How to be saved: only believe Christ paid for your sins. Done. Salvation cannot be lost, even if you stop believing.


American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds):
Not a Credible Source of Information

Index


Because 'Prolife' has nothing to do with scientific thought, how would Prolifers have any credible material to cite? Enter the "American College of Pediatricians" also known as ACPeds. Prolifers use them almost exclusively for citing all of their unscientific claims.

The organization seemingly uses ambiguity to its advantage; when Prolifers started dogpiling and mass chain citing them to me, I didn't have an immediate response as there were so few resources outlining the exact nature of ACPeds, all of its beliefs and connections to biased religious organizations.

I'm left shocked after researching ACPeds with all of the publicly available information, these people do not have anyone's best interests in mind (in my opinion). If someone has to be dishonest or go out of their way to sell an idea, it's probably not truthful. The "scientific" citations and research are especially appalling when the very doctors and researchers quoted do not agree with ACPeds nor their reversed interpretation of their work. None of the ACPeds documentation is peer reviewed or taken seriously by the mainstream AAP or ACCME from what I could gather.




Origins & Involvement with Religious Organizations

ACPeds started in 2002 when Dr. Joseph Zanga & co disagreed with the AAP allowing same-sex couples to adopt; it would also serve as a convenient mouthpiece for some of their ideologies such as: Prolife, conversion therapy, anti-trans, and many more. ACPeds struggled for finances throughout most of its existence and remained in general obscurity until the popularity for 'Prolife' exploded in 2023 among MAGA, Christian Nationalists, frenzied Prolifer activists (...)

I was not able to find any sample references to prove ACPeds' members are a neutral entity free of bias. ACPeds in its early inception would apparently form a close working relationship with "Family Watch International" and later the "Alliance Defending Freedom", with the Prolife ideology shilled through many avenues of media. While there have been some references that ACPeds began as ACP, their earliest website in 2002 does refer to them as 'ACPeds', so I can't really say what sparked the confusion between the two. Maybe they had a different domain during then? I don't really know, it could be forgotten history.

The trio of organizations (ACPeds, FWI, ADF) are all listed on the SPLC hate group list preventing them from receiving Jeff Bezos' charity funding, and it's also not a good look. Of course it can be assumed they've always realized this and SPLC remained a persistent "wart" to their reputation, so the ADF would come in to create a hit piece on SPLC harpooning Morris Dees against SPLC itself, in an attempt to employ guilt by association. Of course a single individual having skeletons in their closet doesn't excuse an entire stadium of skeletons. It's true the SPLC isn't infallible but where there's smoke, there's fire.

The name 'ACPeds' could have been chosen so that it would remain unassuming among accredited Pediatric organizations while sharing a similar acronym to American College of Physicians. The AAP eventually got inquiries about what could be perceived as propaganda ACPeds were sending schools and ultimately advised the AAP obviously had no relation.




Compared Against Other Organizations

Organization: # of Members Year founded Religious Connections Hate Organization (SPLC)
American College of Pediatricians, ACP(eds) 700 2002 Yes (FWI/ADF) Yes
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, AAPS 5,000 1943 Yes N/A
American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP 67,000 1930 No No
American College of Physicians, ACP 154,000 1915 No No
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG 60,000 1951 No No

I could not find a reference for ACPeds being a professional association of pediatricians, and the ACCME has only accredited the AAP. There were no public statements from ACPeds that I could find explaining why they've failed to achieve either.

In 2002 ACPeds only had 15 members with its initial founding with the organization occasionally saying it was 100 or 150, there's no way to really ratify that but even 100 members is a small number. It has even less than the AAPS which is full of medical conspiracies including that HIV doesn't actually cause AIDS which is akin to saying the earth is flat. Despite ACPeds having less people than even medical conspiracists, the AAPS and ACPeds still mirror certain pseudoscience such as claiming abortions cause breast cancer.

