Random Thought: Is Circumcision Human Ikebana?

I was recently reading a book called "The Book of Tea" by one Kakuzo "Tenshin" Okakura. The book is about the Japanese Tea Ceremony, and it focuses on many aspects of it.

One of the aspects of the Japanese Tea Ceremony is the appreciation of flowers, and there is an entire excerpt dedicated to this one thing. I found part of this chapter to be quite a parallel to the circumcision of children.

Begin excerpt: 
Tell me, gentle flowers, teardrops of the stars, standing in the garden, nodding your heads to the bees as they sing of the dews and the sunbeams, are you aware of the fearful doom that awaits you? Dream on, sway and frolic while you may in the gentle breezes of summer. Tomorrow, a ruthless hand will close around your throats. You will be wrenched torn asunder limb from limb and borne away from your quiet homes. The wretch, she may be passing fair. She may say how lovely you are while her fingers are still moist with your blood. Tell me, will this be kindness? It may be your fate to be imprisoned in the hair of one whom you know to be heartless or to be thrust into the buttonhole of one who would not dare to look you in the face were you a man. It may even be your lot to be confined to some narrow vessel with only stagnant water to quench the maddening thirst that warns of ebbing life.

Flowers, if you were in the land of the Mikado, you might some time meet a dread personage armed with scissors and a tiny saw. He would call himself a Master of Flowers. He would claim the rights of a doctor and you would instinctively hate him, for you know a doctor always seeks to prolong the troubles of his victims. He would cut, bend, and twist you into those impossible positions which he thinks is proper that you should assume. He would contort your muscles and dislocate your bones like any osteopath. He would burn you with red-hot coals to stop your bleeding, and thrust wires into you to assist your circulation. He would diet you with salt, vinegar, alum, and sometimes, vitriol. Boiling water would be poured on your feet when you seemed ready to faint. it would be his boast that he could keep life within you for two weeks longer than would have been possible without his treatment. Would you not have preferred to have been killed at once when you were first captured? What were the crimes you must have committed during your past incarnation to warrant such punishment as this?

Why were the flowers born so beautiful and yet so hapless? Insects can sting, and even the meekest of beasts will fight when brought to bay. The bird whose plumage is sought to deck some bonnet can fly from its pursuer, the furred animal whose coat you covet for your own may hide at your approach. Alas! The only flower known to have wings is the butterfly; all others stand helpless before the destroyer. If they shriek in their death agony their cry never reaches our hardened ears.

Well? What did you think?

To me, it invokes the vision of a tiny, helpless, sleeping child before an eager circumcisor. It tells the story from the point of view of an onlooker who knows what is about to happen.

This passage is about flowers who are but a means of art for a sculptor. But I think these same principles could be applied to the circumcisor, his subjects and the appreciators of his work. It is all too often I hear from circumcision advocates that they much prefer the circumcised penis because it "looks prettier" and/or more "sexually appealing."

I wonder what the statue of Venus looked like when she had arms...

If she were alive, I wonder, would she have preferred to keep them?

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

And just when I thought I'd heard enough about mohels giving babies herpes, another report of a poor Jewish baby with herpes arises.

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent... The baby could have gotten herpes from a relative or someone in the Hospital, or many other people... You can't say for sure it was the circumcision."~Philip Sherman, "Mohel to the Stars"

I've written enough.

Will you do something about this, New York?

Please?

Joseph4GI: One Year Later

Today (March 18) marks the day I started this blog. Not knowing much about how blogs even work, I decided to dive into the world of blogging. I had decided I've ranted and raved about circumcision long enough, that it was time to start organizing my thoughts somewhere, and that perhaps a blog was the next step.

When I started this blog, I had absolutely no experience blogging. But now, it's been a year, and though I've learned a few things here and there, I'm still learning as I go along. There are still a few things I don't quite yet understand, and I'm sure there is a whole lot more that would make my blogging experience easier and more convenient if I knew about it.

There have been other experienced bloggers who have given me pointers along the way. Thanks to them I have learned about customizing URLs, the importance of graphics and some of the gadgets that Blogger has to offer. Users that have been following me may have noticed that I have a new banner (I've only recently learned how to make one and implement it on Blogger, yay...), a favicon, and that I'm slowly building my blog's brand.

