Just stumbled on this article today and thought I'd add here.

The Science of Spanking
The American Academy of Pediatrics
has a new policy on spanking: Don't do it.
Posted Dec 10, 2018

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-baby-scientist/201812/the-science-spanking

*ban
Omega Pediatrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joK0iYjJryA

*related=

http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Choose-A-Pediatric-Dentist-in-Mobile-AL

*ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWn7vq23DkA


*related=

http://videosift.com/video/Edison-Pediatrics-Urgent-Care-Piscataway-Doctors-Express

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASLyXAg__9w

He's done this several times. When he was filming the previous movies in London, he'd convince the crew between scenes to go with him in costume to visit the pediatrics wards of local hospitals.

Mad respect. He seems like a really decent guy.

I was happy to read that this isn't 100% comedy. Doctors are actually refusing to serve patients that won't vaccinate.

From Quartz:
If you don’t believe in vaccinations, then your doctor might not accept your child as a patient.

Some practitioners want to protect patients who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons. Others feel it’s their responsibility to mark parents’ opposition to vaccination as unacceptable.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) provides guidelines and documents to help pediatricians deal with parents who refuse to immunize their children. The guidelines include a sample letter a practice refusing to accept unvaccinated kids may share with their parents, which include very direct statements:

By not vaccinating your child you are taking selfish advantage of thousands of others who do vaccinate their children, which decreases the likelihood that your child will contract one of these diseases. We feel such an attitude to be self-centered and unacceptable.

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

Whether he had one or not is irrelevant. The studies that were done on those who actually did have them later in life showed that it usually had either no effect on sex or actually improved it unless complications developed from the procedure (see the American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Technical Report on Circumcision).

The benefits of newborn circumcisions are well-documented at this point (see for example the Mayo clinic's most recent report on the topic.) We know it also can reduce the risk of HIV infection in at risk populations.

Basically, if it does no harm and can actually have benefits, it's a valid medical procedure regardless of whether parents are choosing to do it for religious reasons or not.

Of course, should future research actually prove the risks outweigh the benefits then it should be stopped. We need to base these decisions on the medical evidence and not on our cultural prejudices.

That sound....It's like it's coming from a pediatric ward in a Wes Craven film!

>> ^shinyblurry:

3 million teens contract an STD every year

Irrelevant. That is a problem of bad safe sex practices, caused mostly by idiotic christian idealists who preach abstinence. Funny how states that preach abstinence have the highest rates of stds.

>> ^shinyblurry:



25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.
In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

Well first off, you're equating "premarital sex" with "teen sex". I didn't get married until I was 30. Most people these days are getting married later, so pre-marital sex can be easily between mature adults.
Besides, I don't really believe you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.


Yep, and there's a reason we have age of consent laws. You will get no argument from me that 12 year olds should not be having sex. Doesn't mean they shouldn't learn about it though.
>> ^shinyblurry:



Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy
Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,
In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.
Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.


Clearly you missed the part where I said:

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense.

Again, if you and your ilk weren't so hung up on teaching safe sex practices, this issue would be a lot less of a problem.

>> ^shinyblurry:


A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex
That's just scratching the surface.


Again, irrelevant. "premarital sex" != "teen sex". The issue is not at what age you lost your virginity, it's whether or not premarital sex causes "grief".

Aside from the fact that you have provided no citations for this data, I'd wager that part of the reason they feel bad about it is precisely because of the bullshit story that has been pushed onto kids from day one that you will have sex, a chorus of angels will sing and you'll live happily ever after with your partner at the time. Life doesn't always work like that.

edit: fixed quote tags

3 million teens contract an STD every year

25.3% of sexually active teens are depressed vs. 7.7% of teens who are not sexually active.
14.3% of sexually active girls attempted suicide while 5.1% of teens who are not sexually active have attempted suicide.

In general, individuals who engage in premarital sexual activity are 50 percent more likely to divorce later in life than those who do not.10 Divorce, in turn, leads to sharp reductions in adult happiness and child well-being.

A study reported in Pediatrics magazine found that sexually active boys aged 12 through 16 are four times more likely to smoke and six times more likely to use alcohol than are those who describe themselves as virgins. Among girls in this same age cohort, those who are sexually active are seven times more likely to smoke and 10 times more likely to use marijuana than are those who are virgins.

