions on the foreskin. When I say that the foreskin needs to be studied, I am saying that we should know every nerve, nerve receptor, and every other cell, every type of tissue and system and the exact function of all of these things. Are you trying another red herring here?
> 39 studies about cervical cancer and circumcision. Some are reviews, some are primary. <
Show me the one best study that concludes that an intact penis is more likely to transmit the HPV virus, please. OK?
>I’m not going to push Jewish law on even my Jewish patients before I push self-determination and good health. Until I have good data for or against, I will not push an issue at all. <
This isn't true based upon what you have already said. You'll carry out a circumcision even though you are obviously lacking enough data as to what amount of damage you're doing. You can't know what amount of damage you're doing since the foreskin has never been studied.
> Why? Because they weren’t studying that. They were doing a study of ejaculation rates. If you interview 10,000 people, you can’t ask them every question. For you, it is an important question. So go do the study. <
The researchers were studying how well everyone is having sex. When one is doing research on anything, one always includes data on anything that might affect the subject in order to do a statistical correction. Haven't you even learned that with all of your education?
> In my book, if it isn’t peer-reviewed, it isn’t worth the paper on which it is written. Most scientists feel the same. <
Translation: the medical research establishment has to carry out the study because they are the only ones who can get the massive funding that is necessary. Problem: research on the foreskin is taboo amongst the medical establishment. So, by your logic, we will never know anything about the foreskin.
> Fruit fly eyes are actually much more fascinating. <
"Fruit fly eyes" are more interesting that the most erogenous part of a man's body. I shudder to even think about the damage you suffered at the hands of your aggressors.
> OK. What organization is covering this up? <
When I say Jewish establishment, I am talking about any organization involved with persecuting those that in any way threaten the Jewish agenda. The Jewish agenda would be protecting the billions of dollars that go to Israel every year. And, the Jewish agenda would be teaching "tolerance" to the world. In order to carry out this agenda, the Jewish establishment has been astonishingly successful at making the term anti-Semite almost the most terrible label for any American to acquire second only to the label of Nazi. So, everyone is afraid to study the foreskin for fear getting labeled an anti-Semite. And, that's how America got sexually mutilated.
> If there is such a wealth of data and hundreds of millions of men affected, it would take quite a large-scale cover-up, donchathink? <
Oh very large-scale indeed. The conspirators are right here in this forum. In fact, you are one of them. Think about it. You've had a good portion of your penis amputated against your will. You don't know what was taken. There's no research that you can refer to in order to know. Where's your outrage? Oh, you hedge this way and that. You don't necessarily support circumcision, blah, blah. If you could be rational on the matter, the shear fact that you don't know what was taken would cause extreme discomfort to say the least. You know now that you can't get back what was taken so you know that you'll have to make the best of it. You can't face the possibility that something very special was taken so you then do the unthinkable, you protect your attackers. If you protect them, then nothing bad could have happened to you, right? So, we don't really have a conspiracy, but we do have a defacto conspiracy.
> Interviews get pulled all the time. Dave Letterman doesn’t get to interview the world’s fastest grocery sacker because Emeril was out too long. Sometimes, the interview just doesn’t go well. What evidence do you have that it was specifically pulled because of its content? How do you know it wasn’t a coincidence? Do you have evidence of more than just this one event? <
My understanding is that the interview was pulled on orders from New York. This is an LA show. My understanding is that it was a corporate decision. The Leeza show wasn’t a news show and corporate can control content there.