Hogwash from Johns Hopkins

It's been a while, and I apologize for not being as frequent with my posts. My life has just gotten busier, and I no longer have the time I wish I had to devote to this. I ask for your understanding, as I will only be able to publish every so often. On with my rant!!!

When a pro-circumcision "researcher" publishes yet another "study" that "proves" circumcision is not child abuse, news outlets repeat it, each headline more emphatic than the last. When real-world data which damages the credibility of these so-called "studies" is published, all they get is a whopping "meh," if that. Why is it only pro-circumcision rubbish gets all the attention? What about this analysis? Or this one? Or this one? Is it that the media prefers to publish comforting lies than inconvenient truths?

Perhaps kicked off by the ruling in Cologne, or the AAP saber rattling that has been going on recently (or perhaps both), this Monday, the circumcision preservation brigade at Johns Hopkins published a "study" that claims, according to the Baltimore Sun, that "a 20-year decline in male circumcision has cost the country $2 billion in medical costs that could have been prevented." This story also appeared in BloombergBusinessweek, ABC and the Huffington Post. Only the Baltimore Sun seemed to give a more balanced view, giving voice to the opposition; the others simply give a one-sided approach.

I'm going to take apart the dubious premises on which this "study," and the claims made by their authors, are based.

First, let's begin with who the authors and proponents are; it's nothing but the same usual suspects who can't seem to cook enough numbers to convince the world that all males need to be circumcised immediately. Who else but Aaron Tobian, who happens to be Jewish and circumcised his own son out of religious conviction. Who else but Arleen Leibowitz, who published her own "study" earlier, crying a river over state healthcare plans that have dropped infant circumcision?

Is this about preventing disease, or preserving the practice of infant circumcision which also happens to be highly-defended religious custom, not to mention a money-maker for American doctors? WHY are these "researchers" concerned about circumcision, and not other modes of disease prevention that does NOT involve penis cutting?

Let's get down to business and see what the hullabaloo is all about:

"It's never happened before... honest..."
From the Baltimore Sun:
In what is believed to be the first look at the economic impact of male circumcision on the health care system, the Hopkins scientists say that boys who are not circumcised are more prone to sexually transmitted diseases and other health problems over a lifetime that are costly to treat.

No, circumcision advocates have been trying to clothe male genital mutilation with "science" and "research" for at least a century; there are numerous analyses of "the impact of male circumcision on the healthcare system," all performed by the same people, and all reaching the same conclusion; every male that walks this earth needs to be circumcised immediately.

"Intact boys more prone to STDs?" Not in the US...
If "boys who are not circumcised are more prone to STDs," why is this not reflected in real-world data?

Circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country. And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either. In America, the majority of the male population is circumcised, approximately 80%, while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is uncommon. Despite these facts, our country does poorly.

In fact, AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

One would expect for there to be a lower transmission rates in the United States, and for HIV to be rampant in Europe; HIV transmission rates are in fact higher in the United States, where most men are circumcised, than in various countries in Europe, where most men are intact. It is telling that the HIV epidemic struck in our country in the 1980s, 90% of the male population was already circumcised. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that what never worked in our own country, or anywhere else, is going to start working miracles in Africa.

And somehow, if state health care programs started covering circumcision again, this would somehow change.

"Studies show..."
From the Baltimore Sun: "Studies have long shown that when babies are not circumcised, where the foreskin on the tip of the penis is removed, they are at risk for health problems in the long run. Bacteria and viruses can get trapped in the extra layers of skin left on the penis."

No, studies have long shown cooked, esoteric "data" that fails to correlate with reality. There is not demonstrable scientific proof that viruses are transmitted to men by "getting trapped in the extra layers of the skin left of the penis." Actually, langerhans cells can be visualized effectively fighting off HIV. The "researchers" and authors of the recent HIV crock are hard-pressed to produce visualizations of the facilitation of HIV transmission via the foreskin; what they keep coming up with is visualizations that show NO DIFFERENCE. The bulk of the "research" is merely heavily cooked numbers embellished with correlation hypothesis.

For more data on other places in the world where circumcision has failed to prevent HIV, see a previous post of mine.

More from the Baltimore Sun:
"Research has found that circumcision reduces the number of infant urinary tract infections."

Most of which was dismissed as being horrendously flawed... Some research actually shows UTIs maybe more abundant in CIRCUMCISED boys.

Men who are uncircumcised are more at-risk for cancer-causing HPV, HIV, herpes, bacterial vaginitis and other sexually transmitted diseases, studies have found.

Again, only if you look at cherry-picked data (Precisely WHAT is this "analysis" based on? Where are these people getting their numbers?); other studies show a prevalence of these diseases in CIRCUMCISED men.

"An international platform..."
More from the Baltimore Sun: "The push for circumcision has gained an international platform as a way to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa after several studies showed infection rates decreased rapidly."

This statement is misleading; the reader would think that there is a global endorsement of circumcision as a way to prevent HIV; there are only efforts to circumcise MEN, voluntarily (at least on paper), in high risk areas in AFRICA. There is no world "push" in nations to have their men and children circumcised.

"The area beneath the foreskin of the penis is believed to have a higher density of target cells for HIV."

Notice the word "believed" in this sentence. So much for "evidence-based medicine."