The AAP or ACOG would never involve themselves with organizations like the FWI and ADF as ACPeds has, and it would appear they've toned down the religiosity in later iterations of their website to reduce the effects of this obvious incongruence. If a Pediatrics group collaborates with biased and religious organizations, its main focus is no longer transparency in my opinion.




Antisemitism in ACPeds & ADF

It would appear both the ACPeds and ADF exhibit Antisemitism whether intentional or not. It's always important to audit what you say and what you cite lest you remove a leg.


Joseph Zanga: "We (ACPeds) are essentially a Judeo-Christian, traditional-values organization, open to membership for pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold to our core beliefs: life begins at conception."

Rabbis have never traditionally considered life beginning at conception because they can actually read the Torah, so merging "Judeo" and "life begins at conception" is a grave error on Dr. Zanga's part in my opinion. I would go further to add any Christian reading the Bible in its original texts will know Prolife is completely bogus as a consequence. The only thing remaining are indeed other religions as Joseph Zanga has mentioned that uphold Prolife like Islam. David Duke is also a Prolifer like Zanga, and staunchly maintains abortion and pro-choice are therefore Jewish conspiracies.

There was a Jewish couple attempting to adopt a child from the Holston (United Methodist) Home for Children, but once they discovered the family was Jewish they refused to adopt the boy to them, because as a Christian organization they only adopt children who align with their belief system. And who came to the rescue to represent the Holston (United Methodist) Home for Children? None other than the Alliance Defending Freedom, and upon inquiry from the New York Times the ADF never replied to any emails after their hypocrisy came to light. Of course these awful people say that 'vulnerable children' shouldn't be prevented from going into a Christian family despite the fact the kid is left rotting in State care and was just prevented from going into a loving family. That's how vile the Prolife movement is, they kick and scream that they're all about protecting children but let them rot when it comes down to raw religious ideology. ACPeds mirror the ADF as they never wanted same-sex couples to be able to adopt, either. Of course it won't really end there, they don't want anyone adopting a child unless they follow strict "Christian" living guidelines (all the while still wanting all pregnancies to be forced so all children can endure hell-on-earth).

The ADF actively used citations from Steve Sailer in their own letter to Amazon. Steve Sailer is a known white supremacist and Antisemite.




Willful Malice in Citations

It would appear ACPeds has notoriety in the scientific community for taking legitimate research papers and deliberately misquoting to shoehorn credible research to an uncredible position. It's pure dishonesty to cite material from scientists or doctors and then deliberately reverse the intended meaning or add parts to it that weren't there.

  1. Consistently quoting Francis Collins on not just one, but multiple documents with the same thing: "Dr. Francis Collins ~ summed it up best when he wrote sexual orientation is not hardwired by DNA". Of course that's not what Francis Collins actually said in context, and he is vehemently against the notion that homosexuality 'can be cured' or that his research should be redefined to support such a thing.

    2. "It troubles me greatly to learn that anything I have written would cause anguish for you or others who are seeking answers to the basis of homosexuality. The words quoted by NARTH all come from the Appendix to my book “The Language of God” (pp. 260-263), but have been juxtaposed in a way that suggests a somewhat different conclusion that I intended. I would urge anyone who is concerned about the meaning to refer back to the original text.

    The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality – the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

    Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years."

    Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D


  2. Gary Remafedi's research was skewed to say that both homosexuality can naturally dissipate by age 25, or when someone 'claims' a gay identity a host of risks immediately increase.

    3. TO: American College of Pediatricians

    Dear colleagues,

    I am deeply concerned about misstatements attributed to our research on the “Facts about Youth” website of the American College of Pediatricians, as they appear in the “Letter to School Officials” and “What You Should Know as a School Official.”

    The first reference to our research in these documents deceptively states:

    “Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25. In one study, as many as 26% of 12-year-olds reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation [1]…”

    Although the finding (“26% of 12-year-olds…”) is accurately reported, the sentence preceding it invites misinterpretation. Our original interpretation, as presented in the discussion section of the paper, is: “Taken together, these data suggest that uncertainty about sexual orientation and perceptions of bisexuality gradually give way to heterosexual or homosexual identification with passage of time and/or with increasing sexual experience.”

