Sorry, but I think you went over the top. While herpes and brain damage can be the result of such practices, I don't think they are intentional.

I do think that the fact of these results warrant a banning of the practice. That some will claim religious rights is yet another example of religious stupidity. Measles anyone?

I wish to offend anyone who defends the practice. They, after all, put babies at risk for their own pleasure of knowing it's done "just like it used to be". This is conservatism at its worst.

rather than doing with their mouths (assuming 'they' in your sentence is the rabbis, not the health officials). If they were trying, that is.

But to protect the infants from that.

Also, I do not believe that there is any increased rate of infection with mohels who do regular circumcisions and pediatricians, so that is not really the issue at all.

It's the mouth part that makes this different.

A paediatrician would have such a qualification, and the clean facilities necessary.

Yes, it is the use of the mouth that is really dangerous. It's like a rejection of the last 200 years of hygiene.

Their complication rates are no different than pediatricians. If anything, they are more careful and a hospital is just about the last place you want to be if you want to decrease the risk of infection.

The only issue here is the use of the mouth.

If they can eliminate that particular risk, would you still object?

FWIW, the procedure itself is extremely simple and takes about 30 seconds.

Last edited Sun Feb 22, 2015, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

There is no governmental licensing and regulation. Whatever qualifications they have are entirely up to the individual or to a voluntary regulatory body, general a religious organization.

a.

The story has a high reactionary quotient to begin with.

the religious privilege that is held and being asserted by those promoting and defending this practice, and hence deserves no deference. If it honks some people off, tough. It should.

I just don't get it.

Are you ok if they can figure out how to do this ceremony without "give babies herpes and brain damage, and kill them" since that seems your complaint here?

I would be glad if children't health were protected, not sure why you seem to feel differently.

The thread title is as ignorant as it is offensive.

or nothing to do with this particular issue.

And it's not even anti-circumcision, just anti-Mohel.

Too bad he couldn't fit "baby cocksucker" in the title, as another member pointed out.

I have been explicitly asked what offends me about this, and I gave an answer. Ordered, even. Death, brain damage and herpes. It's you making the 'cocksucker' jokes, and someone else saying there's an 'ick' factor. I'm talking about the harm to the children. That's my agenda.

This is not about that. That is apparently your own issue.

Mohels performing circumcisions don't lead to a higher rate of death, brain damage and herpes. This particular procedure does, though not to an alarming extent. However, if it is preventable, then steps should be take to do that.

We share an agenda when it comes to preventing harm to children. Your solution, though, is completely unreasonable and doesn't address the problem at hand.

Moving from calling them baby killers to cocksuckers is not that far a leap. It's not a joke at all.

You are the one who presented this with a highly biased and inflammatory headline. If your agenda is preventing harm to children, you have really not moved it forward. You have only greatly offended those you supposedly wish to reach.

and I have already explicitly said that mohels should be able to do the circumcisions if they meet the general requirements for such minor surgery that non-religious professionals have to meet.

It's not unreasonable to treat members of all religions, and none, the same.

As I said, I want to offend people who defend this practice. They should be reminded it has killed babies. Negligence that kills people is normally dealt with by law, and with more action than just them agreeing not to practice it any more. You'd think that parents would want to help identify the negligent mohel who gave their child an STD - "But of those six cases, parents refused to identify the person who performed the circumcision — called a mohel — in four." So they're happy for other children to be at risk, not just their own.

most likely qualified, certified and licensed, your responses here don't even address the problem at hand.

The issue is not the qualifications of the mohels, it is about this specific procedure and whether the risk can be eliminated or whether it should be specifically banned.

That it's just a voluntary group of mohels that set some standards of their own. They need licensing from the state, in the way that, say, tattoo artists do. Stricter than that, because the potential for something to go wrong and have lasting consequences is greater, and the person it's done to is unable to consent to it.

I think that may be true in Israel, but not in the US, but I am having trouble finding specific information on this. How much training do you think pediatricians get? Do you think there is some independent licensing of this procedure? The answer to those questions are "not much" and "no".