"Oh the future costs! The costs!"
Baltimore Sun: "The Hopkins analysis found that when a male is not circumcised it costs $313 more in medical expenses to treat conditions he would not otherwise have suffered."

IF he suffers them. The dubious premise here is that all men who are not circumcised grow up to develop conditions that accrue medical expenses. If we are to believe Tobian and his buddies, the men in the UK, Japan, Australia, Denmark and other countries where circumcision is rare, are all clogging up urologists offices because of problems their foreskins are causing them.

The fact of the matter is, 80% of the world's male population is intact, and the vast majority of the 20% who happen to be circumcised were all circumcised as a matter of religious conviction or cultural tradition; very few men ever have penile conditions for which circumcision is indicated.

And now for the clincher:
"The researchers said that if male circumcision rates dropped to those in Europe, where 10 percent of male babies get the procedure, there would be a 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV and 29 percent in those who contract HPV."

(See links above.)

"The parents must decide..."
Quotes Richard Colgan from the University of Maryland School of Medicine:

"It is one of several pieces of information that can be used by families to make the decision that is right for them."

The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

It's been 6 years. 6 years since the so-called HIV mumbo-jumbo came out, and there hasn't been a single medical organization in the world who has thought it compelling enough to endorse the circumcision of children. The AAP keeps hinting that it -MIGHT-, but already, we know that they stop short; AGAIN, "leaving it up to parents."

But here's the million dollar question; there is not a single medical organization in the world that has found the evidence "compelling" enough to recommend infant circumcision. They all say that there are risks, and that the benefits do not outweigh them. Families, most of who are not medically literate, are supposed to use "pieces of information" that respected health boards across the globe have not found compelling enough to endorse the practice? And somehow come up with a better conclusion?

Think about it; naive parents are being asked to make a medical judgement on an elective procedure, based on data that respected health organizations in the world could not use to endorse it.

What other procedures are parents to come up with their own diagnosis on and doctors are obliged to act based on that?

Without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving parents any kind of a "choice?"

Talk about shirking professional responsibilities...

"By the numbers..."
Again, from the "Baltimore Sun."
"$2 billion is how much uncircumcised males have cost American medical system"

Again, assuming intact males all had the problems Tobian etc. all say they do.
 
So let's tally up how much money circumcised men cost the American medical system. Let's see how the numbers line up with Europe, where circumcision, along with STDs, are rarer.

Tobian pulled this number out of his ass.

And finally...
There is one more dubious premise: The idea that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Let's just be honest with ourselves here; there would never be enough "research" or "benefits," no matter how "compelling," that would ever convince us to endorse female genital cutting of any kind.

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

The decline in circumcision is costing the health care system billions alright; with parents waking up to the quackery that is circumcision, doctors can't cash in on this freebie at the expense of children's basic human rights anymore.

UPDATE: International AIDS Trade Show 2012

 
Whoa!

What a rush!

So many things going on at once, so much I want to say, so much I want to comment on... I still need to give my final thoughts on this year's Colorado saga, not to mention the recent ruling in Cologne. Who knows if I'll find the time to comment on it all...

For the time being, I'd like to comment on the recent International Circumcision Expo. Uh, no wait, I meant to say International AIDS Trade Show. Oops, did I say that? I meant to say the International AIDS Conference happening in Washington DC this year.

The PEPFAR misinformation saturation drive finally arrived in DC, and Hillary Clinton didn't waste the opportunity to plug circumcision as HIV prevention. According to her speech, the U.S. is fronting $40 million tax dollars "to help South Africa reach its goal of providing voluntary circumcision to half a million boys and men this year." (Interesting how she managed to mash "voluntary" and "boys" in the same sentence... Let's not talk about the Soka Uncobe fiasco.)

Intactivists on the ground are bringing back images of the propaganda being used in DC to promote genital mutilation in the name of HIV transmission.

Some of the pro-cutting literature being given out in washington.

In a brazen act, posters being used in Africa are being passed out. Do you remember this from a blog post earlier?

There are lots of "debates" and "discussions" seem to be going on at the conference, but it seems what's mostly important is plugging circumcision and other pharmaceutical products, and getting people to practice safer sex, and the fact that after 22 years or so, there still isn't a cure or actual vaccine, is pure lip service.

Guess who is in DC plugging their wares?

"Yeah, we haven't actually FOUND anything new, but look at how much money we're spending on products and 'services' that we believe *might* help..."

The "questions" and "debates" are all rigged and geared toward selling something. All of the "evidence" supports what PEPFAR and other big ticket funders are doing and spending on. You will not hear evidence to the contrary; heaven forbid the science actually be discussed. (Because it's just so past "reasonable doubt" that it shouldn't even be discussed, you see?)

There are actually intactivist demonstrators at the conference, and it looks like they are helping get the word out. But what they have to say is strangely absent from the "debate."

Nobody is talking about how "voluntary" it is to circumcise children. Nobody is talking about tribes in Africa using the WHO endorsement to legitimize violence against non-circumcising tribes. Nobody is talking about the deaths and other complications. Nobody is talking about alternatives to circumcision. Are African men being informed? Just how "voluntary" is it if you're making African men afraid to say no? If you are stigmatizing them by attacking their masculinity?

What information do they have for men who have decided circumcision is not for them?

