Interview for Circumcision Feature with Teddy Lamont: Why is America Having Such a Hard Time Talking About the Elephant in the Room: Circumcision?
Hey guys. So I was contacted not long ago by a Teddy Lamont who is creating a feature called, “Why is America Having Such a Hard Time Talking About the Elephant in the Room: Circumcision.” And he's shopping it around to VICE and GQ. And so I had an interview with him recently and I recorded it and because we talk about pretty relevant points, like why is the American media so obstinate when talking about this issue or obvious problem? And what are some of the drivers behind that? As well as, how was my show received both online and in real life and at Harvard, and would it be different at other universities? Talking about the implications of free speech policy at Harvard and other universities, as well as the ethics of certain ideologies and institutions and why the circumcision industry as embodied by the American Academy of Pediatrics and certain religions, they have no way out. This is going to be a problem for them. A huge problem in the immediate future. And why...
The circumcision rate in America at 55% is disastrous in that this is going to be a huge, huge problem that we can no longer ignore in the immediate future.
I also talk about why the HIV studies that claim that circumcision reduces your rates of HIV by 60%, what is often quoted in the media, why they are not just wrong, but they are intentionally false and why they intentionally lie to us and various financial and ideological motivations to do that.
And one last thing. So I recorded Teddy's voice twice, so there's a little, kind of echo there, which is why I added subtitles. Moving forward I will address that problem. But it's mostly me talking, if you can bear it. So yeah, please enjoy. Like, comment, subscribe if you got the time and if you got the resources, maybe help support my upcoming lawsuit with Harvard at www.Clopper.com. All right. Thanks guys.
What's going on?
Little background. So I'm still in the preliminary stages of this piece that I'm pitching to VICE, and GQ expressed major interest in it. It's not necessarily pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision or pro-intact, but more diving into the major forces that have hindered discourse around the subject, be it psychological, religious, and cultural as well as business interests at play. Diving into how there is a motivation to promote circumcision that has little to do with medicine and science. So I've talked to some parents, I talked to a doctor, talked to Brendon Marotta from a Netflix documentary.
And considering your story, and definitely your astute knowledge which you clearly displayed in your play, I just would love to learn more about your story and the influences and factors that you faced, and also dive more into the research to help back up my piece.
I won't stray too far from the questions that I emailed you. But I think maybe something to go off of immediately is your relationship with the press and why you feel the need to record this interview and if there have been specific issues and problem with the media that have happened in the last year or so?
Sure. So happy to do this. Before I do it, I'm just going to do one thing over here and this is aggressively loud light. So I just turned it down. That's better.
My relationship with the press. I put on the show “Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story” at Harvard when I was an employee there, totally separated from my employment, nothing to do with it. Signed [the contract] as an outside individual. It was extremely well received, prolonged standing ovation at the end. As you know, it was an appeal to protect our children from these dogmatic ideologies that are predicated on harming children. There's no ambiguity in Judaism. It was designed to damage you and Jewish slaves. That is explicitly dogmatic. It has been reiterated by many, many Jewish thinkers throughout time to pretty much current day. And so it's not like there is any benefit of circumcision. And those who do it religiously, which is the great majority, don't pretend to do it for medical reasons.
And me, as a Jewish man, explaining all of this, well-documented, extremely well-received, The Harvard Crimson then says, "Employee goes on nude, anti-Semitic rant." That was the headline and, I mean, it was objectively libelous. I did not go on a nude rant. And it was not a rant, it was a well-argued argument about why we can't be cutting off sexual organs of our children. And these “reporters”, and I use that in quotes, didn't attend my show. They were informed by a few Jewish students in Harvard's Hillel community to write a hit piece on me. And they wrote another hit piece and they wrote another hit piece. And these are people who publish under American pseudonyms who come from China. So they know nothing ... I shouldn't say they know nothing, but they don't come from a genital-cutting culture. I don't know how they were coopted to write these libel pieces.