Again, absent evidence that there is any increased incidence of complications between the groups that do this, it would be difficult to make the case that increased oversight is called for.

The potential for complications is generally extremely low. The problem here is the specific act of sucking the blood not the circumcision itself.. The inability to consent remains the case whether it is done by pediatricians or mohels.

Your calling for tighter regulation of mohels appears to have no basis.

You yourself want them regulated - you want the blood-sucking banned.

A paediatrician has several years' training in medicine, including basic surgery. Why do you ask?

When you say 'independent', independent of what? The Orthodox Jewish faith, or the state?

Lack of specific information points to no state regulation. If there were state regulation, they'd have information on it so that people could check the credentials of the mohel. I could find the stuff about tattoo artists with a simple Google search; it ought to be as easy for a potentially fatal procedure.

in general.

It is my position that if they are unable to eliminate this risk, then it should be prohibited. However, I also think it is pretty easy to eliminate the risk completely.

Perhaps in the UK pediatricians receive surgical training, but they don't in the US. What little exposure they get is during medical school. The common practice when it comes to circumcision is "see one, do one, teach one". Honestly, it is a very simple procedure and doesn't require any specialized training.

From the research I have done, it appears that there are several national licensing agencies and that the degree to which there is oversight from state agencies varies from state to state. Lack of information does not point to no state regulation. That is an illogical assumption.

People can check the credentials of the mohel and are encouraged to do so in pretty much every site I have looked at.

Circumcision is not a potentially fatal procedure. Sucking the blood with your mouth is the thing that appears to increase the risk. You seem to be having trouble seeing this and I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Regulate the part that shows evidence of problems and leave the rest alone.

most pediatricians do. It really is "see one, do one, teach one" for pediatricians. And, once again (and for the last time), other than this very specific ritual, there is no difference in complication rates. There is no need to address anything but this single issue, unless there is some indication of a problem.

Surgery is really a huge overstatement as to what this is. It literally takes about 30 seconds. I personally find it objectionable, but it's a parents choice.

I was able to find out that there are national credentialing organizations and that one can quite easily check the training and credentials of mohels. What I can't find out is to what extent specific state regulatory bodies are or are not involved, but that is most likely because it varies from state to state.

I don't want to be rude, but you really are over your head with this. This is why lay people really have no business trying to regulate things that they know pretty much nothing about.

No one is asking for what you are asking for and that should tell you something right there. They are merely trying to address this single problem that has to do with this single version of this single procedure.

I have done the best I can to show you why you are completely over-reaching, but you are really stuck and I think I am finished.

I hope they successfully and easily address this issue.

National medical credentialing organizations? Which ones? The AMA?

Look, it's surgery. Once upon a time, barbers did it. Then it got regulated, apart from this ridiculous pussy-footing around religion. And the religion is still resisting basic regulation of its surgical practices.

And they've killed children. Barbaric.

If you don't want to be rude, then delete the 'cocksucker' remark in #49.

Odd that would be if there were government regulatory bodies that licensed mohels. Also, I suspect what you are actually having trouble finding is "government regulatory bodies that licensed mohels" as my google turns up a plethora of religious organizations that provide voluntary "licensing", individual mohels who prominently advertise that they are also board certified pediatric surgeons, etc. etc. etc. - everything except state regulatory bodies.

But go ahead here is your counter argument: "absence of evidence blah blah blah". That saved some time.

And now think about the fact that you are defending oral suction of the wound inflicted on a baby's penis in an act of ritual genital mutilation. And then ask yourself if this is really something you want to defend. You are defending having an adult suck the blood off a baby's penis. What the flying fuck is wrong with all of you?

Though it is still heads above the last one to "report" this and pretty much implied Jews were pedophiles. So, I guess it is a step up.

and your insinuation that it's an anti-Semitic one is almost as disgusting as exposing infants to harmful, and perhaps fatal, infectious disease.