    The second reference to our research in your handout erroneously states:

    Among adolescents who claim a “gay” identity, the health risks include higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide. Delaying such labeling significantly reduces these medical and psychiatric health risks. For example, researchers find that adolescents who defer “coming out as gay” decrease the risk of suicide at a rate of 20 percent for each year that they delay self-labeling as homosexual or bisexual. [15]

    This paragraph is wrong on two counts:

    1) It incorrectly reports the results of the research and, once again, misrepresents the conclusions. As a matter of fact, we wrote:

    For each year’ delay in homosexual or bisexual self-labeling, the odds of a suicide attempt diminished by 80%. These findings support a previously observed, inverse relationship between psychosocial problems and the age of acquiring a homosexual identity. Compared with older adolescents, early and middle adolescents may be generally less able to cope with the isolation and stigma of a homosexual identity;

    2) Citing our work (reference #15) at the end of the paragraph would attribute the content of the entire paragraph to our publication when, in fact, the first sentence (“Among adolescents who claim…”) is not what we have written.

    As the first author of the two publications in question and the authorized contact for related communications, I am responding to the inaccuracies in your website documents on behalf of the investigative group. However, the following reactions and suggested remedies are from my own personal perspective, and my co-authors may contribute additional thoughts and suggestions at their discretion.

    I have previously encountered and confronted the problem of misrepresentation of research from other advocacy groups such as yours. However, this episode is especially troubling and egregious because it is led by colleagues within my own profession‚ who certainly have the ability, education, and experience to access, review, and accurately summarize the Pediatric scientific literature.

    Our professional code demands of Pediatricians nothing short of the highest standards of ethical conduct in medical education, research, and patient care. Knowingly misrepresenting research findings for material or personal gain is a flagrant violation of this code of conduct. Implicating me in this chicanery is doubly damaging to my professional reputation and career by holding me accountable for misstatements and by associating me with a cause that most ethical Pediatricians will recognize as misguided and hurtful to an entire class of children and families.

    Please immediately remove any reference to our work from the website. As a suitable remedy, I also would urge you take the following actions:

    1) Publicly retract your references to our research with a written statement posted on the home page of your website;

    2) Until then, any donations made to your organization since the “Facts about Youth” website was launched should be either returned to the donors or contributed to the LGBT youth research fund of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.

    I look forward to your prompt attention and response to these issues.

    Sincerely,

    Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H.
    Professor, Department of Pediatrics
    University of Minnesota
    CC: Robert Blum, M.D., PhD; Michael Resnick PhD; James Farrow M.D.


  3. Warren Throckmorton's work was inappropriately cited by ACPeds, to which he responded in a lengthy blog article.

It's possible to reverse anything to fit you needs if desired (many often argue different viewpoints over the same thing) but this research was redefined in a manner that did not correlate to the conclusions of their original authors.




Lying: Hallmark of the Prolifer Brand

Prolifers have a documented habit of lying as well as being generally addicted to it, and there are a lot of statements from both the ADF and ACPeds which seem to follow suit.


Quoted from the ACPeds website: "Is the ACPeds a religious or political organization?
No. The ACPeds is a scientific medical association of healthcare professionals that advocates for policies that promote the optimal health and well-being of children."

In response to ACPeds: they would have to provide explanations why ACPeds has so many connections to religious organizations (ADF) with directly linking back to another (FWI) from their own website, and how their core values mirror Christian Nationalism along with them having championed FMA. I don't think a "scientific medical association" would care whether or not someone decides to engage in same-sex marriage?


Quoted from the ACPeds website: "It (ACPeds) was founded by a group of concerned physicians who saw the need for a pediatric organization that would not be influenced by the politically driven pronouncements of the day."