Or is this not an option?

Intactivist David Wilson at the Washington DC AIDS Conference

No doubt that getting people to question "the facts" is an inconvenience for those at the DC conference wanting for it to be "business as usual."

One-sided Arguments

Perhaps the attitude of pro-circumcision bigwigs at the conference can be summarized by the reaction of one young man with UN Dispatch; rather than take the time to discuss the "research" being used to plug male genital mutilation in Africa, Mark Leon Goldberg decided to snap a photo and write about how "wrong" intactivist demonstrators are.

Many have tried to respond to his rant piece with commentary, but it's been a day, and so far all people have been met with is the message that their commentary is "awaiting moderation." It seems this is a one-way conversation, and the other side is not going to be given a chance to defend their position.

But it's not just Mark Leon Goldberg at the UN Dispatch; this mud-slinging attitude can be sensed throughout the entire conference. Intactivists are not even being allowed to engage in the "debates" happening in the conference. While pro-circumcision advocates are being allowed time and space to discuss their "evidence," it seems they they will not engage with others who are able to dismantle it, and provide evidence to the contrary.

It's all one big commercial trade-show where no real debate is allowed; only staff-approved sales pitches.

We will be heard.

Mark Leon Goldberg is mistaken if he thinks he can just deliver cheap shots at intactivists uncontested.

I have collected some of the responses that people have tried to post on his article that are not being allowed and am taking the liberty to post them here.

The man in the picture responds...

I am that guy in the photo. Let me just state this fact. When the first case of HIV/AIDS was diagnosed here in America, Approximately 90+ % of our sexually active males were circumcised. And it, circumcision, didn't prevent, nor slow the spread of HIV in America. Safe sex, condoms, and leaving the prostitutes alone is what slowed the spread of HIV. Matter of fact, the circumcision rate in America has dropped dramatically in the last twenty years. As for your "studies" they are flawed, and I have the proof. There are numerous studies that flat out contradict your claims that circumcision "prevents" HIV. Explain to me why non circumcising countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and basically all your European countries, where circumcision is almost nonexistent, have a much lower HIV rate? Perhaps the single most important fact that you fail to consider or are willing to accept. Is that even though you make the claim that circumcision will provide a 60% less chance of contracting HIV, you continue to tell these victims that in order to fully protected from HIV they should still wear a condom. WTH? So why promote circumcision when a condom is still necessary to be fully protected? The answer is simple. Circumcision is a billion dollar industry, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. I invite you to come spend the day with me and listen to what people have to say about your claims. They laugh and reply just how insane your statements are. Just like how circumcision got started in America back in the 1860's as a way to stop boys from masturbating. Then circumcision became a cure all for club feet, curvature of the spine, tuberculosis, alcoholism, lunacy, hip troubles, diarrhea, bed wetting, to even cure the rapist. The list goes on and on. Only in America have such claims been made. The truth of the matter is simple. Circumcision destroys natural sexual intercourse. The U.S is the largest user of sexual lubricants. Why? It's pretty simple. Come outside and talk to me and let me educate you. Or better yet. I'll come inside your conference and give you an education that you have failed to fully understand nor grasp.

David Wilson
Cocoa Beach, Fl

www.StopInfantCircumcision.org

www.2headedVWbus.com

Another response...

This article is extremely offensive and one sided. You did not attempt to even speak with the group promoting the message that circumcision is not the answer! You don't cite medical fact but instead use mathematics to support your claims. Here's a medical fact for you: 70% of American men are circumcised and yet, America has the highest HIV rates among young men out of any country, both civilized and uncivilized! Citing that information: does circumcision truly prevent HIV and AIDS? Or does it just make the naive nations of the world more susceptible to this deadly disease, because they don't use protection? Does promoting a message in Africa that says circumcision is the cure to AIDS really help anyone or are you promoting a deadly disease by saying "oh you don't need a condom, just mutilate your penis and that will cure you!"? Think before you promote lies!

Rebeca Claar

Response by Intactivist Hugh Young:

Tell that to the 14% of circumcised Zimbabwean men who have HIV, compared to the 12% of non-circumcised. (And don't tell them it's because of what they did after they were circumcised - whether having sex too soon or too carelessly - because the same ratio applied before the circumcision campaign began.)

Similar differences apply in 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures. A study in Uganda started to find that circumcising men INcreases the risk to women - who are already at greater risk - but that was called off for no good reason before that could be confirmed.

The three studies on which you rely (not quite independent, when their authors have all collaborated on papers together) boil down to this:
They circumcised a total of 5,400 paid adult volunteers, including in the consent forms an instruction to refrain from sex for six weeks after the operation or use condoms if they couldn't. (They didn't, of course, tell them they could stop using condoms at the end of six weeks.) The control group had no such instructions.

The studies were neither double blinded nor placebo-controlled, and everyone involved very much wanted circumcision to be efficatious, laying the field wide open to experimenter and experimentee effects.

Less than two years later (the studies were curtailed, which is known to increase false positive results.) 64 of of the circumcised men had HIV, 73 fewer than the non-circumcised control group. Contacts were not traced, so it can't be sure if the men contracted HIV (hetero)sexually, when nosocomial and iatrogenic (hospital and doctor-caused) infections are a large but unmeasured risk in Africa.