Herpes.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/breaking_news/mohel_center_bris_controversy_tested_positive_herpes_documents_show
Brain Damage.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/herpes-strikes-nyc-babies-ritual-circumcisions/story?id=18890284
Killed.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618


All of that shit HAS HAPPENED. Meaning, it can't be libel. Nice 'you're an anti-semite' deflection though. Why not just accuse the poster outright, instead of the feint with 'pogroms'?

was a frequent one from the Middle Ages onward. This headline echoes it in its implication that Orthodox Jews want "the right to kill" male infants. That's libel, and it's anti-semitic.

Look up the legend of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln.

and well being for some bullshit that isn't necessary. They HAVE killed children doing this. They HAVE given children brain damage doing this. They HAVE given children herpes doing this.

The only thing that is intrinsically 'jewish' at all about this, is the fact that this particular sect of one particular religion engages in this particular, dangerous, and completely unnecessary practice.

They are seeking to keep it legal, hence, they are seeking to continue to risk all those negatives.

You cannot deflect every single negative about any particular group by claiming it's an attack on the group en total. This was an attack on a particular practice, that CANNOT be made even reasonably safe.

They can insist on this practice, and anyone can insist on calling the practice out for what it is. Not a damn thing wrong with that. They ARE risking all those negatives, in their insistence on continuing the practice.

If there was some sect of atheists that insisted on doing this bullshit, I'd call them out too, and in the same way.
I think you owe that poster an apology.

then the infection rate is about 1/2,500

The overall rate for HSV infection in neonates is reported to be between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 20,000.

While I am not sure of the statistical significance of this, there does appear to be an increased risk.

I wonder if there are those are working on protocols that would eliminate the risk or screen those who have active infections from performing the procedure.

Obviously, this is so foreign to most people that it's easy to get enraged about it, but I think that if the risk can be eliminated, the procedure should not be banned.

snip from the article>

A 2012 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised against the practice, saying it increases the risk of herpes infection in baby boys by 3.4 times that of other male newborns.

Oral suction circumcisions first came under scrutiny during Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration, and the city's health board voted in 2012 to regulate the practice by asking a parent or guardian to sign a consent form indicating possible risks. Health officials point to a number of factors they say have linked the known cases to the ritual. They look for lesions on the genitalia, indicating that's where the virus started. In addition, lab tests have showed that the timing of the infection coincides with the circumcision.

Two cases were recorded after oral suction in 2013 and four last year. In the most recent case, diagnosed in November, a baby boy was found to have lesions on his penis. But of those six cases, parents refused to identify the person who performed the circumcision — called a mohel — in four. In the two cases in which the circumcisers were identified, both declined to be tested, the Health Department said. They were banned from performing the ritual.

The consent forms remain the regulatory standard for now, but most ultra-Orthodox rabbis have told their faithful not to comply, and the city acknowledges it does not collect them unless there is suspicion of herpes. Cohn, an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor and native of what today is called Slovakia, is chairman of the American Board of Ritual Circumcision, which has certified 90 mohels, says he doubts the oral suction method had anything to do with spreading herpes. Cohn believes the infants may have been infected by the mother or another source.

end snip>

that increased risk can be eliminated.

If it can, is there justification for outlawing this?

MPB - this is what your are defending, a "surgical practice" that involves the Mohel, who by the way need not have any formal medical training, using his mouth to suction the wound. It is absurd, ridiculous, barbaric and dangerous. For obvious reasons which even you should concede.

that she dislikes intensely, so of course she's defending it. Her response in such cases is so automatic, I'm not sure it's even registering with her what a barbaric practice this actually is. If it were, any sensible person would not just be asking whether the extra risk of infection or death could be eliminated, but whether ANY such risk could be justified in the first place. If there is no long-term medical benefit to the procedure, then how can the clearly demonstrated risks be justified at all, other than to say that the superstition-based tradition of an influential religion demands it?

That's the big deal they want stopped?

And that last paragraph is hideously sexist, and chocked full of privilege, of course it wasn't the mohels, they are blessed by god, and this guy who we should just take his word for, and it was probably the dirty mothers anyways.