Current Stats
To mark my blog's first anniversary, I've decided to share some of my stats to show how far I've come.

Since I've started my blog there have been many ups and downs in views relative to how much I post, and how much impact they have. Readers will note a few prominent spikes this week.

My most read blog post is "Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay," followed by my post on the San Francisco Circumcision Ban proposal, and my post "Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV." My post "PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal" is actually quite new, only written at the beginning of February (last month), but as you can see, it has quickly shot up the list within the past few weeks.

My audience seems to be mainly from the United States, though I also get some readership from other English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada. The other countries are an interesting mix; I don't know *why* Japan is just below the US, but above the UK, and Australia is below Germany and India, for example. There are more Firefox users than Internet Explorer users, and Windows users outnumber Mac users, for whatever that is worth.

Overall, my stats indicate that my readership has grown since I've started blogging. I've got 76 posts, and 40 users who are following me openly. (How many are following me secretly? Who knows!) I'd say, not bad for my first year as a novice blogger...

Are you a frequent visitor to this blog? Do you like what you see? Do you have a Blogger account or any other way to "follow" me openly? Add me to your blog list! I know I have more readers that are not on my followers' list. Come out, come out, wherever you are! :-)

Where To From Here?
There is so much more I could be doing, and I hope to learn more about it so that I can improve this blog and increase its visibility. I'm considering possibly changing the blog's name, possibly giving it a proper home on a WordPress or Drupal site, maybe adding other gadgets, possibly a donate button and links to Amazon, but these are only just ideas; they may or may not be brought to fruition in the future. There is a lot I need to consider first, not to mention learn. (Blogger is difficult enough for me!)

So What is This Blog About?
My name is Joseph Lewis, and I am an activist for human rights. My main interests include equal rights. By extension, I am very active in speaking out against the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors of any sex. I've chosen the handle Joseph4GI for my online intactivism. Joseph4GI stands for "Joseph for Genital Integrity," and I started this blog mainly as a way to organize all of my thoughts regarding circumcision, particularly the circumcision of infants. On it, readers will find my random rants and musings on circumcision and intactivism.

There are plenty of pro-circumcision "information resources." Additionally, the so-called "benefits" of circumcision are given plenty of attention on all manner of news outlets. In addition to posting my rants and musings, I aim to present information the mainstream media omits, circumvents, or otherwise leaves out.

Up front, I don't pretend to have any kind of "neutral point of view" when it comes the subject of circumcision. I am dead against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, male or female, and I make no exception for "religion" or "culture." The only time that a child should undergo surgery is when there is actual medical or clinical indication, and all other methods of treatment have failed. (This also happens to be standard medical practice.)

Mission Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

DISCLAIMER:
I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. Please do not conflate my disdain for the forced circumcision of minors with a belittlement of circumcised men, or a hate for Jews. The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the whole of the intactivist movement, thank you.
~Joseph4GI

To read more about who I am, I have a dedicated blog post readers can view here.

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

In a recent post, I talk about the second reported case, where a child dies as a result of contracting herpes from a mohel through an obscure circumcision ritual that is practiced only by ultra-orthodox Jews. The ritual in question is called "metzitzah b'peh", and it involves the mohel putting his mouth on the wounded genitals of a newly circumcised Jewish baby boy to suck blood from it.

Well, as I read more and more into it, the plot just keeps getting thicker and thicker.

The last time I heard, Yitzchok Fischer of New York was found to have infected three newborns with herpes via metzitzah b'peh, one of whom died. He was basically pardoned by Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden, and no further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh. Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community can be read here.

To prevent the transmission of herpes to other babies, the New York State Department of Health adopted a medical protocol in 2006, requiring ultra-orthodox mohels to wash their mouths with Listerine before performing the procedure.

Well, according to another recent report, the practice was rescinded less than a year later. According to The Jewish Week, Fischer was involved in the infection of yet *another* infant, who was admitted to a hospital with clinical diagnosis of neonatal herpes via oral suction in May, 2007. Based on that, the health department ordered Fischer to stop practicing metzitzah b’peh.