327 of the circumcised men dropped out, their HIV status unknown. Finding you had HIV after a painful and marking operation to prevent it would be one good reason for experimental men to drop out. Changing your mind about getting circumcised would be a significant reason available only to the control group.

Those 73 circumcised men are the whole basis of the "60% reduction" claim. (Subsequent studies were not randomised and prove little.)

Your modelling and your projections are all based (wishfully) on that outcome. While no-one advocates replacing condoms with circumcision, many men are doing just that. You don't compare the cost of circumcision with the cost of condoms. It favours condoms.
 

Hugh Young

Shout out to all in DC

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the intactivist organizations who are on the ground at Washington DC countering this misinformation saturation drive, this insult to American intelligence.

Thanks to Intact America, Saving Our Sons, and countless others for being present on the ground at the DC conference countering all of the propaganda and misinformation. Sooner later the circumcision/HIV hoax is going to come crashing down, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Interesting little fact:

AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. It's ironic the conference is taking place in Washington DC; according to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda. 

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C. in 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader  once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

TEXAS: UTMB Debates the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision"

It's been a while since I've been able to sit down and blog. I plan to sit down at some point and tackle some very important subjects. I've been holding off on the Colorado saga because I think it merits time and consideration. But for now, I wanted to comment on a so-called "symposium" that's happening at the Univeristy of Texas.

So according to the Daily News, the University of Texas Medical Branch is hosting a symposium titled "Cutting Edge Debate: Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision."

It's always a good thing for conversation regarding circumcision to be happening, as, up until recently, it was a very taboo subject. But I wonder whether this will actually be a worthy symposium, or merely a meditation session for those who chant the "infant circumcision has medical benefits, and therefore a religious freedom and a parental right" mantra.

"Is male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?", begins the Daily News article. What about the ethics of performing amputative surgery on the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child? Will those be addressed?

Given who is on the "panel of experts," I can only hope so. It includes a Jewish mohel "who is also a pediatrician." No direct conflicts of interest there. Then we have "two physicians with differing views on the ethical questions surrounding the performing of routine infant circumcision," one who happens to oversee the UTMB Pediatric Residency Training program in circumcision, the other who has actually stopped performing circumcisions because of the ethical concerns. So, in actuality, we have two physicians who are pro-circumcision (if you include the mohel) against the one with a differing view. I can already guess what the outcome of this "debate" will be.

Or what kind of a debate is it where a bunch of "experts," most of whom share the same beliefs, figuratively look under a rock and say "Hrm... No violation of medical ethics or basic human rights here..."?

The mohel/pediatrician will talk about "the place of circumcision in the Jewish tradition, the unique features of religious circumcision and his many years of experience performing the brit milah ritual with families throughout in the southwest region." And, as if this were of any importance, the Daily News article mentions "...he often is contacted by non-Jewish parents actively seeking out a mohel to perform circumcision on their sons. His discussion will include reasons some of these parents have shared with him for seeking a ritual circumcision instead of a purely clinical one."

Yes, because the context in which adults abuse a child makes all the difference...

Another panelist will talk about "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated."

All in all, it sounds like the University of Texas Medical Branch wants to engage in what appears to be an "academic debate" regarding the forced circumcision of male infants.

But would there ever be an "academic debate" on the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Female Circumcision?" Would Dr. Hatem Elhagaly, who happens to be an advocate for female genital cutting be allowed to be one of the panelists? Would we allow a pediatrician to proudly boast how many sunat procedures he's performed on baby girls? Could we have an "academic debate" and discuss the questions"Is [fe]male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?" Could we discuss "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated?"

The answer is no, we would not.

The answer is, the forced genital cutting of female minors is seen as a violation of basic human rights, and we do not beat around the bush with "academic debate" and the "pros and cons" of female circumcision.

There would never be enough "research" or enough "medical benefits" to justify forced genital cutting in female minors, in any context, "medical" or "religious."

Bottom Line
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 not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

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 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.

When male infant genital mutilation is seen for the gross human rights violation that it is, the University of Texas will be among the guilty for perpetuating it in this country.

UGANDA: Circumcision Promoters Turn to Stigma and Misandry

It's something you would only expect to see on circumfetish websites like CircList.

But here it is in living color.

The level of sexism and ridicule that circumcision advocates are employing to get men in Africa to circumcise themselves is reaching new levels of absurdity.

The mixed messages and misinformation in this soundbite are horrendous.

First the sexism.

"A woman is entitled to cut penises; just the way she likes them," this poster seems to say.

An African woman has the power to refuse sex with a man unless he is circumcised; that is unless she is getting raped in Africa.

If she had a chance at getting her rapist to wear a condom, now she doesn't. Which means she's screwed in more ways than one.

What would be the world outcry if the poster was one of a man complaining of the circumcision status in a woman?

 This screen shot is from an actual video, visible here.

The creator of the next poster must seriously believe Ugandans are complete idiots:

Is Annette planning on having her husband cheat on her?

With an HIV+ partner?

Without a condom?

Is that what she's so "proud" of?

What chances of getting HIV do you have if you're faithful and use condoms?


"Stand proud," but get circumcised to please a woman that balks at your penis?

Because she can't trust you to keep your penis in your pants, let alone use a condom?