It's not sexist, it's a fact.

There does appear to be an increased risk and that likely does come from the mohels, but no one has apparently provided definitive evidence that would show that to be true. In addition, it would be pretty easy to screen mohels who would present a heightened risk and ban them from doing the procedure.

In some ways it is about the consent forms. They really need to comply with the current regulations if they want to continue this.

cause it's religious.

You have every right to your sarcastic title.

You should have worked in a way to call the mohels "baby cocksuckers" just to make it completely hateful and offensive.

What's the most offensive aspect of this, to you?

"give babies herpes and brain damage, and kill them", would that be ok? Upthread to me you indicate it is not, "rather than doing with their mouths".

It seems LoveIsNow's assessment is accurate.

1) They risk the death of the child
2) They risk giving the child brain damage
3) They risk giving the child herpes

Doing it with their mouths is what causes the risk. If a surgeon did this operation in proper conditions, the risk of herpes and its complications would not be there. If the surgeon is also a rabbi, that's fine by me. Or if they have a rabbi present to say whatever is felt appropriate.

There is no difference in infection rates between mohels and pediatricians who perform circumcisions, and it is very, very low in both instances.

Mohels are trained in circumcisions and you are making the argument that they should be prohibited from doing them, which has no relation to this issue. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this position.

It is this specific kind of circumcision that is in question.

If they can eliminate the risk, would you still object?

I am saying that people should have to be qualified to perform minor surgery. There are standards of hygiene, competency with local anaesthetics and so forth to be followed. This is an uncontroversial opinion. As I said, the person who performs the circumcision can also be a rabbi.

There is no consideration being given to ban them from performing the procedure.

You said a rabbi could do it if they were also a surgeon. That's just not an idea that is even on the table.

So, if we can agree that mohels and pediatricians are equally qualified to perform the procedure and that the only issue on the table here is this particular kind of procedure that involves the mouth, would you still object if the increased risk was eliminated?

I have never stated that they have not passed the examinations.

Are you stating that mohels in New York have all been certified by the state medical board to perform this? If so, that's what I want.

"the only issue on the table here is this particular kind of procedure that involves the mouth" -no, I don't agree with that. Since this is a procedure that draws blood, it needs to be done in inspected conditions. The picture in the link in the OP shows the rabbi is not wearing gloves, for instance. When I give blood, the nurse wears gloves. I want to know that they get inspected by a health professional regularly, just as anywhere with public health implications, like restaurants, get inspected. Doctors and nurses are subject to checks; these people need to be, too.

But absent the lack of any evidence whatsoever that they present a higher risk, I don't even think that is at issue.

The nurse wears gloves when you give blood to protect herself from you, not you from her.

This particular issue merits attention. The general issue of mohels does not. If you would like to impact on this particular issue, you are going to lose by expanding it to a degree that pretty much no one will support.

Have you ever seen a circumcision? I think you might see it as something much more complex than it actually is.

and that is entirely voluntary and the qualifications need not include any formal medical training at all.

The specific type of circumcision being discussed is Metzizah B'Peh: MBP, suctioning the wound orally.

You might want to stop defending this crap.

But the point of this circumcision is to draw blood. A man who has carried out 35,000 of these must carry out more than one a day. There's the risk of transferring disease from one baby to another. Wearing disposable gloves would be safer than relying just on handwashing.

No one would give an infant general anesthetic for a circumcision unless there was some terrible problem that was going to require an extensive surgery. The risk of general anesthesia is so much greater than that for circumcision that this leaves me speechless.

I really don't think you are qualified to discuss what does and does not constitute safety in regards to circumcision. Unless you have some evidence that there is a problem, there really is nothing to challenge.

Complication rates are extremely low, whoever does them. The issue here is this particular, and frankly pretty rare, procedure.

I don't think it would be under general now.

3,000 a year in New York City is not that 'rare'.

That would be pretty crazy and greatly increase any risk.

Then again, an 8 year old might grab that scalpel and stab the person who intended to cut him.

