With some issues, it is probably appropriate to "agree to disagree" but not in science. Debating a topic is the way science advances. Agreeing to disagree is typically a plea to stop the debate and in that environment, science does not advance so let's advance science and continue the debate.
Yes, I am a "victim" of circumcision. I don't use that term but if the shoe fits, I guess I'll wear it. I'm very laid back as a personality type so that characterization doesn' fit. I am also not Irish except by well watered down ancestry. My family came to The US more than 200 years ago and the decendants intermarried with other nationalities liberally. As a percentage, my heritage is well over 50% English but there is also Dutch, Scottish, German and maybe some other influences. Maybe you misread my post that I recently dated an Irish woman (born in Ireland) although her father was English so she was only 50% Irish.
If my choice had been protected, I would not have been circumcised. This is not a recent choice. I first realized there was a difference when I was 6 or 7 years old and at that early age, did not want to be circumcised although I had no understanding of it at the time. That wish has only intensified over time. This is the case of many men and it is growing as men discover the issue on the internet and come to realize what happened to them in their earliest days when they could not defend themselves.
As for my interest, I discovered this issue accidentally about 10 years ago and given my stance on it, I immediately started researching it. I was astounded to find that there was simply no justification for it medically and the religious implications just did not fit me. I also discovered there was a hot debate about it on the internet and knew if I was to effectively debate it, I needed to educate myself. That I did! I've spent probably thousands of hours reading research and like The AAP, could find no legitimate justification outside religion.
I regularly see misinformation in both lay writings and professional writings as I also did in Shania's writing. There is no doubt there is much misinformation in this issue and that has been true since the late 1800's and probably even before that. I also know it is difficult to sort through what is legitimate and what is not. In the early days of my own education, I saw constant conflicts among studies and writings and had great difficulty in sorting them into "valid" and "invalid" stacks. I know the vast majority also have this difficulty and use my knowledge of the topic to help them sort. That seems to have become my function in this debate.
I have only had the opportunity to interview 5 men in person that have been circumcised as adults. Of the five, four were very unhappy about it. Two became either non-orgasmic or impotent or both within 5 years. These were men in their late 30's to mid 40's. Another one circumcised in his early 20's found out I had some knowledge about the topic and started questioning me. I just happened to mention foreskin restoration and there was an immediate interest. He has since gone on to restore his foreskin using a non-surgical method and is extremely happy with the results. The fifth one, circumcised in his mid 20's and in his early 50's now insists that circumcision is the way to go but his new wife appears to disagree and has been searching for a lover outside the marriage as he has little interest. I have corresponded with dozens of men circumcised in adulthood on the internet and have only found a few that would do it again.
As for Jews being insular, the study was done almost 30 years ago so what the practice is today is not what it was 30 years ago. It would be a difficult argument that they were not insular simply because of the predominance of Jews in Israel and the geographical islolation. I suspect this was a knee jerk response to paint me as an anti-Semite. The shoe just doesn't fit. I grew up in a county where there was only two Jewish families at the time. One of the families, I never met. The other I only met the son and daughter. The son was a year behind me in school and I had some interaction with him. The daughter was two years older and I don't think I ever had any interaction with her at all. I don't think we were ever introduced. In fact, I didn't even know they were Jewish until well after my high school days. In this absence of influence, I didn't develop any opinion about Jews. Even today, Jews are rare in this area and I could not identify anyone I know as being Jewish and therefore, I am just not an anti-Semite. It may be hard for you to comprehend but I have dated several Jewish women in the recent past.
As for the bacteria being the same, I am not "entirely wrong," I am absolutely correct. You can not name a single bacterium, viral or fungal that infects the male genitals that does not also infect the female genitals, not a single one. The phimotic state is clearly the exception and relatively rare (+/-1%). The foreskin is also not "redundant" and the trapped bacterium is typically beneficial bacterium that is essential for good health. Only when there is a corresponding health problem is the bacteria a problem. These corresponding health problems are diabetes or a recent regimine of antibiotics just for example. The antibiotics are easy to resolve with just plain unsweetened yogurt as previously posted. The diabetes is appropriately controlled and the phimotic state is usually avoided. in one case of phimosis that I have helped with, my first question was "Have you been checked for diabetes?" and a couple of weeks later, he came back with a diagnosis of diabetes. The phimosis was "the canary in the mine" that resulted in him having his diabetes diagnosed and starting treatment. I think you would unquestionably agree that in this case, his phimosis was actually a benefit as it brought the root problem to the fore so it could be treated extending his life span and quality of life.
Yes, there are underlying problems with diabetics, HIV infectees and others but it is not appropriate to subject babies to circumcision as a prophylaxis for these conditions.