And then what happened is ... and if you oppose the baby mutilators, if we're going to call them what they are, well one, by very nature they're violent because they commit acts of violence against children. They obviously lack any notion of ethics for that very reason. And apparently they will seek to professionally ruin you. And that's essentially what happened.
So I pitched the story to local press in Boston and a little beyond and multiple Boston Globe reporters were very excited about the story because this is quite the big story. I'm just getting started, but it is a very big story. And these multiple Boston Globe reporters took interviews and they're like, "Oh wow, this is very juicy in many ways." And it didn't have to be. Harvard didn't need to implicate themselves in this. They have a freedom speech policy and they should've honored it.
My attorneys and I sent them multiple letters explaining why. And these Boston Globe reporters then just dropped the story. No explanation, no anything. And so it was kind of like you cannot discuss this issue in the press. And if you look at the Boston Globe or the New York Times for example, some of their primary owners come from Jewish families. And this is a reality that we can no longer ignore, is that some members of our press, and probably a disproportionate number of them, identify with an ideology predicated on harming children. And that's a fact. And if people want to debate me, I'm happy to do it. I'm supremely easy to reach as you know, Teddy. You emailed me and I was like, "Hey, happy to talk." And they just won't do it because they stand on no moral or ethical or medical ground.
They’re harming children and it's a big fucking problem and they need to stop.
Yeah, so there's kind of a roadblock there. And so I've talked with other friends who run pretty significant social media channels, and my counsel has advised me to keep my council, so to speak. And that time is about to come to an end because I'm going to need to raise a fair amount of money to pay my law firm that I've already put a retainer down. But yeah, so nowadays, since press is largely decentralized and there are good people out there who want to be like, "Maybe we should think about taking a razor blade to our child sex organs," they want to discuss this issue. And so that's essentially why we're talking and why I'd like to continue to talk in these decentralized manners instead of the mainstream media is likely where this message is going to spread because it's just totally corrupted at this point.
Got you. And so in terms of this negative relationship with the media, especially Brendon mentioned there where a lot of journalists are sort of nervous to talk about it for fear of some type of backlash, whether that be anti-Semitic or not.
You clearly have your side of the debate which is super strong,
but going to my last question that I sent you, have you learned to adopt new methods of talking about this subject to make it less controversial potentially?
Great question. Have I learned or adopted methods to make this less controversial? So the way I see it and the way the great majority of the world sees it ... I mean it's really not controversial. You can't violate other people's rights. And if you think so, you're wrong. What is controversial about that? That Sky Daddy says that you can mutilate the flesh and blood of your child's penis and then that's a legitimate argument? It's like, no, of course it isn't. It's 2019 and for us to be literally committing actual child sacrifice. This is what it is. You are sacrificing parts of your child's sex organs to the gods. That is the level of the argument of the other side. That's not an argument. That is horribly obvious and stupid dogma. And to say anything otherwise would be a gross injustice to our children.
And as someone who is personally affected by this, it's like, "Whoa." I as a man and I think most women or people in general value their sexuality and parts of our sexuality were stolen from us at birth because we tolerated this obviously damaging dogma that is antithetical to a modern day understanding of human rights. And obviously so, that's the kicker. I am obviously correct. So there is no controversy. Is the only question that remains is, how difficult are you going to make it for us to protect these kids? That's really the only question. And moving forward I will be more vocal about how that will happen. But we're still in kind of in the early stages. And that's not a threat. I'm just saying how are we going to implement these protections for children when people believe that the Lord himself said that we must damage these children?
It's like, what? Of course you can't do that. And the thing is, and I read a book recently, I might be mispronouncing his name, Stephen Mnookin, who's a Harvard law professor called, what is it, I have it on my bookshelf, the Jewish American Paradox. And what he said was, and this is supremely ironic, and there's so many things that are ironic about this in general, but that Jews in America, "About 50% of them don't even believe in God." And we suffer in general by the ambiguity of our language. Because you say someone's Jewish, well, is that ethnic? Because I'm ethnic, but I've been excommunicated from the religious side for obvious reasons, as was Spinoza who also opposed circumcision. So there's the ethnic Jewish and then there's the religious Jewish. And parts of that religion, and we all agree, even the hardcore Jews agree, are unlawful, like slavery and stoning and all that. So the genital mutilation is in that category.
