THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Stop fucking complaining. The CTR will be on every single fucking open platform of discussion. Often times the website itself is owned by TPTB. Make your own website, a meshnet that you own, or go to 8ch.pl (hosted in Moldova).

Great info anyways.

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Stop fucking complaining. The CTR will be on every single fucking open platform of discussion. It's hard to escape. Often times the website itself is owned by TPTB. Make your own website, a meshnet that you own, or go to 8ch.pl (hosted in Moldova).

Great info anyways.

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Stop fucking complaining. The CTR will be on every single fucking open platform of discussion. Often times the website itself is owned by TPTB. Make your own website, a meshnet that you own, or go to 8ch.pl (hosted in Moldova).

Great info anyways.

Psychanaut

why are you obsessed with jews? You make yourself seem like some kind of troll animal who is obsessed with your own personal hatred of jewishdom. Where does that come from? I see you on a lot of posts with 'jews" this and 'jews' that. Do you ever talk about anything but your personal hatred of jews?

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Most of the time, when someone says Jew, they don't mean all Jews. For example, there are some sects of Judaism that don't mutilate their children, and know that Israel is a terrorist state. Those people are not included under the umbrella term "Jew" or "Jewry".

These people are not "Jews":

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons-1.436421

In fact, Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, one of the most vociferous objectors in Israel to circumcision and the founder of Ben Shalem – an organization which fights circumcision – says that in his many years of anti-circumcision activism he has encountered only one harsh response. That was in 1999, in connection with a petition he submitted to the High Court of Justice against circumcision on the grounds that it violates the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom, the Children’s Charter of Rights and criminal law. After the petition was rejected, the interior minister at the time, Eliahu Suissa ‏(Shas‏) stated that “the petitioner should be thrown out the window.”

This is why there is an obsession with Judaism. It is not natural. It's satanic, and it rules the world.

“The main difference between a physician and a mohel is that we are allowed to inject an anesthetic and a mohel is not,” Shinhar adds. “Medical studies show that the pain of circumcision is equal to that of having a tooth pulled without an anesthetic."

The Jews inserted this practice into Islam in the 10th century.

They also inserted it into America society

In the United States, circumcision became popular in the mid- to late-19th century as a medical operation aimed at preventing masturbation, which was thought to spread disease and cause madness.

Psychanaut

So you're obsessed with some but not all of Judaism. Questions: 1. Why do you care about Jews but not Catholics? 2. Circumcision is terrible, about as terrible as everything else in the world that other people do. Christians also circumcise and atheists do too.

So again, why are you obsessed with Jews and do you not care that it makes you seem like you have a mental sickness which prevents you from saying or doing anything at all except unless it allows you to say "jews"?

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

So back to my conclusion. Fuck the Jews.

Psychanaut

This is bullshit. I'm not impressed. So you hate Jews. You want people to congratulate you? You're meaningless. Pity.

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Two of my physics professors at Queen's University (Dr. Stewart & Dr. McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen's physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for observing metabolic activity within the human body.

As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology in 1998, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kingston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviors. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine, and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised, and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.

We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumstraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. The infant's head was in the chamber while the lower part of the infant's body was accessible to the doctor performing the circumcision. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used. The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, according to their dubious interpretation of the ethical regulations, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was prohibited. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our results, and then publish the results in the open literature.

Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.

Director

Pacific Institute for Advanced Study

Psychanaut

I don't real shill work. Either speak using your words or don't bother.

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Christians also circumcise and atheists do too.

It was inserted into our culture in the West, just as was done to Islam. It's a satanic practice. It permanently alters brain chemistry.

Two of my physics professors at Queen's University (Dr. Stewart & Dr. McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen's physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for observing metabolic activity within the human body.

As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology in 1998, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kingston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviors. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine, and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised, and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.

We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumstraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. The infant's head was in the chamber while the lower part of the infant's body was accessible to the doctor performing the circumcision. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used. The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, according to their dubious interpretation of the ethical regulations, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was prohibited. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our results, and then publish the results in the open literature.

Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.

Director

Pacific Institute for Advanced Study

jangles

honestly @JewBurger671 The reason this is deleted is because it is old news and has no original construct and has been discussed before

equineluvr

"David Brock, the former right-wing writer, wrote in his memoir Blinded by the Right about a "scary" date in which Drudge, after bringing Brock flowers and navigating the Santa Monica gay strip "like a pro," stepped on a competing suitor's foot "really hard" (in Drudge's purported words) in a nightclub to scare him away from Brock. He also reproduced an overly blunt email in which Drudge wrote, "Laura [Ingraham] spreading stuff about you and me being fuck buddies. I should be so lucky."

http://gawker.com/ ...

"And then there’s Matt Drudge. Drudge, who outed Jeffrey Koffman and has made a mission of exposing the lurid details of other people’s sex lives, is widely reported to be gay (and — watch out boys — an incredibly uptight lay). He seemed to confirm both rumors at once by saying that a biographer “never said there was sex [with men]; she said there was dating."

keyboard12

Is this true? I hadn't heard anything about Brock and Drudge before.