Honestly, though, it's generally really quick and really simple, but I personally totally object to the procedure as cosmetic. I look at it like abortion, though. It should be a decision made between parents and their doctor and, in this case, their religious leader.

The program I worked with focused the screening service for injection drug users (IDU) and men who have sex with men (MSM), in public health lingo. It was generally assumed and held up by available stats that 75-80 per cent of IDUs were already HCV infected. That screening was pro forma in some ways, but an essential confirmatory for medical follow up.

We were meticulous with basic infection control with the procedure. The site was swabbed, air dried, the client was directed to touch nothing during the process. We gloved up and a sterile blood draw kit was opened in the client's presence and laid out on a sterile sheet. Drew the blood, withdrew the syringe, covered and taped the injection site, removed the syringe/tubing from the vacuum tube, trashed the tubing and set aside the sample in a tray for transport to the lab. A very quick and usually simple process.

Yet, there was often some free blood to deal with. The little injection site may not clot up as usual. The client may "go sideways" and yank out the draw kit mid draw. The tubing and syringe connection may disconnect and drain blood. Etc, etc.

We wore gloves as an infection barrier for us to deal with any exposure as best as possible. HCV is exponentially more prevalent than HIV and exponentially more infective. That risk was basically ours.

i'm sure at no point in your training were you advised to use your mouth as a way to tamponade the blood when you withdrew the needle, right? So why would YOU not use your mouth to stop flowing blood (you'd use a gauze or a band-aid), but it's no big deal for a mohel to use HIS mouth (the mouth that has done the same to thousands of other sources of blood-borne contaminants)?

Next time you get your blood drawn at the dr's office, tell the phlebotomist or RN that they don't need to use a band-aid, just use their mouth to suck the blood away. No big deal, right?

And, as an RN, I have to educate you that your understanding of why you were wearing gloves is only half right. Yes, you wear gloves to protect yourself from any bloodborne pathogens getting into a cut or hangnail. But you also wear gloves to protect your patient from whatever skin flora you have. THat's why we wash our hands....we get the junk off OUR hands to keep that junk from being spread to OTHER PEOPLE. So the risk isn't "basically ours." The risk is everyone. That's why we wear gloves. To protect ourselves AND OTHERS. That's why we wash hands--to protect ourselves AND OTHERS.

Unless you have some knowledge that thousands of Infectious Disease Speciality RN's don't know....

first off, the problem seems to be people with herpes putting their mouths on babies' penises.If the mohel doesn't have herpes, there is no health risk. Therefore, these people aren't fighting for the right to expose their children to diseases. They are simply fighting for the right to perform a traditional ritual. The article said that they are in talks with the city to find a way to regulate it that minimizes the health risks. Your portrayal of Orthodox Jews as callous monsters with no concern for their children's health is what I find offensive.

Let me illustrate by example. A similarly written headline covering Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down sodomy laws, would be: "Homosexuals Fight for Right to spread AIDS and death". Both headlines fallaciously and offensively conflate an activity with a health risk with the health risk itself.

I would personally never do this to my child, because of the ick factor of a man sucking a baby's penis. However, I think the law should err on the side of cultural diversity and letting people express their family's culture, provided any health risk is minimized.

That is obvious. Their traditional ritual is what exposes their children to diseases. Jehovah's Witnesses who try to refuse blood transfusions for their children risk their children's health too, and it is right to override their religious desire in that case.

It means regulating those who do it so they do not have herpes. Someone without herpes will not spread herpes.

There is a risk of passing this from one baby to another (and a baby can get it from their mother), like sharing needles poses a risk. And medical profession that used the same instrument without sterilisation for open wounds on different patients would be struck off. A mouth cannot be sterilised in the same way as a surgical instrument.

should be prohibited from doing it.

If not, do the mohels wait between each circumcision to be re-tested to make sure they cannot be transmitting the virus from one baby to another?

A practice of sucking blood from a person goes against all medical norms. It needs to be regulated as tightly as possible.

as tightly as possible, I agree. I am glad that is starting to happen, being worked on.

hygienic?

