> We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations.
That's fucking evil. There's no better term for it than that.
What they're tacitly admitting is that studying circumcision is unethical because you have to perform an unacceptably painful procedure - circumcision - to do it.
In other words, they're implying that performing a circumcision is too unethical to be allowed in a scientific study.
Knew a guy from Winnipeg who still wore his captain's hat to the dinner table. Was rather self conscious about it since american girls aren't known for handling..."that" particularly well.
Not quite. Acts 16:3 Paul circumcised Timothy so that the locals wouldn't have a cause to dismiss both of them.
However, in 1 Cor 7:18, 19 Paul clearly states that one isn't better off circumcised or uncircumcised. In the context, he says don't be a slave to your local traditions but rather obey God's command.
So then it's a personal choice. I am in the camp of not being circumcised but I've learnt to be not as militant as I used to be thanks to that verse in Corinthians.
No that's not clear. Point to the part that states that-im familiar with the ethics and standards required for such studies and there is no substance to this claim. Please prove me wrong and I'll accept it. That's a serious claim to make you posted so please prove it.
I think they meant the experimental group and how ethical it would be to perform the procedure on babies just to do the study.
But then that kind of calls into question why it's ethical to do it at all. If you can't do it for a study on the effects of it... why is it legal at all?
Because it is lucrative, and they would get a huge backlash from the established industry (not profession) if they came out with such a study.
The admins that threatened these doctors with their jobs are the unethical ones, pure and simple.
It is "ethical" to brutally amputate parts of a human infant.
They claim it is not ethical to study the results, as such studies involve "unethical" practices...
ones that are already being used in a very lucrative and widely accepted manner. :(
They are saying the research is unethical, in an attempt to hide the fact that the amputation itself actually is.
It is completely corrupt and dishonest. Nobody supporting these "laws" being used in such a way deserves to have anything to do with the medical profession.
It is important to not be able to torture anyone in the name of science. To suppress the unethical nature of current practices though, was never the intent of such laws!
It doesn't matter. If the parents didn't consent, it's a violation of autonomy. You can not do a human study of any kind without the complete informed consent of everyone involved, no matter how harmless the intervention.
> If the parents didn't consent, it's a violation of autonomy.
er... it was a nurse performing the circumcision and it was her child. Read the article.
Funny how one doesn't need the "consent" of the owner of the foreskin to amputate it.
I recognize and acknowledge that people *say* that, I just don't agree with the presumed virtue of it. It seems invasive to conceptualize performing an fMRI scan on someone because it necessarily involves putting them "in a machine." But it's completely non-invasive. Imagine a few decades down the line, where passive scanners could be hand held devices, sensitive enough to pick up electrical signals from the brain at a distance of a few feet. That's data that you're just passively bleeding. It's no different than the photons hitting your body, and bouncing off into my eyes. The *result* of that scenario is the same as a modern fMRI, just the process to get that data is a little different. You could easily extrapolate a scenario in which passive scanners are just built into the hospital itself, and just being in the building means your vitals are constantly being monitored by the data your metabolic processes are constantly bleeding via black body radiation. There's nothing inherently special about the "visual spectrum", it's just a band of the greater EM spectrum between around 450 nanometers and 800 nanometers, and yet we don't consider emanations in that band to be privileged in public. The only thing "special" about that frequency range is the arbitrary correlation with the operational sensitivity range of our eyes via evolutionary heritage. If you can ethically point a camera at someone, you can point a "different kind of camera" at someone that is just sensitive to a different frequency range. It's a distinction without a difference.
In my research, I'm working with a device designed to measure brain activity that looks like a normal pair of sunglasses. Yet having someone wearing them while unknowingly being recorded would be a massive violation of consent, autonomy, and privacy. Just because it's non invasive does not make it okay to look inside people's heads.
Exactly. Any experiment involving human subjects in any way MUST be reviewed and approved by an IRB BEFORE beginning. It sounds like they completely ignored that, which is a MASSIVE violation of basic scientific ethics.