I have counseled several men in both stretching the preputial sphincter and the frenulum and all were successful. I did not point you to a specific website but instead, pointed you to the CIRP.ORG website. It is a library of information on primarily male circumcision and is quite complete. I sent you there with the hopes that you would browse the information as a learning experience. For the information on stretching the frenulum and the preputial sphincter, just search for "Beaugue." If I remember correctly, there has been other research as well and using the term 'stretching" will probably return those.
You wrote: "I have never asserted that to prevent HIV or HPV in men that I personally recommend circumcision. Where did I say that? I only made reference to journal articles." Yes, that is what you did and in doing that, you were passing the myth that circumcision prevents these infections. This is deceptive and a not so subtle recommendation. Instead of calling attention to these incorrect, fraudulent or outdated studies, why not just say nothing?
The latest information on the HPV vaccine does state that it offers no protection from HPV but age is not a factor. If a woman has only had one encounter (virgin) with one man who has only had one encounter (virgin), there is a very good possibility that neither one is infected and the vaccine will be effective. When the vaccine was first announced in the fall of 2004? it stated it was effective in women who were already infected but by the next spring immediately before it was put into distibution, that had changed to only effective in those not infected. This gave immediate rise to suspicion for me because it was also being promoted to be adminstered to school children and a required immunization. In fact, a few states did make it a required vaccination after intense lobbying by Merck Pharma. At $360.00 for the three injections, it was a money maker almost unequalled and making it a requirement just insured those revenues. I don't argue with it being a required vaccination specifically. I do think it would go a long way toward ending cervical cancer but as a conservative, I have problems with anybody requiring anything. Maybe after the vaccine has been out a sigificant time and no unexpected outcomes are observed.
Incidentally, a study of 13 - 15 girls was conducted and it was found that 54% of them had already been infected with HPV. The conclusion of the study was that they were infected as they passed through their mother's birth canal. How is it that these girls would be protected from HPV via male circumcision?
No, I am not a practitioner of homeopathic medicine.
The assertation that 97% of HPV infectees will develop a natural immunity came from The National Campaign for Cervical Cancer and HPV website.
No, I do not recommend doing away with the pap smear. I believe women should start getting the pap smear in their late teens as many of them will contract the infection at birth and the time from initial infection to indications of cancer is 16 to 20 years. At this time, this is the best way to avoid or treat the cancer or pre-cancerous condition. I also strongly disagree with the administration's recent recommendation that women start mamography at age 50. My Mother was diagnosed at 37 years old and was successfully treated. If it had not been for the early diagnosis, almost 40 years of her life would have slipped away. Even though the vast majority will develop the natural immunity, there are those that won't. Even one preventable death is one too many. I believe that pap smears should start at least by 20 years and mamographies start at least by 40 years old and if it is at taxpayer expense, I'll gladly ante up.
Cervical cancer is probably less predominate in Jewish women married to Jewish men simply because the infection has not entered that segment of the population to become wide spread while in The US, we intermix so the infection spreads widely. Incidentally, there has never been such a study in The US that separates Jews from all the rest for the study purposes. I suspect the results would be quite different here. Using Sweden and Israel as the study populations was not legitimate as they are so different. In a study such as this, you choose the two populations that are most alike to avoid confounders.
Yes doctor, I do know what the mons pubis is and I also know both sexes have it. "Mons pubis" is translated into "Pubic mound." Both males and females have a pubic mound on the pubic bone. This is just above the penis in men and just above the vaginal cleft in women. Did you not know this?
I am neither narrow minded or need to get out more often. I have broad social horizons. You engaged in the debate and I did as well. I am not "shooting bullets" at you, just providing truth. That is something that has been conspiciously absent in the topic for many years. I am thankful for the internet as the truth is now widely available to anyone who seeks it. I am merely a facilitator in seeking the truth makiong it easier to wade through all the outdated information, misinformation and outright lies. This is not to criticize you or call your credentials into question but by profession, you are a scientist. However, I also suspect your religion affects your ability to evaluate and accept information that you may feel is contrary to that religion. I suspect it can be a challenge but I would recommend you put the two in separate compartments for the betterment of your patients. As I am not a Jew or really deeply involved in religion, I don't have that factor pulling at me. My concern is about infants and men and their rights and welfare.
I had also noticed that Shania has not responded. However, many don't realize the controversy they are starting when they write about this topic and some are intimidated. That is especially so when they are faced by medical professionals who disagree with them and start posting medical studies and articles. Thankfully, I am not easily intimidated and help them out.
I'm sorry to hear you will be leaving. Is that because I intimidated you? If that is the case, let me apologise as that was not what I intended to do. Actually, I do like having opposition because the opposition brings up points for discussion. Please do not abandon us so quickly.