In my last post regarding this matter, I wondered as to the identity of the mohel responsible, and why it was not yet known. Authorities were investigating and the families involved weren't being to forthcoming as to the identity of the person responsible. I wondered if it was this self-same Fischer person whose identity people were trying to protect. Well, it looks like might have actually had reason to suspect. Apparently, despite his order from the health department to stop practicing the obscure oral suction ritual, Fischer is still performing it.

Only Two Out of Many
As I read more, I come to find out that while only these two cases have made the news, Haaretz reports that countless other deaths have not. And these are just the deaths; reports keep coming in of babies being admitted to hospitals for herpes infections with lesions around their genitals. You want to know why you hardly hear of complications due to circumcision? Well, this is why.

What is frustrating is that despite all the evidence piling up, mohels like Philip Sherman have the nerve to act singled out and "upset" that health authorities are doing their jobs.

"This is part of the anti-religious, anti-circumcision trend," Sherman blasts. 

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent... The baby could have gotten herpes from a relative or someone in the Hospital, or many other people... You can't say for sure it was the circumcision."

How long are practitioners of a deadly ritual going to be allowed to get away with denial?

All I've got to say is, the degree to which New York authorities are tip-toeing around the eggshells is getting to be quite ridiculous.

Children are DYING, and they're more concerned about "upsetting" the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community?

How long until they realize that this "tradition" is costing children their LIVES?

Sometimes traditions have to be abandoned.

This is a tradition whose time has come.

May one day this world be a safe place for children of both sexes, free of life-endangering "traditions."

Spank the Monkey, Eat Tomatoes, or Circumcision: Your Call

On my last post, I discussed a so-called "study" that is making the rounds, which "suggests," but does not actually produce, a causal link between circumcision and a reduced risk of prostate cancer. Nevermind that the claims of this "study" flies in the face of existing real-world data.

It should strike people as odd the time and effort certain "researchers" devote to concoct "studies" that seek to connect circumcision to the "reduction" of some disease. "Researchers" have been trying to justify circumcision, particularly the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, for at least two centuries now. One would think that with all of the data they've supposedly gathered, almost two centuries worth of data, they would use it to come up with a solution that supersedes circumcision. After all, that is the whole point of medical science; to seek for better, more effective ways to prevent disease.

Progress is marked by the replacement of the old with the new and better. In the context of medical science, researchers usually seek to find ways to avoid surgery, not necessitate it; to preserve the body, not grope for a reason to deliberately destroy it. Circumcision "research" seems to be unique, in that it is the only instance in medical science where "scientists" and "researchers" aren't seeking to move forward, but to tenaciously cling to an ancient, cherished blood ritual.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the "science" behind the latest "study" were actually accurate. Perhaps circumcision MAY somehow "reduce" the risk of prostate cancer, though again, this "benefit" seems to somehow elude the United States, where 80% of American men are circumcised, and yet, according to the American Cancer Society, 1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer.

You wouldn't hear this from a circumcision advocate, but some studies show that masturbation might protect against prostate cancer. Additionally, lycopene in a man's diet may also ward off this deadly disease.

Well, I'm not sure about everyone else, but I would rather much spank the monkey and eat tomatoes than have part of my penis cut off, and I would rather my son choose for himself what he wants, rather than perform a permanent alteration on his genitals that he may not even want in lieu of the alternatives.

Finding better, more effective ways to prevent disease.

Replacing the old with the new and better.

Preserving, not deliberately destroying the human body

Making medical intervention obsolete.

THAT is what medical science is all about.

Latest Pro-Circumcision Canard: "Circumcision Prevents Prostate Cancer"

Could it be that the circumcision/HIV bandwagon is losing steam, and circumcision advocates are, yet again, hunting for another "correlation" between circumcision and some feared disease?

This shouldn't be too surprising; "researchers" have been trying to vindicate this primarily cultural practice for close to two centuries.

In 2006, the WHO used some very dubious "research" to endorse circumcision as prevention method to prevent HIV. Circumcision advocates have tried to hail this as circumcision's "ultimate vindication," though they may have done this a little too soon. (As it is usually the case...)

But now, perhaps noting that not very many people are buying it, "scientists" and "researchers" are looking to "correlate" circumcision with the reduction of other diseases.

I've already written about Brian Morris who has tried to claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of prostate cancer," among other things.