Please elaborate.

I would never do this to my child, if I had one and it was an option. I think it good that the public health people are working to figure out a way to make this be less harmful.

I would never do this to a child, and do not understand why it should still happen. Rather like female genital mutilation, there are things that may by historical and cultural and still wrong. They need to figure out a way to be able to stay within their culture, but not hurt people. Things have changed over the last several thousand years, and figuring out how to deal with that in a positive way, sometimes getting dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age happens.

Figuring out how to work together, public health people and different religious or cultural groups, to protect those who need protecting. This I support.

and please tell me that you really do know the difference between sucking YOUR OWN BLOOD off of YOUR OWN FINGER with YOUR OWN MOUTH, and why you don't get an infection and sucking SOMEONE ELSES BLOOD off of SOMEONE ELSES FINGER using YOUR OWN MOUTH and why they very well COULD get an infection. (Hint: It's the same as asking "I have hepatitis C. If I re-use a needle that I have already used, can I give myself Hepatitis C again?&quot

Please tell me you know this. Please. Please tell me you just made a mistake and typed that absolutely scientifically ignorant statement above that would make me question the clinical abilities of any practitioner who said such a thing in a public setting. PLEASE tell me that you didn't just publicly state that you have forgotten everything we know about vectors, disease process, the cycle of infection. PLEASE tell me you didn't just state publicly that you basically don't know who Joseph Lister and Ignaz Semmelweis and their contributions to medical hygiene were.

Please tell me you didn't use this bunked thought process when dealing with patients, particularly ones with compromised immune systems, open wounds, surgery, etc. etc.

I am playing devil's advocate here, not sinking to personal insults. Even with "please" typed in caps.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=183149

as medical professionals, we have an obligation to the public (the ones who allow us our respective licenses) to educate them on things such as proper hygiene and to steer them away from unproven, unsound, unscientific thought processes.

In a thread such as this, where people are actually saying it's OKAY to use a mouth as a gauze, to come up with that ham-fisted "devils advocacy" is foolish at best, and clinically negligent at worst.

Rather than asking a "Gee whiz, should I take birth control when I'm pregnant to make sure I don't get pregnant again and have twins" ignorance-level question (oh so cleverly disguised as being a devils advocate ) Why not make a post about how this is precisely NOT like why you don't get an infection when you suck the blood off your own finger vs why you would if someone sucked the blood away for you. Mohel or not, circumcision or not.

But you didn't do that. You seem to be back-pedaling "oh yeah no really I was playing devils advocate...'

I'm not buying it.

Sadly, many people in this thread see you giving expert medical advice.

on DU is really over the top and shows me that this discussion will go nowhere positive. Oh yeah, all those DUers who were going considering having this done now will rush out and do it based on my "expert medical advice"?



And running off the another group to post a call out of what your take is on what I said?




EDITED TO ADD, and making sure the edit is clear, I mistook "clinically" for "criminally". I am not going to edit this post more than to say I misread that and even "clinically negligent" accusation for my post in this thread is, for me, over the top. END OF EDIT

So it wasn't just microbiology that was skipped.....

I'm sorry that you have to resort to lying to attempt an alert
That post was edited ZERO times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=183238

I typed CLINICALLY. You read CRIMINALLY. I pointed out your error. Now you look silly.

I was wrong in reading "clinically" as "criminally" but yes, you did edit the post I referred to. And the one you say "you are lying" about, which is a personal insult.

Click on the Permalink thing and scroll to the bottom to show the edit history. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=183240 So yes, you did edit.
--------------

Edit History

This post has been edited 2 times. Show all

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 01:33 PM - Original version with no edits. (Show)
Sun Feb 22, 2015, 01:33 PM - Unexplained edit. (Show)
----------------------
When I click on View all it shows this...

Point out once where I accused you of lying. You can't.

Here is post 80, which you did edit, as I said in post 82. And which you denied in the now self deleted 85.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=183240

"Aha, and there is the insult, accusation and CAPS!!!1111 All edited in and changed after I replied?"