Quoted from the ADF website: "Today, the SPLC spends its time attacking political opponents, falsely accusing them of bigotry (...) and it uses false accusations to demonize its opponents rather than engaging in civil discourse."

In response to ACPeds: but if ACPeds and the ADF both have attributes of Christian Nationalism, isn't that being politically driven? And what the ADF says about the SPLC attacking political opponents contradicts what ACPeds say by claiming they're not political. Well if neither were politically motivated it's unlikely both would be on the SPLC list.

In response to the ADF: if the ADF (who operates in law) says the accusations of bigotry are false, shouldn't they prove it? They do discriminate if you don't fit within their requirements so that (legally) is bigotry.


ACPeds' Guidestar page: "The College promotes a society where all children, from the moment of their conception, are valued unselfishly."

ADF's Guidestar page: "Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building legal ministry that advocates for religious freedom to uphold justice and preserve the right of people to freely live out their faith."

In response to ACPeds: it would be lying to redefine embryonic material as 'children', you are not a child at the point of conception. It shouldn't surprise those who understand this petty dictionary game that a 'child' requires a formed body to be a child. Conception never guarantees a resulting child because that wholly depends on the pregnancy coming to term. They also do not value others unselfishly (their words) because they wouldn't have established a system for conversion therapy. Of course if someone or an organization has a selfish value then you'll be required to follow a bunch of procedures to 'earn your worth'. Christian Nationalists are very quick to discard people if they don't share their same beliefs requiring a system of worth earning: so could you argue that Prolifers value everyone unselfishly? It does not seem to be the case.

In response to the ADF: there's a huge caveat annexed behind the scenes, being able to freely live out faith only if it's their brand of faith. Well that's not really freedom is it? Restrictive adoptions, restricting same-sex marriage, banning abortion, discrimination against all other beliefs... where's the freedom? Of course any entity wanting to restrict freedom would obviously claim it's for the very thing it denies...


Quoted from the ACPeds website: "Is ACPeds anti-LGBTQ+?
No. ACPeds and its physician members are committed to compassionately caring for all children regardless of their family structure, race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, sexual attractions and gender identity. Our physicians extend unconditional respect to their patients and parents who may hold different views."

Quoted from the ADF website: "Myth #1: ADF is an “anti-LGBT group”
ADF believes that all people are made in the image of God and that everyone is worthy of dignity and respect. While ADF takes legal and policy positions that are informed by a biblically based understanding of marriage, human sexuality, and the sanctity of life, we understand and respect the fact that others have different views than we do."

In response to ACPeds: ACPeds claims they're committed for "all children" (and I imagine that includes embryos as well 🙄), while their whole organization is built around banning abortion, banning homosexual marriage, and anything else they're not pleased with. Well you know if you're against homosexual children you're no longer about caring for all children. It would be classified as a lie for anyone to say they care for all children but apply caveats to it. If you're wondering why I'm saying ACPeds wanted to ban same-sex marriage despite them shying away from saying it outright on their current FAQ, that's because they supported FMA when it was proposed.

In response to the ADF: I'm a bit confused from ADF's statement because they do in fact work against the LGBT community. You can both simultaneously say "people are made in the image of God" and "we respect the fact others may have different views", but still not actually care about someone -- in fact Christians tend to be the worst people you'll ever know. It can be assumed every business & organization claims they respect all people even if their ideologies conflict with inclusiveness. Would an organization blatantly discriminating admit it? Of course not. I also think it's wrong to bludgeon the Bible in everyday life: if there was a God who wanted to bludgeon us we'd be bludgeoned this very moment. It then becomes that the followers have their own private desire to force-feed others their beliefs.


Quoted from the ACPeds website: "Why does the ACPeds emphasize the “married, father-mother, family unit” as being important to child development? Is the ACPeds opposed to families with single parents or blended families?
No. With the rise of divorce, the decline of traditional marriage, and re-defining of marriage to include any desired configuration, the well-being of children within these homes has been ignored and even misrepresented. The ACPeds is simply asserting that the optimal outcome for children occurs when they are reared in a home by their biological parents in a low conflict marriage."