Now, it seems, other "researchers" have taken his lead and are seeking to produce the "correlation," and, as is usually the case, news outlets are already touting the "link" between circumcision and "prostate cancer prevention" as matter of fact.

The MSNBC headline reads: "Circumcision linked to lower prostate cancer risk." According to "researcher" Jonathan Wright, "These data suggest a biologically plausible mechanism through which circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer," but it fails to actually produce it, doesn't it. What's more important is the "suggestion" that media outlets like MSNBC could take and run with.

Not surprisingly, MSNBC quotes Morris in this article. They too seem to be unaware that he is no expert on circumcision, but merely an enthusiastic circumcision fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology, and his field of study (Morris is a molecular biologist and professor of molecular medical sciences) is only remotely related to medicine. He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention. Why MSNBC author Joseph Brownstein didn't bother to investigate this man's credentials is beyond me. It seems any quack with a white coat can pass as an "expert nowadays.

Reuters' is a bit more informative, conveying that "The new work jibes with those findings, but it falls short of actually proving that removing a boy's foreskin will cut his future cancer risk," as stated by the very author of this "study," Jonathan Wright. "I would not go out and advocate for widespread circumcision to prevent prostate cancer... We see an association, but it doesn't prove causality." 

Still, Reuters' didn't hesitate to use the headline "Circumcision tied to lower prostate cancer risk." Nor did they hesitate to repeat misinformation.

Reuters' Repeats Blatant Misinformation
Without question, and without any actual demonstrable proof, Reuters' goes on to say: "The foreskin is prone to tiny tears during sex, which may help bacteria and viruses enter the bloodstream."

This is stated as matter-of-fact, foregone conclusion. This theory that "the foreskin is prone to tiny tears during sex which may help bacteria viruses enter the bloodstream" is one of the oldest hypotheses on which many a circumcision "study" has been based, beginning with the very circumcision/HIV rubbish that was produced in Africa. 

Few people know this, but it has actually been scientifically demonstrated that circumcision simply makes no difference.

One study found that there is “no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin,” and that “keratin layers alone were unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection.” Another study found that “no difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin.”

These studies can be seen here:

Dinh, MH; McRaven MD, Kelley Z, Penugonda S, Hope TJ (2010-03-27). “Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision.”. AIDS 24 (6): 899-906. PMID 20098294. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294.
*Dinh, Minh H; Sheila M Barry, Meegan R Anderson, Scott G McCoombe, Shetha A Shukair, Michael D McRaven, Thomas J Hope (2009-12-06), “HIV-1 Interactions and Infection in Adult Male Foreskin Explant Cultures” (PDF), 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Montreal, Canada, http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/502.pdf. 
*One of my readers has pointed out that the second study I cited was just a poster presentation at a conference. While this means too much weight can't be placed on this data, I'm still showing it just for the sake of even argument. After all, arguments in favor of circumcision are often drawn mostly or entirely from unpublished findings.

Reuters' should take note. 

In what I can only see as an effort to mask an ulterior motive, write utters: "We need to do more work to try to understand this... Our overarching goal is to understand how cancer develops in people." 

Really, Mr. Wright? 

Are you sure it's not to establish yet another pro-circumcision canard? 

Real World Fact

According to the American Cancer Society, 1 in 6 American men, 80% of whom are circumcised from birth, will get prostate cancer. If circumcision "prevents prostate cancer," it is not self-evident in the industrialized country with the highest rate of circumcision.

Source: GLOBOCAN 2008 Cancer Fact Sheet

URL: http://globocan.iarc.fr/factsheets/cancers/prostate.asp

The news outlets who published today's supposed "prostate cancer/circumcision link" ought to explain how the USA got to be the highest line on this prostate cancer incidence chart, when 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth. Readers must note that circumcision rates are much, much lower in Canada and Australia than in the US. Circumcision is not widely practiced in Japan, and limited to Muslims in India. Circumcision has become near universal in the Republic of Korea due to American influence, but note that it hovers above India, and it overtakes Japan.

The scientific community ought to call these "studies" out for what they are:

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH

Scientists and researchers should be looking for newer, better ways to prevent disease, not seek to keep medical science in the stone age.