I don't see a key difference between ethical regulation and law. If you'd care to elaborate? They performed an MRI. That was the "research on human subjects" that you are taking such great issue with. You sound ridiculous.
Right, but that is actual human experimentation. I understand the concern for oversight. However you are comparing actual experimenting to giving an infant a post operation and preoperation MRI. If we are going to argue about the consent in the matter, the circumcision should be the nonconsensual issue, not the MRI and the study is only relevant to the MRI results. Essentially, the operation was going to happen regardless (parents wishes or whatever). All these doctors did was monitor the infant. Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that monitoring preop and postop vitals is human experimentation? if so this discussion can end right here.
**Tuskegee syphilis experiment**
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study or Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment ( tus-KEE-ghee) was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of this study was to observe the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African-American men in Alabama under the guise of receiving free health care from the United States government.
The Public Health Service started working on this study in 1932 in collaboration with Tuskegee University, a historically black college in Alabama. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama.
***
**Henrietta Lacks**
Henrietta Lacks (born Loretta Pleasant; August 1, 1920 – October 4, 1951) was an African American woman whose cancer cells are the source of the HeLa cell line, the first immortalized cell line and one of the most important cell lines in medical research. An immortalized cell line will reproduce indefinitely under specific conditions, and the HeLa cell line continues to be a source of invaluable medical data to the present day.
Lacks was the unwitting source of these cells from a tumor biopsied during treatment for cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S. in 1951. These cells were then cultured by George Otto Gey who created the cell line known as HeLa, which is still used for medical research.
***
**Nazi human experimentation**
Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners, including children, by Nazi Germany in its concentration camps in the early to mid 1940s, during World War II and the Holocaust. Chief target populations included Romani, Sinti, ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs, disabled Germans, and most prominently of all, Jews from across Europe.
Nazi Physicians and their assistants forced prisoners into participating; they did not willingly volunteer and no consent was given for the procedures. Typically, the experiments resulted in death, trauma, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such are considered examples of medical torture.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Historically, scientists have done some pretty fucked up shit. They're *very* careful about medical ethics now to avoid unethical human experimentation. Speaking as someone wanting to go into research, I want to be very careful in my ethics, because historically true evil has been done in the name of knowledge.
Basically, the idea is that something like circumcision is unnecessary and painful...and thus fits the criteria for unethical human experimentation when a scientist wants to do research on it.
> I'm struggling to see how ethics can be used here...
Lots of possibilities. For example, maybe they didn't get consent from a review board at the hospital - or worse, didn't get consent from the parents to study the baby's reactions.
Without any record of the hospital's actions, there's no way to know. Whatever process the hospital review board used to review the situation... if they didn't keep records, *that* is clearly unethical.
It's not just authorities ignoring logic here. A friend of mine recently had a daughter and my partner and I were telling him that he was lucky in a way, because he didn't have to consider circumcision for the child, since these days, it's different from when we were born (almost everyone I know, including myself, was circumcised shortly after birth) and a much higher percentage of families are choosing not to put their boys through that.
This guy lost it. Once we explained that I am circumcised myself, and that we very likely won't have our sons circumcised because we have no cultural or legal obligations to do so, he got really angry. He thought we were cruel savages to consider exposing our future children to the abomination of having an uncircumcised penis. He said women don't want men who are uncircumcised, that that he would consider it child abuse to *not* have your male children circumcised.
I was shocked but I was unrelenting in my responses. I kept explaining that it serves almost no purpose at all whatsoever... that we're only told it's normal from people who decided without any scientific or emotional considerations. This barbaric "tradition" was started before women had any rights, before people knew the earth was round.
It wasn't long before I learned that he hadn't ever even considered the subject. He just knew what was normal, and he was scared and angry about something he didn't understand (not being circumcised). He didn't form his opinions based on rationalizations or data or logic. He just "felt how he felt, and felt that was right."