Quoted from the ADF website: "Myth #2: ADF supports the re-criminalization of homosexuality
ADF has never supported the passage of laws criminalizing homosexuality."

In response to ACPeds: notice when talking about the optimal outcome (of families) ACPeds has omitted same-sex marriages from the equation with the emphasis on father-mother, in another article ACPeds says: Say NO to Same-Sex Marriage. Furthermore they've just contradicted themselves because you could have someone from a same-sex marriage who is now a single parent (single parent doesn't guarantee heterosexuality), and if they're accepting of single parents then what could possibly be wrong with having two same-sex parents? Isn't two better than one? None of this of course counteracts abusive heterosexual parents, in life there's always exceptions. It's also ridiculous to claim that only heterosexual marriages are 'low conflict', that's hearsay. Conclusory statements are almost impossible to defend if it's based on an opinion.

In response to the ADF: they have redefined the argument for misdirection, very petty. They want to ensure same-sex marriages are not possible period (by proxy you would be a criminal if you're in an 'illegal' same-sex marriage, and in order to be in a same-sex marriage you would presumably be a homosexual), and they've gone out of their way to ensure States don't recognize same-sex marriages when they can. That's making same-sex marriage criminalizing, no? Furthermore their friends at the ACPeds stated quite vividly homosexual couples shouldn't enjoy the same marital rights as heterosexual couples:

"Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not the Best for Children. The American College of Pediatricians analyzes the consequences of granting full marital rights and privileges to domestic partnerships and homosexual couples." - ACPeds


Quoted from the ACPeds website: "Does the ACPeds support “conversion therapy?”
ACPeds by no means supports and is opposed to any coercive, shaming, and physically harmful practices such as electroshock therapy. These are not forms of ethical psychotherapy.
We support therapy for children and adolescents with unwanted non-heterosexual attractions (..) and given the positive outcomes of therapy reported by adults in scientific literature. LGBTQ+ activists are committed to the belief that homosexual attractions are normal and immutable, but change toward heterosexual attraction is possible for some people."

Quoted from the ADF website: "Myth #3: ADF supports the forced sterilization of people who identify as transgender
ADF condemns the forced sterilization of any person.
The SPLC began spreading this lie following ADF International’s legal brief supporting the rights of European countries to establish their own laws (...)."

In response to ACPeds: they begin their reply with another misdirection, to make you assume that conversion therapy is electroshock therapy, rather than the very pseudoscientific psychotherapy they're shilling. There's really no proof that sexuality is something that can remain in constant flux or becomes generated based on your surrounding environment, it's more sensical to say sexuality is directly linked to the biology (also observed in animals as well -- don't tell me ACPeds is going to start counselling homosexual ducks), this would also explain why some individuals are born completely asexual with no desire towards any aspects of sexuality. Regarding the potential for someone to change their sexuality, anyone can claim they've changed their sexuality with enough brainwashing.

In response to the ADF: I'm disappointed that the ADF couldn't publish their own 2015 legal document where they made these claims, because omitting it in your rebuttal typically implies there's something to hide. Under item 21 the ADF calls for reassignment to be an 'irreducible minimum'.


Quoted from the ACPeds website: "Is ACPeds is an anti-transgender organization? No. The ACPeds is a pro-child, pro-science and pro-health organization (...) ACPeds is deeply concerned with the alleged safety of transgender interventions, as there is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth. This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions."

Quoted from the ADF website: "Myth #4: ADF is trying to stop people who identify as LGBT from adopting children or providing foster care
ADF does not seek to restrict the freedom of secular groups to place children by their own standards, within the law. We have defended and will continue to defend the rights of faith-based foster care and adoption agencies to operate according to their beliefs."