This is nothing more than yet another attempt to try and vindicate genital mutilation and the deliberate violation of the most basic of human rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

A two-week old baby boy died in a Brooklyn hospital, his official cause of death pronounced as "disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction."

The Jewish tradition of circumcision, particularly an obscure tradition practiced by only the most ultra-orthodox Jews, is to blame. The tradition in question, known in Hebrew as "metzitzah b'peh", involves the ritual circumciser putting his mouth on the wounded genitals of a newly circumcised Jewish baby boy to suck blood from it.

 Mohel Performing Metzitzah B'Peh on Baby

The cause of death clearly indicts the tradition in question, but this finding has made rabbis and mohels that perform it, according to KTLA, "upset."

According to one mohel Philip Sherman (who also happens to toot his own horn in New York, and LOUDLY), "Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent." Where does he get these figures? Who is taking count?

"This is part of the anti-religious, anti-circumcision trend," Sherman blasts.

This could be it.

Maybe.

Or maybe, just MAYBE it might have just a tiny, teensy-weensy bit to do with the rights of the children involved?

You know, some of whom actually lose more than just their foreskin, if not DIE???

Mohels in Denial
In my encounters on the internet, I often hear people boast about how mishaps never happen with Jewish mohels. Jewish mohels, some advocates argue, are the most qualified people to be performing circumcisions, because they "do this for a living."

Strangely enough, when mishaps like glans ablations (in recent years there have been a few law suits involving glans ablations at the hands of mohels) or even DEATHS happen, the mohel, nor the circumcision are EVER to blame. There's always something wrong with the child, or some outside influence was to blame. There was something wrong with the clamp. The child had a bad heart. He was struck by lighting. Whatever it takes to draw attention away from the fact that the child was doing perfectly well prior to the circumcision.

Defends circumciser Sherman: "The baby could have gotten herpes from a relative or someone in the Hospital, or many other people... You can't say for sure it was the circumcision."

Or the baby might have gotten it directly from the mohel who may have carried the virus?

But sources won't say. At least two sources say that the mohel in question cannot be identified. (Here and here.)

Why not find the mohel and test him for herpes?

We've Seen This Before
This wouldn't be the first time that a child has died as a result of contracting herpes from the mohel through the oral suction ritual. In 2005, Yitzchok Fischer of New York was found to have infected three newborns with herpes via metzitzah b'peh, one of whom died. As in this current case, rabbis and mohels raised a ruckus, and Fischer was basically pardoned by Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden. No further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh. Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community can be read here.

Who is this mystery mohel? Could it be the self-same Yitzchok Fischer and his name is shamelessly being withheld to protect his identity?

Why?
Why is it that parents go to jail if they try to circumcise their own children, but when a mohel kills a child, rabbis and mohels get "upset" and they automatically get a get-out-of-jail-free card? Is it because doing something about stopping further child endangerment is considered "anti-Semitic" when the perpetrators are Jewish?

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent," argues Philip Sherman. But is this any real justification?

There is a risk for infection, period. There are other risks too, such as partial or full ablation, and even death, as we see here. Because the child is healthy and not in need of any surgical intervention, how is anything above ZERO conscionable?

This is absolutely revolting. If the sex of the baby were female, the most devout imam would be arrested and jailed, and it wouldn't matter if it made other imams or Muslim leaders "upset."

It is absolutely despicable, absolutely disgusting that anybody would ever seek to justify this "tradition." This so-called "tradition" has already produced two reported deaths (and possibly more that have gone unreported), and religious leaders get "upset" that anyone dare call it out?

Can't we just call this "tradition" what it is?

Glorified sado-masochistic child fellatio?

Let It Be Clear
Circumcision carries risks, including infection, partial or full ablation, and even death. The risks are present whether it be carried out by a secular non-Jewish doctor or a mohel. Because it is performed on children who are healthy and not in need of any surgical intervention, the risks are unconscionable.

How many deaths and circumcision botches will it take for people to wake up?

DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog is my own individual opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. Please do not confuse my disdain for the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors with a hate for Jews. The overwhelming majority of circumcisions in this country are secular, non-Jewish circumcisions that happen at hospitals. I oppose the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors whether it be carried out by mohels or by secular doctors. Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is, in the end, still genital mutilation. ~Joseph4GI