But going back to my point, Mnookin said, "About 50% of Jews don't even believe in God anymore." So it's the first a-religious religion.
And so I think most Jews, if they value reason and science are going to say, "This is an assault," that's what it is. It's just violence against children. That's what it started as. That's what it continues to be. And nobody will oppose me because nobody wants to put their face on the, “I'm For Committing Violence Against Children” Act.
They just operate behind smoke and mirrors. And my position is, I am literally happy to talk with anyone at any time and you can see if my position is reasonable. And of course it is. I don't know if that answered your question. I forgot where we were going, but I just got on my high horse.
Let’s go off the fact that you were ex-communicated. So you identify as Jewish. Do you mind speaking to your relationship with your religion pre and post?
Well, I mean I didn't ... how do I put this? I would celebrate Passover with other Jewish families and Hanukkah and I would identify as Jewish and I was told that it was both an ethnicity and a religion but nowadays let's say, people who ... For example, we have a Jewish family friend who is a banker and it was not even an implicit, but it was an explicit assumption in my family, "Oh, this guy can always get you a job when you get older." And see, I don't think that offer stands anymore. So that's kind of what I mean when I say people who strongly identify with this religion, which has a criminal commandment embedded in it, that is enacted to this day, they're not too fond of me because I point out the blaring inadequacies and how grossly unethical this belief system is, not just in theory, but in modern-day practice. So people who strongly identify with this don't like me because I informed them in no uncertain terms that they are harming children and it's unacceptable.
Mm-hmm (affirmative). In terms of next steps, who would you say that Public Enemy No. 1 is for you? Can you speak more to the Jewish lobbyists that have discouraged the pro-intact movement or more of the financial interests at play?
Jewish lobbyists, what a term. And it's very vague and there's some organizations and some not. Some is just inertial ignorance that continues. I thought that it was healthy and normal, right, growing up. I was like, "Of course. That's what you do. What, are you uncircumcised?" It's just a cultural ignorance that persists, but it's obviously false and it takes two minutes to Google now. When I was born in the '90s there's no way. You just say, "Oh, that's what the doctors say." And now after I've gone to school with dozens, if not hundreds of doctors I know, they're not superhumans. They do what they're told in medical school and this was a false belief that was taught just in America and other English-speaking countries, but they've moved away from it.
So in terms of who's Public Enemy No. 1, well, the party that is most culpable ... so Judaism, we adopted Jewish circumcision at the Jewish time of birth because of concerted Jewish influence. That is a fact. However, most people aren't circumcising because of Judaism. They are, but they don't know it. They've [been duped into thinking] there's some medical benefit.
I think the biggest culprits that you could argue are people who abused their positions of power and trust. So people who run trust institutions like the CDC and the AAP, Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. They abused their positions of power to mask their criminal act that is embedded in their religion and try to mask it and market it as medicine when it is not. And so the American Academy of Pediatrics is clearly the most guilty party.
So what they did in 2012 is they made a ... and it took maybe 40 minutes to dissect everything that was wrong and why it was intentionally deceitful in my show, but they abused their position of trust in the public, because they're supposed to be advocating for children's health, to market this blood sacrifice as medicine when it's just violence. All it is is violence. And the people who do that, they really should be held to account. So that's why when in the halls of Harvard, when there were hundreds of people there and I called them my bitches, people laughed and applauded in unison because they are, and the thing is I'm happy to debate them. But they lied. They fucking lied. And as a result, since 2012, like 7 million babies have been harmed. I mean they are responsible for high crimes.
And the thing is, technically, their policy expires in five years. So they don't have an active policy. So,
The American Academy of Pediatrics is screwed, and this is why. They can either double down on their obviously duplicitous policy that intentionally lied to the public to defend this criminal commandment of circumcising a boy in Judaism, which is a bad move. And or they can say, "Hey, it's actually not healthy," in which case they are liable for all the damage they caused before.