Really?

Way to tell a man to be proud of the man he is.

Way to tell him how much you trust him.

Should a woman sleep with a circumcised man regardless of his HIV status?

What if the man is intact, but knows he is HIV negative?

Should the woman still negate sex with him and demand he be circumcised?

Every day, we are told that women's bodies should be respected.

We hear that violence against women in Africa is a big problem.

So the solution is to encourage the disrespect, ridicule and genital mutilation of men?

In very tiny letters, one can barely read the disclaimer of this poster which reads:

"Even with circumcision, having sex without a condom puts you at great risk for contracting HIV/AIDS."

Even if you're married and faithful, apparently...

Which leaves one wondering, if you still have to wear a condom either way, then what's the fucking point?

What IS the point of these campaigns if not the disrespect, ridicule and abject humiliation of men with anatomically correct genitalia using a pseudo-medical front?

Would that "researchers" could produce "studies" that showed the "60% reduction of HIV transmission" in women who had their labia removed, would the WHO approve campaigns in Africa to encourage women to get labiaplasties?

Would you then see posters of men balking at anatomically correct female genitalia?

Because there are actually "studies" that show a "lowered risk," here, here, and here.

Somehow I doubt that even the most "convincing" of "studies" would ever be used to endorse posters like these stigmatizing women.

The circumcision/HIV charade is getting to be absurd.

Sooner or later the WHO is going to have to be held responsible for the endorsing genital mutilation and the disrespect and ridicule of males in Africa.

Never.

There would never be enough "research" or "studies" that could be used to justify the same poster with the sexual roles reversed.

African organizations ought to be ashamed for promoting misandry in the name of public health.

 Addition (5/19/2012):

A poster outside a clinic offering free government-funded circumcision.

You may as well forget about the rest of him; a dildo might do the job better.

Depicting African women as superficial idiotic airheads who have a fixation with genital cutting does not do African women any favors either.

Coming Soon:
The conclusion in Colorado.

COLORADO: Jewish Circumcision Protection Bill Moves Forward

It sounds very noble to proclaim that you are acting in the interests of "equality" and "public health." As a politician seeking to secure support, you can't go wrong with rambling on and on about "helping the poor."

It's dishonest and self-serving, however, to be claiming to be "helping the poor," when, in fact, you are actually only helping yourself.

Last year, Colorado became the 18th state to drop Medicaid coverage for routine infant circumcision. In response to this, Senator Joyce Foster introduced a bill to reinstate Medicaid coverage on the platforms of "disease prevention," "fairness," "social justice" and "parental choice."

These sound like noble causes, however they fall apart upon closer inspection. 

An Unfounded Position Against the Best Medical Authorities in the West
It certainly makes you appear to have a moral high ground to claim to want to provide society with something as basic as medicine and public health. Contrary-wise, it makes you a villain to want to deny the public, especially the poor, such a basic need. The dubious premise that sneaks past observers unnoticed is the assumption that having a foreskin is some sort of disease, circumcision is the one and only "cure," and cutting funding for it is a public disservice.

The question is, is circumcision an absolute medical necessity in healthy children, and should the taxpayer have to pay for it?

In reality, the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected medical organization in or outside the United States recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

Medical bodies that agree that there is not enough evidence to recommend infant circumcision include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

Senator Foster's platform appears to defy the whole of Western medicine.

The arguments of "fairness," "social justice" and "parental choice" collapse upon making this realization.

The purpose of Medicaid is to help pay for medically necessary procedures, not helping families that want non-medical procedures for their children keep up with the Joneses.


Joyce Foster's Arguments Fail to Mask her True Intentions
Despite trying to argue from a "social justice" platform, Foster can't seem to be able to keep her ulterior motives from spilling out. In the preliminary hearing for the bill, after getting served by her opposition, Foster feels the need to explain her conflict of interests:

"Let me clarify... I had my sons circumcised because it was a health issue and a religious issue."

In a recent article, she says:

"This bill will have absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish community of Colorado... [I am] most persuaded by the medical evidence." ("Evidence" that couldn't persuade respected medical organizations in and outside the US to endorse the practice?)

 The Jewish Daily Forward betrays her true motives for the Colorado bill, however:

Foster, the main backer of the Colorado bill, said she believes that cutting Medicaid coverage for circumcision sent a message of support to anti-circumcision activists who want see the procedure outlawed nationwide. She is determined to push back against that effort. 

"Ultimately, I think when the anti-circumcision people begin to see so many states denying benefits... it will be easier for them now to make their case that circumcision should be banned altogether."

Conclusion
So there you have it. This measure has nothing to do with "public health," nor a genuine interest in "helping the poor." This is nothing more than a self-serving bill aimed at safeguarding a historically controversial religious ritual that has come ever under scrutiny. It is a law aimed to cater to a particular religious establishment, and Joyce Foster a self-serving politician with a religious agenda.

All things considered, the bill ought not to pass. If it does, it will be a waste of taxpayer dollars with no actual basis in medicine.

The Bottom Line
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 not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

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 no business performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, let alone be giving parents any kind of a "choice," let alone be expected to be reimbursed by the public's coffers.

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.