Comment Reply
With some issues, it is probably appropriate to "agree to disagree" but not in science. Debating a topic is the way science advances. Agreeing to disagree is typically a plea to stop the debate and in that environment, science does not advance so let's advance science and continue the debate.
Yes, I am a "victim" of circumcision. I don't use that term but if the shoe fits, I guess I'll wear it. I'm very laid back as a personality type so that characterization doesn' fit. I am also not Irish except by well watered down ancestry. My family came to The US more than 200 years ago and the decendants intermarried with other nationalities liberally. As a percentage, my heritage is well over 50% English but there is also Dutch, Scottish, German and maybe some other influences. Maybe you misread my post that I recently dated an Irish woman (born in Ireland) although her father was English so she was only 50% Irish.
If my choice had been protected, I would not have been circumcised. This is not a recent choice. I first realized there was a difference when I was 6 or 7 years old and at that early age, did not want to be circumcised although I had no understanding of it at the time. That wish has only intensified over time. This is the case of many men and it is growing as men discover the issue on the internet and come to realize what happened to them in their earliest days when they could not defend themselves.
As for my interest, I discovered this issue accidentally about 10 years ago and given my stance on it, I immediately started researching it. I was astounded to find that there was simply no justification for it medically and the religious implications just did not fit me. I also discovered there was a hot debate about it on the internet and knew if I was to effectively debate it, I needed to educate myself. That I did! I've spent probably thousands of hours reading research and like The AAP, could find no legitimate justification outside religion.
I regularly see misinformation in both lay writings and professional writings as I also did in Shania's writing. There is no doubt there is much misinformation in this issue and that has been true since the late 1800's and probably even before that. I also know it is difficult to sort through what is legitimate and what is not. In the early days of my own education, I saw constant conflicts among studies and writings and had great difficulty in sorting them into "valid" and "invalid" stacks. I know the vast majority also have this difficulty and use my knowledge of the topic to help them sort. That seems to have become my function in this debate.
I have only had the opportunity to interview 5 men in person that have been circumcised as adults. Of the five, four were very unhappy about it. Two became either non-orgasmic or impotent or both within 5 years. These were men in their late 30's to mid 40's. Another one circumcised in his early 20's found out I had some knowledge about the topic and started questioning me. I just happened to mention foreskin restoration and there was an immediate interest. He has since gone on to restore his foreskin using a non-surgical method and is extremely happy with the results. The fifth one, circumcised in his mid 20's and in his early 50's now insists that circumcision is the way to go but his new wife appears to disagree and has been searching for a lover outside the marriage as he has little interest. I have corresponded with dozens of men circumcised in adulthood on the internet and have only found a few that would do it again.
As for Jews being insular, the study was done almost 30 years ago so what the practice is today is not what it was 30 years ago. It would be a difficult argument that they were not insular simply because of the predominance of Jews in Israel and the geographical islolation. I suspect this was a knee jerk response to paint me as an anti-Semite. The shoe just doesn't fit. I grew up in a county where there was only two Jewish families at the time. One of the families, I never met. The other I only met the son and daughter. The son was a year behind me in school and I had some interaction with him. The daughter was two years older and I don't think I ever had any interaction with her at all. I don't think we were ever introduced. In fact, I didn't even know they were Jewish until well after my high school days. In this absence of influence, I didn't develop any opinion about Jews. Even today, Jews are rare in this area and I could not identify anyone I know as being Jewish and therefore, I am just not an anti-Semite. It may be hard for you to comprehend but I have dated several Jewish women in the recent past.
As for the bacteria being the same, I am not "entirely wrong," I am absolutely correct. You can not name a single bacterium, viral or fungal that infects the male genitals that does not also infect the female genitals, not a single one. The phimotic state is clearly the exception and relatively rare (+/-1%). The foreskin is also not "redundant" and the trapped bacterium is typically beneficial bacterium that is essential for good health. Only when there is a corresponding health problem is the bacteria a problem. These corresponding health problems are diabetes or a recent regimine of antibiotics just for example. The antibiotics are easy to resolve with just plain unsweetened yogurt as previously posted. The diabetes is appropriately controlled and the phimotic state is usually avoided. in one case of phimosis that I have helped with, my first question was "Have you been checked for diabetes?" and a couple of weeks later, he came back with a diagnosis of diabetes. The phimosis was "the canary in the mine" that resulted in him having his diabetes diagnosed and starting treatment. I think you would unquestionably agree that in this case, his phimosis was actually a benefit as it brought the root problem to the fore so it could be treated extending his life span and quality of life.
Yes, there are underlying problems with diabetics, HIV infectees and others but it is not appropriate to subject babies to circumcision as a prophylaxis for these conditions.