I don't see how the American Academy of Pediatrics can remain a financially solvent institution. And the thing is, the AAP, I'll use the acronym, raises about one hundred-twenty, thirty million dollars a year. The circumcising industry as a whole in terms of, and this is supremely dark, is we harvest our children's genitals and take that genital tissue and make it into products like skin care and skin grafts. It's really quite disgusting and creepy and impossible to conceive if it didn't already exist.
You can go online and buy the genitals of children. That's not an exaggeration. That's what you can fucking do and it's not okay. And that's a multi-billion-dollar industry [in the US].
So who has power in that relationship? This $100 million industry or the billion-dollar industry of circumcision and genital harvesting? And then if you look at the Judaic power as a whole, we're talking tens, hundreds of billions, maybe trillions.
So there are financial interests to avoid medical liability, financial interests to continue the profitable practice of cutting up children's sex organs and selling the parts that they cut off. And then ideological interests of defending this religion that absolutely has to reform because otherwise we're going to need to treat the crimes that they commit in the name of their religion as what they are, which is crimes. And other countries are trying to do that right now, like Iceland that has the Jewish population of effectively zero. And their entire motivation is, "Hey, we shouldn't perform unnecessary, harmful, damaging genital amputations. We need to protect our kids." And predictably the international Jewish community started sending them threats from the Anti-Defamation League and saying like, "You're anti-Semitic and we're going to attack you economically and otherwise." And it's like, if your organization is attacking a country trying to protect its children from harm, then your organization is having evil influence on the world.
And so we have to look at the Anti-Defamation League's leadership and say, "Shame on you. How dare you." And again, I'm happy to debate them but they won't because they're wrong. And I would dominate in the debate.
The reason I'm so confident about this is because I'm a pretty smart dude and I have to defend an incredibly easy position that I know everything about. And as time goes on, the thesis of my show at Harvard will continue to resonate until it is no longer ignorable. And I have kind of been relatively quiet with the press until now, which I'm excited to just continue to talk about this at length. But if you Google my show, it's very difficult to find and you look at the ruling class in China and anything critical of that is totally censored from Google or their form of Google, whatever that may be.
Well, similar with my show, if you try to even Google the exact terms, it's very difficult to find and that is a problem. And so one of the ways I'll combat that is I'll just give you the MP4 and you can upload it to your own channel because it's about understanding the information. And I assume you've seen my show, Teddy, and Brendon's documentary and you seem like a pretty smart dude. So it's kind of like, yeah, this shouldn't be done anymore. If you're 18 and you want to cut off part of your body, go nuts. But to do it to someone who would not do it otherwise if they were given the choice because zero percent of men who are not circumcised get circumcised, effectively. Some people do. Some people bifurcate their tongues. Doesn't mean we should do that to children. It's just wrong. So to answer your question, yeah.
I totally get that and agree.
Would you compare Harvard to the AAP in terms of overarching powerful influences? Relating to my question about if you presented the play at a different university, you think there'd be the same backlash? How does Harvard specifically with their structure and socio-political background influence their pretty harsh reaction?
Well Harvard University is certainly a more powerful entity with their $38 billion endowment and global name than the American Academy of Pediatrics. So it is a more powerful entity, although it has no public position on circumcision as their attorneys have reminded me many, many times. However, what they do have, and I have read it, and I am acutely aware of what it says, is they have a freedom speech policy that says, "We hold this as an ultimate value that we will defend all speech. And anything that we disagree with, we will use reason and rationality to kind of address. And even if someone were to share noxious views, that's a risk we're willing to assume to defend our free speech." And even in my show, I thanked Harvard's new president, my Jewish brother from another mother, Larry Bacow, saying like, "We need to remain a place where views can be shared."