How is stating (not implying) that I changed what I wrote after you replied calling me a liar? That I lied when I said I wrote clinically, you read criminally, then accused me of changing that. That's calling me a liar. It's stating that I lied about what you said.

I didn't lie.

You misread.

It made you look silly

So you had create the lie that I edited my post to make you not look silly

Instead it only makes you look sillier. The lying part. That's what I'm talking about. Just admit you read it wrong, and admit that you lied when you said I changed the wording after you replied. Because that was a lie. I didn't change the wording at any point.

The one with this for edit history?

My post

i edited it to point out that you were wrong (lied?) when you said I typed "criminal" when I typed "clinical."

But that's not what you were in a tither about. You wrote that I changed THE OTHER POST AFTER YOU REPLIED. That's what got you in a lather.

But you were looking at the wrong post. I never changed the word Clinically.

THEN when it was pointed out you were wrong about THAT AS WELL then suddenly no no, that's not the edited post you were talking about.

SO tell me...what is it in THIS edited post that has you in such a lather? That I changed after you replied? Because the original posting about whether or not you would have this done to you, while pertinent, is less pertinent than your misreading CLINCIALLY for CRIMINALLY. That you then lied about me changing. Which I didn't do.

At any rate, continue to weave this tale of changed words and non-misunderstanding as you'd like. I think the evidence is clear that
1) you misread what I wrote
2) It was pointed out that you misread what I wrote
3) You didn't like that
so
4) you lied about what was written
5) you lied that it was changed after you replied
but
6) it wasn't changed at any point
so
7) you show ANOTHER Post that was edited
that
8) has no bearing on anything
but
9) NOW THAT"S the post you were talking about the whole time!?!??! SEE!
but
10) you still called me a liar, and you're trying to mitigate your repeated errors in this subthread
and
11) deflect the absolutely abysmal understanding of healthcare sanitation practices you flaunted above
and
12) hope people get caught up in this sub-subthread to forget that you called me a liar and outright stated that I changed a post to purposefully look foolish.

Carry on by yourself. Gather your friends to convince you you were right all along. Live safely in the knowledge that time stamps and edit histories and the order of posts all firmly support my version of things. And then pray that you get a sympathetic jury who's too busy to actually read and look through the posts to see what was going on when you alert on the multiple posts where i call you a liar when I point out you lied about me editing a post which was never edited.

this post, by the way, is the one I'm referring to. The one that you lied and said I edited. Which was never edited
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=183238 (Which can be proven as never edited if you click on the link and scroll to the bottom. It states "this post has been edited 0 times)

All I said you edited was post 80.

Post 82 is a reply to the edited post 80.

That is the one I referred to, replied to.

I misread "clinically" as "criminally".

You edited post 80, as I pointed out in post 82.

I didn't delete calling you a liar because you are a liar. You lied that I edited a post to say something that It didn't say after you replied. THAT IS A LIE. the post wasn't edited. I edited one post to point out your error.

I'm sorry that 1) you were wrong and 2) you lied to deflect your error. I can't help you with either of those issues. Those are your issues. You can help by self-deleting your thread where you called me a liar and stated, wrongly, that I edited a post after you responded.

Let's point out the things you've gotten wrong in this sub-thread
1) how disease is spread
2) misread Clinically to criminally
3) lied and said I used the term "criminally negligent"
4) Lied and said I changed the term "clinically negligent" to "Criminally negligent" after you replied
5) Lied and said there was an edit history to prove that
6) Lied and said I edited a phrase calling you a liar

There are the (so far) 6 things you were wrong, or outright lied about in this subthread.

The edit histories are there for anyone to see. Your words are there for anyone to see. I stand behind mine, but you have to lie to stand behind yours

in this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=183238

I did not edit that post. I changed NOTHING. So when you state, outright, that I changed the wording after you replied, that's a lie. That's a blatant lie.