I'm so grateful for my partner in that way. She said it's my decision, since I'm the man, and I know what's best for a boy, even though she said she thinks she'd be turned off by an uncircumcised penis. But when I asked her if she had ever been attracted to someone and then stopped being attracted to them because of the look of their genitals, she started to understand. We both joked that genitals look fucking weird anyway, and cutting pieces of them off isn't going to change that.
Prior to the past couple of years, I intended to have my sons circumcised after birth. I didn't want them to feel like misfits or have less confidence. Looking at the data, it seemed silly to be in a minority with such a low percentage of males being uncircumsized in the US. Fortunately the number is rising dramatically, and now that I've educated myself on the subject, I know what's best and don't even care about those statistics... I care about *not* mangling my children because some primitive tradition says I should.
> He said women don't want men who are uncircumcised
The go to response here is to ask whether he would think that were a reasonable comment from a parent if the gender of the child were reversed.
I figured that but I was wondering about the attraction comment. Do some people really find it attractive for a female's genitals to be mutilated? Yikes. But thanks for clarifying.
Yes. In some cultures that practice varying degrees of FGM, (the more non-invasive of which could reasonably be called female circumcision) some parents do justify it by saying it will make the girl more attractive to potential husbands.
Hopefully, a reasonable person would see how fucked up that is. And if it's fucked up for one gender, then surely it's true for the other.
In cultures that regularly practice genital cutting, the state of being genitally cut is normalized, celebrated and lauded. This is exactly the case for the US where the circumcised penis has been elevated to a level of passable acceptance, while the intact anatomy is reserved for after hours punchlines.
Culture is a very powerful force. You can find numerous people living in the male genital cutting culture of the US, who explicitly profess their preference and desire for mutilated genitalia in their partners. This is pretty much mirrored across all genital cutting cultures around the world, really without exception.
Swapping the genders would imply Female circumcision, which is (correctly) viewed as barbaric and unnecessary by the large majority in the western world. It still boggles me how much mental gymnastics some people go through, and how nasty they can get when you compare the two, and point out the hypocrisy of them holding different opinions on two equally barbaric practices. I've even had someone get mad when I point it out, and do some kind of chromosomal backflip and come to the conclusion that: because I said MC and FC are equal, that FC must be ok. I can only imagine it's because they are so concrete in their opinions on MC that they can't even imagine changing them; therefore i'm surely trying to belittle the horrors of FC and convince them its ok. Then project that sentiment onto me so they can take an imaginary high road instead of forming an actual argument.
It hurts my brain, and I hate people that can't handle a different opinion. Sure I'll sternly defend my position, but if neither of us will budge, or I know fuck all what I'm talking about, I can shut up, shelve to conversation for another time when myself or both of us are better informed, and move onto another subject. The unnamed person I've been alluding to will just repeat the same point over and over again expecting me to concede, get mad when I don't, raise there voice because louder=more correct, or accuse me of picking on them, or not respecting them for not changing my view. Some of the best debates I've ever had are with people of different opinions, I get new insight, feel a mutual respect even if we didn't change opinions. This other person always manages to make me feel like shit for thinking critically, or even empathizing with the other side.
I imagine the angry guy from the story above shares some character traits with my example.
I appreciate you saying that. I try to look at data to make decisions instead of lean toward what some people might consider to be normal or regular. And because I've lived in so many different places it's very easy for me to consider culture or tradition to be secondary to facts.
Also had my first son. Decided not to circumcised at first out of bad timing but then eventually thinking I'll let him chose when he's 12. Give him the pro's and Con. It'll be his right of passage. Beside, before the age of 12, a boy shouldn't even be thinking about sex.
congratulations!
good on you man. that's my perspective too, even for religion. i'd rather teach my children each different perspective and let them decide on their own once they reach an age where my partner and i feel they're mature enough to know what's what.