I had no reason to expect that Harvard would implicate its integrity and walk back on their printed free speech policy and the new president's stated free speech policy. And then if you look at their previous president, Drew Faust, she gave her last public address as Harvard's President about 23 days later at commencement that day. And there's no way ... I'm not saying that it was connected to my talk, but it's pretty timely. She said, I'm paraphrasing a little but, "Tolerating diverse viewpoints will require us to open our minds to some disturbing and disorienting ideas and will require us to question long held beliefs and intellectual orthodoxies, so to speak." And I'm listening to this thinking, "Well, I just called out a group that mutilates babies and got a standing ovation in the heart of Harvard." And I can't say that that little tidbit was about my talk, but it seems pretty relevant if it wasn't.
It was part of policy that they have a free speech and then both of their outgoing and incoming president affirm their commitment to free speech. So in terms of your question, "What about Harvard?" Well, it doesn't matter if my show may have triggered some senior administrator. That's why we have human resources. That's why we have the Office of Labor and Employee Relations. It's so senior leadership can't act out capricious vendettas for subordinates who express views that they may disagree with.
And so the thing is ... but they did. They did act out their vendettas and my attorneys and I, among the other actions of Harvard, allege that that was unlawful. And so that's why I'm pursuing litigation. I'm not saying how anyone should interpret this, but I mean, people can put together the dots.
Why implicate your integrity and essentially throw your free speech policy in the flames to terminate a young man trying to protect children from having parts of their genitals lopped off for this criminal covenant? I mean, I'm so obviously correct is kind of the point. Now Harvard made their bed and so we'll see how things end up.
Got you. So outside of Harvard, have you noticed any specific types of people that have responded extra positively or extra negatively to your play?
I've had absolutely no negative feedback with the exception of the intentional libel in The Crimson. If you look at my YouTube videos, 50 to one, exceedingly positive comments, like, "This is the most epic speech of our time,” if I may say so. Just quoting comments. And in terms of people ... I've had people stop me in the streets in Boston and be like, "Hey, you're that guy. Way to go." Or like, "This is an idea whose time has come. It's a human rights cause whose time has come." And so the feedback that I've gotten ... I had one attorney step up to help me, then two, then an entire law firm. I have to pay my law firm, but still people stepped up to defend me.
There’s been no face to oppose me. Because at the end of the day, as humans we are attracted to symbols and I'm the symbol of protecting babies or anti-circumcision, whatever you want to call it. There's going to need to be an opposing symbol to oppose me. And there isn't one.
I've only had unanimously positive feedback and people who disagree, I'm happy to debate, but they don't materialize because you watch the show and you say, "Clopper may be many things, but he is not fucking wrong." Right?
And so, again, unanimously positive and again, if there are negative reviews where people disagree, I'm happy to talk with them one on one.
Right. I'm not surprised that younger generation responds pretty positively to it. Especially in our era of body positivity and consent. But you haven't experienced much backlash from older generations, especially dads who grew up and like, "I want my son to look like me. My grandfather looked like me. It's a part of our identity."
Yeah, it is a part of their identity and
it is a perverted identity that you need to cut off part of your son's genitals to look like you.
It's what it is. The thing to think of it like this way, let's say you're a mother, and someone cut off your labia and it's like, "Well, I want my daughter to have her labia cut off so she looks like me." It's like, no, it is unfortunate that it happened. But it's a way for you to deny the trauma that it was bad for you, is you just continue to do it to the next generation so you don't have to confront the feelings that you feel when you think, "Oh wow, somebody strapped me down and cut off a part of my body." And an important part, no less. And the thing is, if you look at the history of circumcision, it's always been known to be important.
And men who are intact, who have their foreskins and their entire penis, "Yeah, of course I enjoy my foreskin. It's an important part of my penis." So yes, you can feel pleasure and procreate without a foreskin, but the range of sexual sensations in the experience is very different. And the tragedy is you'll never know what it is if you were cut at birth. I mean, it's a high crime and it needs to stop.
Then just out of curiosity, specifically in your play you mentioned that 50% of boys now are intact. Do you potentially know the demographics of that 50%?