Where the bill stands now
The Colorado Senate Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing for Senate Bill 90 (AKA SB 12-090), where the bill passed 6-3. Senate Appropriations Committee voted to move the bill forward onto the full Colorado Senate, where it was approved by a vote of 21 to 14 without debate.

The House Health and Environment Committee holds a hearing on the bill today (May 3) at 1:30pm.

UPDATE:
The bill passed at the House Health and Environment Committee hearing 7 to 6. It's unfortunate that Coloradans dare defy Western medicine, but at the very least the margin was slimmer than before; the bill can still be defeated at the house.

Intactivists need to remember that laws are nothing, and they change with time. Remember that up until 1996, female circumcision was perfectly legal in this country, and insurance companies like Blue Shield paid for it. A human rights violation is a human rights violation, whether or not it is recognized by law. The day will come when the forced circumcision of minors will be seen for the human rights violation that it is, and those who advocated it will be too embarrassed to ever admit it.

Truth suppressed, whether by crooks or courts, will find an avenue to be told.
~Sheila Steele (1943-2006)

Earlier posts:
COLORADO: Conflicts of Interest Plague Medicaid Circumcision Coverage Bill 

COLORADO: Senator Aguilar Circumvents Circumcision Debate

CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

Intactivists had known about about Vernon Quaintance and  Gilgal Society for years. Intactivist groups had been trying to warn British authorities about this man and his activity, but it seemed this was a hot potato they wanted nothing of. And now, it looks like our prayers have been answered. According to this source, it looks like Vernon Quaintance has been finally caught in his tracks!

Who is Vernon Quaintance?

Why is this event significant? To all intactivists in the know, Vernon Quaintance is circumcision fetishist extraordinaire. The Gilgal Society is the worldwide NAMBLA of circumcision fetishism, and Vernon Quaintance is/was the head. Aside from heading the Gilgal Society, Vernon Quaintance was also a moderator at Circlist, another social group for circumcision enthusiasts, which has been around since the dawn of the internet, as well as a member of Acorn Society, another group of exactly the same nature. He was also a writer of erotic stories that include graphic descriptions of circumcising young boys while others masturbate.

The following is a piece of poetry written by Vernon Quaintance himself:

Decision
Some people claim that foreskins are fun
And keep the 'muzzle' on the gun.
But many doctors do declare;
'It's healthier with the glans laid bare'
So, mum & dad, we say to you,
You must decide what's best to do,
Your son will benefit throughout his life,
As, incidentally, will his wife;
If you make the choice that's always wise
and do decide to circumcise.

(It must be noted, that the above prose was quoted by none other than Professor Brian J. Morris in the October 2007 issue of HPV Today, pages 12-13, who is also a prominent advocate of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision, a prolific author of circumcision "studies" and "appraisals," and also happens to be a very proud and prominent member of Gilgal Society.)

Correction:
The poetry does NOT appear in the article on HPV Today. However Brian Morris still attributes it to Vernon Quaintance on his website, here. (Last accessed 4/23/2012)

Vernon Quaintance is also the owner of circinfo.com as well as gilgalsociety.org, websites which glorify circumcision and try to sound authoritative on the subject. The following quotes can be found on his website:

"Like the appendix, the foreskin is a remnant from our evolutionary past and now serves no essential purpose. Unlike the appendix, which is buried deep inside the abdomen, the foreskin is easily and safely removed as a preventative measure."

"An additional hazard of having a redundant foreskin is the ease with which it can get caught in a zipper. Many women complain of a lack of stimulation because a long or tight foreskin can stick to the walls of the vagina..." 

It is now irrefutable that he has further interests in circumcision and youth than just public health.

Caught Red-handed

According to this source, police raided Quaintance's home on April 11 of last year, after receiving a tip-off. Movies seized included graphic footage of child abuse, which ranked at the second-highest level of severity. Of the five tapes seized, three were found to contain indecent images. They comprise a total of seven to nine hours. The children were estimated to be between 11 and 16 years old.

According to the report, Quaintance claims to have been celibate his whole life, and that he gained no sexual gratification of any kind from the videotapes, something the judge has a hard time believing, considering the fact that he had kept the videotapes found in his possession up until today.

Intactivists have known of this man's antics for years, and are relieved to hear he has finally been caught in his tracks. We can already guess what was on those videotapes.

What is Gilgal Society?

There are those on the Internet who have a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. Some call them circumfetishists. They gather in groups to discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap erotic fiction and trade videotapes of actual circumcisions, and justify circumcision and their enthusiasm for it by wrapping it in pseudo-scientific jargon. Gilgal Society is one such group, based in the UK.

Other circumfetish groups exist, such as Circlist, Acorn Society, and the Cutting Club, and they openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members. Furthermore, there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life.

(The paragraph above is an excerpt from "In Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice," Denniston GC, Hodges FM and Milos MF eds., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, New York; 425-454)

Gilgal Erotica

A piece of erotica published by Gilgal Society can be read here.

Readers who have the stomach to read to the very end will find:

"-- Acknowledgements to VQ"

These initials belong to Vernon Quaintance.

The Plot Thickens

Vernon Quaintance is only the beginning. It ought to concern people that many prominent "circumcision experts" are members of, or closely associated with Gilgal Society, and/or other circumfetish groups. It ought to concern people that, groups such as Gilgal Society and Circlist are being referred to as respectable authorities on circumcision. Very recently, the New York Times actually dared to cite Circlist as an actual resource on circumcision.