I have counseled several men in both stretching the preputial sphincter and the frenulum and all were successful. I did not point you to a specific website but instead, pointed you to the CIRP.ORG website. It is a library of information on primarily male circumcision and is quite complete. I sent you there with the hopes that you would browse the information as a learning experience. For the information on stretching the frenulum and the preputial sphincter, just search for "Beaugue." If I remember correctly, there has been other research as well and using the term 'stretching" will probably return those.
You wrote: "I have never asserted that to prevent HIV or HPV in men that I personally recommend circumcision. Where did I say that? I only made reference to journal articles." Yes, that is what you did and in doing that, you were passing the myth that circumcision prevents these infections. This is deceptive and a not so subtle recommendation. Instead of calling attention to these incorrect, fraudulent or outdated studies, why not just say nothing?
The latest information on the HPV vaccine does state that it offers no protection from HPV but age is not a factor. If a woman has only had one encounter (virgin) with one man who has only had one encounter (virgin), there is a very good possibility that neither one is infected and the vaccine will be effective. When the vaccine was first announced in the fall of 2004? it stated it was effective in women who were already infected but by the next spring immediately before it was put into distibution, that had changed to only effective in those not infected. This gave immediate rise to suspicion for me because it was also being promoted to be adminstered to school children and a required immunization. In fact, a few states did make it a required vaccination after intense lobbying by Merck Pharma. At $360.00 for the three injections, it was a money maker almost unequalled and making it a requirement just insured those revenues. I don't argue with it being a required vaccination specifically. I do think it would go a long way toward ending cervical cancer but as a conservative, I have problems with anybody requiring anything. Maybe after the vaccine has been out a sigificant time and no unexpected outcomes are observed.
Incidentally, a study of 13 - 15 girls was conducted and it was found that 54% of them had already been infected with HPV. The conclusion of the study was that they were infected as they passed through their mother's birth canal. How is it that these girls would be protected from HPV via male circumcision?
No, I am not a practitioner of homeopathic medicine.
The assertation that 97% of HPV infectees will develop a natural immunity came from The National Campaign for Cervical Cancer and HPV website.
No, I do not recommend doing away with the pap smear. I believe women should start getting the pap smear in their late teens as many of them will contract the infection at birth and the time from initial infection to indications of cancer is 16 to 20 years. At this time, this is the best way to avoid or treat the cancer or pre-cancerous condition. I also strongly disagree with the administration's recent recommendation that women start mamography at age 50. My Mother was diagnosed at 37 years old and was successfully treated. If it had not been for the early diagnosis, almost 40 years of her life would have slipped away. Even though the vast majority will develop the natural immunity, there are those that won't. Even one preventable death is one too many. I believe that pap smears should start at least by 20 years and mamographies start at least by 40 years old and if it is at taxpayer expense, I'll gladly ante up.
Cervical cancer is probably less predominate in Jewish women married to Jewish men simply because the infection has not entered that segment of the population to become wide spread while in The US, we intermix so the infection spreads widely. Incidentally, there has never been such a study in The US that separates Jews from all the rest for the study purposes. I suspect the results would be quite different here. Using Sweden and Israel as the study populations was not legitimate as they are so different. In a study such as this, you choose the two populations that are most alike to avoid confounders.
Yes doctor, I do know what the mons pubis is and I also know both sexes have it. "Mons pubis" is translated into "Pubic mound." Both males and females have a pubic mound on the pubic bone. This is just above the penis in men and just above the vaginal cleft in women. Did you not know this?
I am neither narrow minded or need to get out more often. I have broad social horizons. You engaged in the debate and I did as well. I am not "shooting bullets" at you, just providing truth. That is something that has been conspiciously absent in the topic for many years. I am thankful for the internet as the truth is now widely available to anyone who seeks it. I am merely a facilitator in seeking the truth makiong it easier to wade through all the outdated information, misinformation and outright lies. This is not to criticize you or call your credentials into question but by profession, you are a scientist. However, I also suspect your religion affects your ability to evaluate and accept information that you may feel is contrary to that religion. I suspect it can be a challenge but I would recommend you put the two in separate compartments for the betterment of your patients. As I am not a Jew or really deeply involved in religion, I don't have that factor pulling at me. My concern is about infants and men and their rights and welfare.
I had also noticed that Shania has not responded. However, many don't realize the controversy they are starting when they write about this topic and some are intimidated. That is especially so when they are faced by medical professionals who disagree with them and start posting medical studies and articles. Thankfully, I am not easily intimidated and help them out.
I'm sorry to hear you will be leaving. Is that because I intimidated you? If that is the case, let me apologise as that was not what I intended to do. Actually, I do like having opposition because the opposition brings up points for discussion. Please do not abandon us so quickly.
Frank O'Hara
March 21, 2010 - 10:48amThis Comment
Reply