I do. There's two frames we can approach this from. We can approach it from the United States-centric frame and then the global frame. So briefly on the global frame, the circumcision rate is about 0% globally if you don't include religious circumcision. It's very, very small. It's mostly Muslim circumcision, some Jewish. South Korea after the Korean War, we introduced this medically and whatnot, but the global circumcision rate is very, quite small if you exclude religious circumcisions. America is the only country that still circumcises the majority of its boys for medical reasons that don't hold up to any scrutiny. And so if you look at the circumcision rate in the U.S., the highest rates are in the Midwest, and then maybe the South. It's a little low in the Northeast and very low out West. And this is just North America or United States as an entire continent. So we are not one culture. There's very different places. And nowadays cutting your boy is a symbol of ignorance. It's like, "Well, I didn't even bother to Google this procedure. I didn't look." Because when you watch a circumcision, you can just hear these babies screaming their faces off as they're being tortured. And you can Google the functions of the foreskin and deduce, "Wow, I know my son would want these important functions," and you just don't do it.
So nowadays being circumcised, and it's really an inexcusable thing to do now, is a symbol of parental ignorance. You are essentially marking your child with your ignorance for the rest of his life and it's a very sad truth.
And going back to the part that circumcision rates are about 50, 55% today in the U.S., as a whole, they used to be about 90% in the '60s. So we went from like very little Jewish community twh only circumcised to about 90% in the '60s to now about 50%. There are two equilibriums, two equilibriums and one is you circumcise all your boys or you circumcise none of them, especially in the age of information.
And now we're growing up in a time where half of our boys are going to be missing part of their penis and half aren't. It takes two minutes to Google or two hours if you want to watch my YouTube show to understand that it is markedly better to have your entire penis obviously. And we're going to have an enormous unrest. These intact boys are going to be cruel to the circumcised boys. It's going to be a total and complete shit show that is unavoidable.
The circumcision industry is fucked. They're fucked. There's nothing they can do. They've done so much damage and it's coming to light.
And it's like, "Oh my God, what do we do?" And the answer is obvious. We stop. We stop. We just stop.
And the longer that this persists, the more damage is going to happen. So these cutters are going to take their medicine at one point or another. It's just the longer they prolong, the worse it's going to be. And I think it's supremely reasonable to say like, "Drop the razorblades, step away from the children and we'll move forward. But if you persist, it's going to get worse." And this is going to happen. And it's obviously going to happen. And so the 50% is totally unsustainable.
This is an obvious human rights violation and it's going to come to light pretty much immediately and we'll see how it goes.
And even me saying this, how are you going to get this in a major publication? We'll see if it happens, but you know ...
Yeah, that's super interesting. Then to go off of that, considering the AAP hasn't retracted their recommendation, but parents and doctors alike have a lot more info around this topic, have you talked to doctors or residents about how they discuss circumcision now with parents in 2019 versus 20 years ago?
Yeah, so I saw you sent that question. Have I discussed with doctors what they said 20 years ago versus today? I mean, I haven't discussed that specific question I would say. I've had doctors publicly disagree with me and I'd have to explain very tersely why they're wrong and they generally sit down and take their verbal lashing, because if you're a doctor and you're promoting harming children, that's not okay. Because what they're doing is they're abusing their position of trust and accessing their ego as a doctor to give faulty medical advice that harms kids. And that's not okay. So I've had confrontations with doctors and then also I have a lot of doctors who support me, like, Doctors Opposing Circumcision. I'm good friends with their president. And I know that that community is like, "Yeah, he's correct."
So it's kind of like that particular ... medicine has changed in 20 years regardless. So I think more doctors are aware that this is an issue, a problem, but not enough.
And kind of like the American Academy of Pediatrics, some of them identify as part of a baby mutilating group first and doctor second and they abuse their position of power and trust as a doctor to enact this criminal commandment on children and others.
So the truth of the matter is, doctors are people too, and some of them are better and worse than others. And so there are good doctors, there are bad doctors and the ethical ones are not performing unnecessary surgeries, which opens them up to enormous legal liability. So it blows the mind they're still doing it. But we'll see how it plays out.