Some circumcision "experts" would like their audience to believe that they are "objective," "impartial," and/or "dispassionate" authorities on the matter of circumcision, when, in fact, they are passionate circumcision enthusiasts, quite a few who are members of circumfetish groups, such as mentioned above.

Brian Morris

Brian Morris of the University of Sydney, Australia, is one of these individuals. Brian Morris is the most vocal circumcision promoter in Australia. Brian Morris is no expert on circumcision (though he likes to market himself as one, and the Australian media has swallowed the act, hook, line and sinker), 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 is only remotely related to medicine (he is a molecular biologist and professor of molecular medical sciences). He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention.

And yet, Morris is constantly producing publications for parents compelling them to circumcise their children, and the Australian media is constantly giving him the spotlight, oftentimes uncontested by any real authority on the matter. Furthermore, he is a prolific publisher of "studies" and "appraisals" of circumcision, which are basically Brian Morris quoting himself, and repeating inconclusive or flawed circumcision "research," and calling for the RACP to instate "mandatory circumcision" for all males in Australia.

Morris is also an outspoken member of Gilgal Society, and his name can be found in pamphlets, alongside the Gilgal Society logo. Two such publications can be seen here, and here. In one paper he wrote regarding circumcision devices, which was published in Biomedical Engineering, he actually collaborates with Circlist (methinks he invited them on-board his project), as if they were any sort of reliable authority on circumcision. I wonder if the University of Sydney is aware that their name is being used by Brian Morris to give himself, and the groups he associates with, an air of authority in the literature he writes.

Brian Morris also runs a website which he uses to promote circumcision. He does his best to market the website as a legitimate circumcision resource, but upon closer inspection, is really no different than Circlist's website. His website was at one point hosted on University of Sydney servers, but he was recently asked to move it elsewhere, as the University of Sydney found content on it that was inappropriate. We believe that the inappropriate content was a picture of a naked child, with a folding cellphone clamped onto his foreskin, dangling from the end of his penis, on the humor section of his website. (Be warned, it is rather tasteless, if not off-putting.) Clearly, an adult put the cell phone there and took the picture. The picture seems to still be there. (Accessed 4/22/2012) Brian Morris links to Gilgal Society, as well as eight other "recommended" circumfetish websites and he also includes a list of places to get circumcision devices. (For an in depth analysis of Brian Morris' website, go here.)

Circumcision Tourism

Morris has gone as far as Africa to satisfy his morbid obsession.

Brian Morris Watching Masai Boys During Circumcision Ritual in Kenya, 1989

I have some wonderful photographs of a group of Masai boys in their early teens that I met in Kenya in 1989 dressed in their dark circumcision robes, with white feathers as headwear, and white painted facial decoration that stood out against their very black skin. Each wore a pendant that was the razor blade used for their own circumcision. The ceremony that they had gone through is a special part of their tribal culture and was very important to these boys, who were proud to show that they were now ‘men’. In other cultures it is associated with preparation for marriage and as a sign of entry into manhood.

What's interesting is that on many occasions Brian Morris has accused intactivists of having a fetish for the foreskin. One of Morris' most prominent traits is his incorrigible projection. The trash he talks of human rights activists against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is true of himself!!!

Jake Waskett

Robin to Brian Morris' Batman, intactivists have been keeping an eye on Jake Waskett for a few years now, and we know him to be a circumfetishist who got himself circumcised in adulthood to fulfill a childhood fantasy. We have him on record confessing this to none other than Vernon Quaintance himself:

FROM: Jake H. Waskett 

TO: Vernon Quaintance 

SUBJECT: Circed at last

Hi Vernon
Thank you!
Yes, I recall our correspondence. I find it difficult to believe that I would regret something that I've regretted *not* having done since age 5!
...
 --Yahoo Circlist. Message #26333, 2003 July 30th

Waskett has since latched onto the idea that circumcision of healthy individuals, both infant and adult, can be justified by citing enough scientific "research."

Intactivists have saved records of him exchanging on Circlist. He is also known to lurk on parenting forums and news commentary threads, trying to convince parents to circumcise their children (examples here and here), citing all the usual "research," when we know for a fact that his true interests lie elsewhere.

Despite what is publicly known about him, Jake likes to portray himself as being "objective," "unbiased," and "dispassionate." His actions, however, speak louder than his words.

Why Wikipedia is an Unreliable Resource on Circumcision

Jake Waskett is a computer engineer who has been around since Wikipedia's inception. He is a favorite among the Wikipedia crowd, and he has used his clout at Wikipedia to make himself the sole gatekeeper on any and every article that has anything even remotely related to circumcision. He spends a considerable amount of time editing articles in Wikipedia to reflect a pro-circumcision bias (though he claims he's only making them "neutral"). As of early 2011, Waskett has made almost 14,000 edits on Wikipedia, more than 1,275 edits to the Circumcision article alone. Waskett's first edit to the article was on the 18th of October 2004, and his last edit was today. (You can monitor Jake Waskett's activity, here.) Waskett now averages about one edit every 1 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes and 21 seconds, for the Circumcision article. If Wikipedia appears to have a pro-circumcision bias, it is due entirely to this man.