And I did edit the other post. Which has nothing to do with anything because you weren't referring to that post. You were LYING and referring to another UNEDITED post.

You should self-delete your posts where you call me a liar. I will not self-delete my posts calling you a liar because you lied and said I edited a post that wasn't edited.

I was right
You were wrong. And you lied about it to be less wrong.

it and called me a liar in post 85.

Point out 1 post where I call you a liar. You can't. However, I can point out several of yours, including the self deleted one.

"I will not self-delete my posts calling you a liar" like post 85, in which you called me a liar and then self deleted?

"you lied and said I edited a post that wasn't edited." Nope. Never happened. I said you edited post 80 which has an edit history.

"Much like the awful lesson in microbiology I gave above, when it was pointed out that I was wrong, I began to back peadal and do everything I can to make this not about me and to deflect away from my actions. My actions were calling another poster a liar by stating that they edited their post after I replied to make it seem as if one word was another. The truth is I misread a word and, rather than face looking foolish in public, I accused that other member of editing their post to be purposefully deceiving. When it was pointed out that the post in question was NOT edited, I then began to weave a tale about how I wasn't talking about THAT post I was talking about ANOTHER post. Another post which was written AFTER it was made obvious that I misread the term "clinically negligent" so NOW it's NOT that Clincially negligent" was changed, but that ANOTHER post that had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING was changed."

You should pay attention to post numbers, posting times, and edit times. They're important when you're trying to keep a convoluted lie alive.

You edited post 80. I pointed it out. You now have called me a liar and "you are lying" several times in this subthread even though post 80 was edited. I did not accuse you of editing any other post than post 80 which you did edit. I did not claim you changed "criminally" to "clinically but have agreed several times I misread it. I only claimed you edited post 80, which was edited.

I will come back in a bit to see if you have edited out the repetitive personal insults or self deleted them.

Did you even think about that for a half second before you typed it?

mouths and whatnot, its also one of the more serious, but what about bacterial infections and other viruses that could be transmitted from saliva to blood? Are we not to be concerned about those?

How would you reduce the risk of spreading such diseases to infants.

fgm, do not agree that "because we have always done it that way" is appropriate in many cases.

Whut?

Are there suddenly no blood borne pathogens left on the planet besides herpes? Did I miss a fucking memo?

Herpes is singled out because it is most common, and highly infectious, but there's plenty of other shit you can catch from this sort of contact. This is so incredibly unsanitary it boggles the mind.

You should edit it or take it down.

You should edit it or take it down.

Feeling pretty righteous, aren't you?

So fucking what? Does that make you more likely to be right? Actually, no…not the least because you don't even HAVE an opinion on this that can be right or wrong. You're just fucking OFFENDED. Well, boo-fucking-hoo. You get no extra privileges because of that.

the title shines some much needed light on who is really eating babies.

"The Orthodox Jewish tradition known as oral suction circumcision reaches back to biblical times but it has created a modern-day dilemma for New York City health officials, who have linked it to 17 cases of infant herpes since 2000. Two died and two others suffered brain damage."

I include any religion that mutilates bodies and risks disease and death in the name of religion...truly the act is not about religion it is all in the name of obedience and power.

...about your post would instead be clamoring for locking up the people doing it, if not screaming they should be killed or subjected to medieval tortures.

Yet somehow calling these bizarre circumcision practices "religion" and "tradition" makes you the one being offensive.

Amazingly, some people seem determined to defend this to the hilt, seemingly because it involves religious privilege, and in spite of how dangerous it is.

taking offense at an accurate subject line, and not one word, not one fucking word, about the only possible solution, which is to ban the practice.

Seriously, unless every Mohel is licensed, by the state, to perform the circumcisions, and also every Mohel who performs this ritual gets a herpes test done after EVERY ritual, and also, on top of that, random testing, its going to be an increased risk factor. The community that practices this is very insular and is unlikely to want to subject itself to this voluntarily, so it would have to be forced.

But honestly, this is a barbaric practice, and if religion wasn't attached to it, NO ONE HERE would defend the practice, I hope.