Nearly 31% of girls ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse at least once become pregnant, and more than 13% of sexually active teenage boys say they have been involved in a pregnancy

Nearly 50% of teenage girls who have sex for the first time before age 15 report having been pregnant, compared with almost 25% of girls age 15 or older,

In addition, 22% of sexually active boys age 15 and under report having been involved in a pregnancy, compared with 9% of teenage boys age 15 or older.

Three in ten teenage girls (31%) become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20 Ð more than 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81% are to unmarried teens.

A majority of both girls and boys who are sexually active wish they had waited. Of those who have had sex, more than one half of teen boys (55%) and the majority of teen girls (70%) said they wish they had waited longer to have sex

That's just scratching the surface.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^lantern53:
My point was that sex outside of marriage causes a lot of problems, more than sex within marriage.
Yeah, and my point was that statement is bullshit. Forget about providing evidence to back up your spurious claim, you haven't even elaborated how or why sex outside marriage causes any more problems than sex within marriage.
I will grant you that pregnancy outside marriage can be more of an issue, but it's really not that difficult to avoid that with a little common sense, and even then, a happily unmarried but loving couple will make better parents than a marriage that's falling apart.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@harpom & @BoneRemake
Cry me a river. The ideas you have about this are dumb.
Your brains apparently don't understand the concept of context and severity.
First, "the burning sensations of wasabi are not oil-based, they are short-lived compared to the effects of chili peppers, and are washed away with more food or liquid. The sensation is felt primarily in the nasal passage and can be quite painful depending on amount taken."
[i.e. - digestion isn't a problem. the kid won't have an upset tummy or burning curry butthole later]
Furthermore, "Wasabi is a Japanese horseradish which can range from dangerously spicy to mildly spicy."
Therefore. If you start with a small amount of weak wasabi and mix it with soy sauce or the like, what you get is.. SOMETHING NOT THAT HOT/SPICY.
[plus that baby is wearing american flags on his pajamas which means it probably wasn't even TRUE wasabi. i.e. some weak ass horseradish paste]
Second, this probably isn't the first time these parents have done this since the baby doesn't seem too surprised and he takes it well. They probably knew the outcome.
Third, they didn't force the kid to finish it like THIS terrible shitty mother.
So again, context [knowing your kid can handle it] and severity [not forcing a fistful of wasabi on the kid].


Sorry Dr. Kilpatrick, i did not realize i was quoting a pediatric. You must have a vast superior knowledge of infant/toddler physiology. How about you put wasabi in one eye and lemon in the other and let us know which one hurts more.

@marbles, I don't really have to, if you read things other than your conspiracy blogs you might find the answers yourself:

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.

However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^VoodooV:
splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.
Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.
Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.
There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.


you just demonstrated why a ban is stupid and unnecessary. If circumcision is declining on it's own. Why is it necessary to ban it?

You haven't made ANY case for why gov't should get involved, quite the opposite in fact. You haven't refuted ANY of my arguments. It simply not being necessary is not reason enough to ban it. You simply have NOT made your case....at all. This is a perfect example of less is more when it comes to laws.

If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not do it...allow others the same freedom, thank you.

>> ^VoodooV:

splitting hairs to fit your agenda and you know it.
but even if I were to concede that. There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.
You've lost perspective. You're focusing on this one single issue without considering the wider implications here. Separation of church and state swings BOTH ways. Church is not supposed to interfere with the state, State doesn't interfere with church. And for many, circumcision is religious issue. The people who have remorse over their circumcision are in the minority, when that changes, give me a call. You haven't sufficiently proven that those who have received circumcisions without their consent are significantly harmed or that their quality of life is lowered in any measurable way. It's issue only because a vocal minority have made it an issue.
If you're pro-choice, guess what...that means supporting choices you don't always approve of. Deal with it. Freedom is a bitch, ain't it.


You're making a lot of assumptions about me; foremost, that I have an agenda and subsequently, that you know the details of said agenda.

Also, you can't open with a coup de grâce; you've got to inflict some wounds first. To the matter at hand.

Every day more and more people are learning that circumcision is an archaic practice that is about as likely to have positive effects as it is to have negative effects. Routine circumcision is no longer recommended by pediatric associations and some are even beginning to come out against it.

There is no good reason to perform it routinely and new parents should be taught why. That's my agenda.