Jake Waskett has full control of any and every page related to circumcision, to the extent that he allows or disallows whatever edits he desires. He likes to use the rules at Wikipedia to allow or disallow whatever sources he deems to be "acceptable." If the rules don't agree with his whim, he will actually bid to change them so that they do. He only allows sources that put circumcision in a positive light, however flawed and/or refuted they may be, but disallows sources that are devastating to circumcision. He does not allow others to post authoritative sources regarding the foreskin, or the flaws in circumcision "research," not even if they have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He will always find some sort of rule or reason why a paper or study that he doesn't like should not be allowed. Only his resources, or resources that support circumcision are "valid"; resources or studies that run contrary to his views are not. Jake Waskett quotes his own website, circs.org, as a resource on circumcision on Wikipedia.

Other intactivists have observed his activity on Wikipedia, and it continues, though it is seemingly against the rules on Wikipedia. He has been observed in shady behavior, such as getting people that can argue successfully against him permanently banned along with their IP, and getting clear rebuttals against him that reveal his ineptness stricken from the history record at Wikipedia.

All articles at Wikipedia related to circumcision are under Jake Waskett's complete control, and he only allows edits that suit his pro-circumcision bias.

For readers that would like to observe Jake's behavior first-hand, his Wikipedia profile can be found here. His latest edits can be observed here.

Jake also maintains his own pro-circumcision website, circs.org.

Are these the actions of someone who is "unbiased" and "dispassionate?"

Laymen Should Be Dismissed... Except For This One.

Jake Waskett is not a doctor nor medical professional of any kind. He is a computer software engineer in his mid-30s, located in Radcliffe Manchester England. He is neither a surgeon, nor a urologist, nor a pediatrician, nor an epidemiologist. He is no medical authority of any kind, and yet, his name is beginning to appear on scientific papers, as if he were any kind of authority. His name appears in scientific journals any time Brian Morris' does. (This can be observed here, here, and here, though there may be other papers I don't list in this blog post.)

I speculate that, despite not being any actual authority, Brian admires Jake Waskett's pro-circumcision work on Wikipedia and on his own website. He is enamored by Jake's ability to clothe his circumcision bias in scientific jargon, that including his name on Brian's work is his way of paying tribute to one of his favorite circumcision advocates (which in turn feeds Jake's ego). As another example of Brian Morris' projection, he himself has accused intactivists of being nothing but lay people with no scientific authority.

There's more, lot's more...

It's relieving to hear that a known circumfetishist has finally been exposed for the pervert that he really is. But this barely scratches the surface; there's more, lot's more. The floodgates to the greatest medical hoax of all time are but beginning to collapse.

Look at the pamphlets put out by Brian Morris viz Gilgal Society (Two such publications can be seen here, and here.); you'll find the names of many prominent circumcision "researchers" and people who claim to be "experts" on circumcision.

Bertran Auvert, Robert Bailey, and Daniel Halperin appear as authors. These are some of the prominent men who are flooding the medical literature with "studies" that say circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," as well as other diseases.

Thomas Wiswell, author of debunked circumcision/UTI "research" that has been long dismissed by authorities such as the AAP, appears as an author on one of the Morris/Gilgal pamphlets.

So does Edgar Schoen. (Incidentally, Schoen has also written circumcision poetry.)

So does Jake Waskett.

Daniel Halperin has corresponded with Circlist, and apparently so has Edgar Schoen. Daniel Halperin has actually recommended Circlist as well as Brian Morris' website as authorities on circumcision.

Very recently, Brian Morris published another pro-circumcision paper where Jake H Waskett, Robert Bailey, Daniel Halperin, and Thomas Wiswell all appear simultaneously. An earlier such paper can be seen here, and although Robert Bailey does not appear in this one, it mentions "Jake H. Waskett is with the Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service, Manchester, England." This "service," also known as "CIRCS" is nothing more than the acronym to Jake's pro-circumcision website.

These are the people responsible for all the recent circumcision "research." These are the people shaping the WHO's opinion. These are the people to whom media outlets look to as "experts." These are the people to whom others look to as "authorities" on the subject. These are the people helping shape policy in California and Colorado.

Can they be trusted to provide "impartial," "dispassionate," and "unbiased" information?

Is this about "public health?"

Or is "public health" and "research" a front for something darker and more sinister?

How far does this rabbit hole go?

The world is about to find out.

Calling All Intactivist Wiki Editors
For the time being, Wikipedia is a lost cause. The truth will never be known as long as Jake Waskett is hijacking Wikipedia for his own agenda. As a direct result of Jake's activity, important and factual information is currently being omitted from Wikipedia regarding human genital anatomy, and so concerned individuals have felt the need to create a resource where this omitted information can be found.

In response to the situation at Wikipedia, a number of concerned individuals have come together to create "Intactipedia" as an alternative wiki resource on the foreskin and circumcision. The objective is to archive all the information that Jake won't allow on Wikipedia, so that perhaps in the future, when he too is exposed, it would be easy to move information over to Wikipedia with the ease of Wiki markup language.

Please visit Intactipedia and help contribute, if not help shape its direction.

Disclaimer:
Some may argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, pointing out conflicts of interest is not ad hominem. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (4/22/2012):


Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.