In response to ACPeds: 'life begins at conception' isn't scientific as they claim, so that's the first strike right out of the gate. Again with the conclusory statements, transgender studies have been around for awhile, with Harry Benjamin's book on the topic being released in 1966 and documented individuals receiving hormone replacement therapy for over five decades since then.

In response to the ADF: they've just answered their own rebuttal: restricting adoption to "faith-based" agencies is the very definition of preventing LGBT individuals (and indeed anyone from other religions) from adopting. If this wasn't the case they wouldn't defend (in my opinion) very legalistic and dangerous sects of Christianity.




ACPeds Bulk Unscientific Claims

A list of certifiably unscientific claims that I was able to find on the ACPeds website (this isn't a complete list but a good sampling):

  1. That life begins at conception : there is no formed body, therefore there is no person, conflating the unborn with the born is not scientific

  2. That conversion therapy works : you can't change your biological sexual attraction because it's intrinsic to your biology, only gaslight yourself, this is also why homosexuality can be observed in animals

  3. That abortions cause breast cancer : that would mean stillbirths too -- although they try to skirt this issue by saying "induced abortion" which makes no sense (the variables are still the same), which by the way just existing can give you cancer because DNA repair isn't infallible... unless you're a naked mole-rat

  4. That abortion isn't healthcare : it's obviously healthcare because not all pregnancies are wanted and not all pregnancies can be carried to term, it's extraordinarily vile for a Prolife doctor to then claim the mother's life can always be saved in every circumstance because that's just not true

  5. Unborn 'children' feeling pain : they redefine it to 'unborn children' to skew the statement, okay... a freshly joined zygote isn't going to feel anything because there's no brain. For the sake of argument if it was a fully conscious person it would be a hellish experience to actually feel yourself grow cell-by-cell. Prolifers will stoop to any degree of lunacy. I'm certain at some point later on in the pregnancy as the fetus exhibits fetal motility it has the ability to feel pain through its receptors, but so what? Until it becomes a completed born being it's not a fully developed child.

  6. That abortion is a legal murder : I really don't like the language that Prolifers use which they accuse every abortion (and by proxy every stillbirth) as a murder. That's lying and redefining what a murder actually is, just as they blanket rename every point of development during a pregnancy as "an innocent child".

  7. That 'normalizing' Gender Dysphoria is dangerous : it's actually dangerous to discredit Gender Dysphoria because people suffering won't be able to get help, or won't understand why they feel different (isn't that what healthcare is about?!)

  8. That condoms shouldn't be used due to 'risks' : so they're against abortion but also against condoms due to superfluous reasons, do they not see the contradiction?

I'm a little suspicious in the manner of how some of these were written... It almost seems like Michelle Cretella wrote these articles herself & adding her own quotes as if she was a third person (major conflict of interest not unlike writing a wikipedia entry on yourself). It also reminds me of Donald Trump tweeting and then responding to his own tweets as if he's another person...




Turn Up the Hate

The final thing I would like to shed light on are some of the recent things ACPeds has been doing against the trans community.

On February 28, 2023, ACPeds purchased a new domain biologicalintegrity.org to start selling what could be perceived as more anti-trans propaganda.

Later in 2003 August Dekker would begin a case against Jason Weida [Case No. 4:22-cv-00325-RH-MAF] in regards to Joseph Zanga's opinions against the trans community because he's not a qualified expert of the subject matter. Zanga was apparently comfortable with omitting peer-reviewed citations in favour of self-taught expertise, provided no bibliography, and never specialized in any field pertaining to transgender matters.




References

A list containing most of the references I used to create this article with the exception of other uniquely internally embedded links elsewhere. I used publicly available information avoiding all of the supposedly leaked data because disclosing classified information is illegal but also hearsay (for the sake of transparent research we don't really know if an organization stands behind employee gossip). I don't agree with anything that ACPeds stands for, but all aspects of due diligence were followed to maintain a high quality and thorough research on my part.









Copyright © Under the Bible | All Rights Reserved