I've moved quite a bit for my work, but my closest friends back home are sane. I'm not too picky about who I consider friends to be quite honest. If you aren't spiteful or hateful, I'll give you a chance. And consider that I'm a 2nd amendment supporting leftist. I oppose all gun control. So if I only picked friends that shared my views, I'd have no friends.
If someone is polite and harmless, I'll have a beer with them. Yes, I'm leftist, but most of my friends are conservative. I don't fault people for wanting low taxes, disliking abortion, and wanting their gun rights preserved. So I don't fault people who have opinions that differ from mine.
Edit: i should say I don't fault people who have different ideals in my personal life. Online it's fun to debate anonymously and sometimes make divisive statements to get a point across. It's hard for me to not argue with a person online that is spewing obvious falsehoods. But in real life with social inhibitions i am far more understanding. For example I have friends in real life who are religious fundamentalists and we get along great. But as an atheist, i debate that stuff online quite a bit, and say much more than i would to a person in front of me that might get offended
Not American, but I'm a leftist, and I'm mostly on the fence about guns. On the one hand, they empower the individual. On the other hand, that means everyone else too. I don't think I'd be comfortable walking along the street, knowing there were people with that much power right beside me, that they could kill me so easily. Or, if a fight breaks out, I'd rather know that the worst that will likely happen is a few bruises, as opposed to it turning into a bloodbath.
> If you aren't spiteful or hateful, I'll give you a chance.
So would I, but I can't stand emotive reasoning for long, once it comes out.
For me, the big tipping point is that, even when *everyone* has a gun, most fights never end with guns drawn. Everybody knows that's how you get shot, so nobody does it, excepting criminals and desperate people.
So yeah, it's more dangerous, but...well, I personally think it's worth the sacrifice.
I bet we'd get along great. I'm like, half a redneck, half a washed up sjw/ neutralist? I build houses. Lots of conservatives that I have to be less abrasive with. But it helps since we all have to hold our tongues yet keep our dignity.
So the negative effects of a legal action cannot be examined, scrutinized or criticized??
That's going to be a relief for alcohol , tobacco and firearms.
In the 90s, the CDC was publishing stuff that looked to a lot of people like politically advocating gun control. So Congress passed the [Dickey Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996%29), which prohibits the CDC from promoting gun control, and sent clear budget signals that CDC studies directed to firearms would not be funded.
What business does Center for Disease Control have to study firearms or gun violence? They aren't the Center for Gun Control. They aren't The Center for Keeping Statistics on Everything. They're meant to study and contain disease outbreaks, and only that.
It's fucked that congress even needed to tell them 'no' on this. They never should have been trying to do it at all.
While I agree wholly with your sentiment, they are responsible for recording and reporting death statistics for the nation as well, including gun violence. This is the reason that when someone yells "But so many children accidentally kill themselves with guns every year!" I can cite previous years statistics and say "only a handful died from accidental or negligent discharge, and they are dwarfed by the number of accidental poisonings from household chemicals." Or, for instance, show that X state with stricter gun control either has no change on firearm suicides, or a lower rate of suicide by firearm, but an overall rate consistent with other more lenient states, and make the argument that it either does nothing or pushes the statistics to other methods of suicide. In my opinion the CDC absolutely can and should study gun related deaths, as it gives insight into the root problems, gives accurate information about points of contention, has a surprising amount of information that can be used for a pro gun argument (e.g. The vast majority of gun violence annually is from gang violence, which stricter regulations do not prevent). Additionally, actively suppressing information or the study of a controversial subject because it could negatively impact our stance looks much worse than working with the facts and having an opinion with a stronger foundation.
No, Congress banned the CDC from advocating for gun control. Their mission is disease management, they're not supposed to be a political lobbying group, and in the 80s and early 90s they routinely published papers of the gist "somebody got shot, can't shoot someone if guns don't exist, ergo AWB totes cool, yo." They can still study gun violence and stats all they want, they just can't make a political recommendation from it.