Yeah, and to ask you, there are are studies that say it's still slightly more advantageous in terms of lessening HIV transmission, which may not be as relevant to the U.S. But would you still stand by your strong opinion about anti-circumcision in high-risk areas around Africa?
So this is what the cutters have done and it's so evil it's really difficult to grasp… is every decade or so there's a new justification to try to couch this criminal commandment into medicine. And some of the justifications were just ludicrous. Like, "Oh, prevents club foot, it prevents sleep apnea, it prevents diarrhea, it prevents nocturnal emissions. And ironically enough, so impotence or it prevents penile cancer, gonorrhea or syphilis or now HIV." And so it's all bullshit. And you look at the rates of circumcision and the rates of HIV in Africa and the highest rates of HIV are the highest rates of circumcision, or you compare comparable nations and the highest rate of circumcised sexually active males and the highest rates of HIV in developed nations is the United States. And what happens is when you circumcise somebody, you remove all the mobility, all the natural lubrication, and so it becomes more like a dildo than a mobile sheath.
And so that causes bleeding, it causes pain and bleeding. And actually, that exchange of blood during sex makes it much more likely to contract HIV or to transmit HIV. And if you look at these studies, and this is why it's so profoundly evil because this isn't just a mistake, this was collusion. Because there were three studies, I believe, 2005 to '07 that said, "Okay, there's a 60% chance of reducing your HIV." And this was widely picked up on the press. The press is not our friend but if you look at the actual results ... Because I graduated as one of, if not, the top physics major at my university. I'm much better at math than these doctors who are intentionally lying to us. And so if you look at the math, what they actually found with thousands and thousands of African, mostly illiterate men, truck drivers and whatever is, if you aggregate the results is like 1.2% less men who were circumcised got HIV.
So it was like 2.5% intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men. So it was like a 1.2% difference within a small margin of error. And what they did, and they did this all identically in their abstracts, is they presented this as a relative rate of reduction. So they took these two very poorly measured numbers that bear no basis in reality, because the methodology of the study was such garbage, is they took these two very small numbers and they compared, that are very poorly measured, and then they compared them and said, "Oh it's 60% reduced risk of infection." And that's not just a disingenuous way to present your data. It's dishonest. And now this is why it's obvious collusion to mutilate babies. So it's an obvious evil collusion is, all of them, with thousands of studies in each participant had the same exact results that were all presented in the same disingenuous way in the abstract.
This is not a result of chance. The mathematical chance of the [HIV study results] is zero. This is intentional collusion so that they can give a sound bite to the press that has loyalties to a baby mutilating ideology. I mean, what they have done is fucking evil and we need to confront them on that. And so yeah, the HIV is total nonsense. It's total bullshit. It's going to totally reverse and it allows these baby mutilators to continue this criminal commandment under the guise of some, like humanitarian mission, which is totally not backed up by the data or the science.
It's because they don't want to take a deep look at themselves and say, "Oh wow, we've been harming children and that needs to stop."
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah, that's super interesting.
Yeah, it is very interesting.
Yeah. I mean, GQ and VICE are definitely interested. Like I said, I pitched along the lines of, "It can't be one or the other, but at the end of the day, it's about diving into these forces and why the U.S. has a problem talking about it and ultimately fixing this trouble, fixing this problem." But you mentioned a revolution is coming. Lawsuits are coming. I think that definitely gets the point across. There's definitely a good story there. But that's the last of my questions. Is there anything else ... last minute words you want to talk about?
No. I mean, do you care if I post this online? Our conversation. Not that you said anything controversial. Pretty straight forward questions, but I like my answers, so ...
Yeah, not at all. Go for it.
Cool. Yeah. So let me know if you need anything else and I wish you luck in pitching the story. And yeah, we'll see what happens, right?
Yeah. I'll give you an update.
Okay, cool. Yeah, thank you. It was good talking Teddy.
Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it.
Oh, happy to help. Bye. It was good talking to you Teddy.