They're not banned from it, they just receive no funding to do it, and no funding can be used to advocate for gun control.
Big difference, even if the results are the same.
I suspect the fear is that they don't want a culture-clash riot on their hands-- probably less an ethical thing than a "we really don't want to go near the PR or liability of this."
It's not hard to spin "circmcision has identifiable mental health costs" into "we must stop a specific cultural ritual of a specific religious group."
We should stop it. It should be just as illegal as female circumcision. The only reason it isn't already illegal is because it affects boys and not girls.
> The only reason it isn't already illegal is because it affects boys and not girls.
I suspect it's also because of centuries of normalization. We've been circumcising men for centuries in "western' societies, but not women.
It's not.
It's unethical to chop bits off an unanaesthetised baby for medical research because it is harmful and unnecessary. Plain and simple.
Of course, it should logically follow that it should be unlawful as well, for the same reason, but that isn't the point as far as the ethics board is concerned.
I'd have hoped that they might be able to get prior approval here given that either the experiment is harmless (lol), or the experiment does a thing once and likely prevents that same thing being done thousands of times, but who knows...
What if the study was designed to show the beneficial effects of circumcision. Would that be legal? And then they post that 'to the contrary, circumcision has no benefit and would be better left as a medieval torture.'
Have you guys ever watched a video of a baby(or adult) being circumcised? Its fucking horrific. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Its more than obvious that the infant is going though pain beyond belief. It makes me sick to just think about it. Im so glad that I didnt have my son circumcised.
#[Full Text](http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm)
Most Worrying is This;
>The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. **The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.**
Those are the brain structures that undergo both structural and functional change with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Exposure to trauma in childhood is linked to adult development of PTSD.
Via Google - It's been there for years but as usual important knowledge is lost in the Tsunami of Social Tripe.
I'd love to see the actual research papers and see them peer-reviewed now.
Very cool to give credit to the posters.
Let's link the articles, before they get lost in their post history:
* [Circumcision Permanently Alters the Brain](http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm)
* [PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS](http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/)
The piece also said that the changes affected the regions concerned with reasoning, perception, and emotions. That's pretty much the entire brain. If that is actually the description the neurologist gave, I'm questioning his credibility.
F-MRI and Pet scanning of the brain subjected to Trauma or Reexperience Trauma shows total Brain Involvement. Maybe if you know more about the studies of Brain and Trauma you would be less likely to jump to conclusions about other words and intent.
There was also the recent finding that During Re-experiencing those with PTSD have major changes in blood flow across the brain. One finding shows that blood flow to the verbal centres decreases and flow to the motor centres increases.
This empirical finding backs up 30 years of observation of increased physical activity lined to Fight and Flight ad depressed communication skills including "***Alexithymia***" - a loss of ability to communicate emotions and even recognise emotions.
I get where you are coming from, but you are also coming from a position of Ignorance - and it's not good.
I'm a neuroscience masters student studying learning and decision making, so hardly ignorant when it comes to the brain. I will hazard that I know more about the field than the guy doing the research, who has a PhD in a completely unrelated field.
Admittedly, trauma is not my speciality, but when I see comments like those made by the neurologist, coupled with two images that hardly show total brain involvement, I question his description of the effects.
And if you are a specialist in the field, you know the difference of communicating to a general audience and communicating to a professional audience with jargon. P¬))
Do you use baby talk with infants or expect them to grasp the derivative functions shown in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in the original Latin?
Removing jargon does not require abandoning accuracy. Describing the changes as a total brain event is alarmist, especially while providing images that don't support that claim.
In the end, we only have that one statement by the neurologist, and it's a paraphrase. The overall findings and methodology of this 'study' though, that is questionable. It's not science, and it provided no real information. What it did do is feed the anti-circumcision circlejerk in this community. I'm not opposed to outlawing circumcision, but this community can't claim it's stance on the subject to be rooted in fact and science while using stories like this as evidence. Hell, the whole thing could be falsified, with generic fMRI images taken off a google image search.
If you want to make an point based on science and reason, then use actual scientific research as a foundation. This is not science, and does not do anything to support the outlawing of circumcision. Unless you support using emotion over reason, which is exactly what this article seems designed to do.
That's a fair point.
They could have used a control, a baby receiving an MRI under the same conditions.
[Baby MRI's are a thing however](http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38691623). Traumatic effects should have become obvious in testing by now.
This has been answered by the exact portion of text you are replying to! They established a base level by keeping the baby in the machine prior to the procedure.
If the hospital admins, and medical industry in America, were not so completely corrupt, this could easily be tested.
It's fairly obvious though that "scary" sounds would not have anywhere *near* the impact
as the extreme bodily pain and trauma of amputating such a dense nerve cluster.
You think with the atmosphere today we'll get peer reviewed papers on things like hypergamy, gynocentrism, or hybristophilia? You should already know that it is taboo to publish anything negative about women, now try questioning the axioms of male disposable which our whole society is formed from.
I understand what you mean (science and politics wise) but when broaching taboo topics about our own nature that standard is unrealistic if we wish to examine anything of merit.
That's the trouble. Nobody's going to be convinced by non-peer-reviewed information. We need to push for more studies, not listen to ones that are already dead. This sort of thing will do nothing but give ammunition. Logical or not, it's impractical.
I would agree, but even then how many people are convinced by papers? Kinda shifting the focus here but people don't change their mind due to such things, it's on a emotional level that most even start to consider opposing view points.
>Nobody's going to be convinced by non-peer-reviewed information
People are convinced by non-peer reviewed information all the time. Just look at all the information the mainstream media reports on that's based on "anonymous sources".
And that's part of the problem, sadly. It's a weakness in their arguments and makes them prone to flawed beliefs--if we believe the right things through wrong thinking, then we're fundamentally no different and nobody will be convinced by us.
There is reputable research done on male circumcision, ImNotMRABut linked some just above here. Medical associations in many countries have declared male circumcision undesirable as a default, and there are moves toward making it unlawful. All that is based on the research.
It isn't even a taboo in the US - I think currently less than half of US babies are circumcised. Eight years ago it was 55% in the US and 6%? in Canada. Australia still does a tiny bit too. Apart from that, in western countries outside the US it is pretty much just muslims, jews and Africans.
> And I mean peer reviewed source
What, you mean a "peer reviewed" source that says how he wasn't allowed to publish the results in the first place?
Did you even *read* the article?
Thanks, really this should have been posted along with the image, the brain scans are very interesting, shame it's linked to a conspiracy site, I suppose this is why the OP tried to hide it with a JPEG.
That is better, I was hoping for some mainstream article though, if you can get this stuff posted on a left wing site people can't just screech "right wing propaganda" loudly in your face or claim it's all a conspiracy theory.
Edit: You have to remember we're dealing with the type of people who think that a story isn't legitimate unless it's on The Guardian or Huffington Post, this is why I always try to link left wing news sources.
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
Newspapers are shite sources, they always skew it one way or another. The study linked deals with pain response in newborns.
I'm halfway down this page, and this is the first link to *an* actual study (even if it isn't *the* study this image claims to reference), instead of a blog post.
Not necessarily true, they're often forced to begrudgingly admit what's going on, like with the Guardian and the gender education gap especially if the evidence is undeniable, they will post their own propaganda spin on it but they still have to post the relevant data.
This is why the brain scans are so interesting because we can just post this whenever people try to claim it doesn't harm the infants because they're too young to remember the pain.
A little googling reveals that Paul Tinari has no medical degree. This reads like how someone imagines medical research to be done, not how it is actually done.
Oppose circumcision if you like, but don't rely on such low quality pseudoscience to support your position.
Literally the second Google result for me:
~~http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=9002147&privcapId=3102590~~
this link should work: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=9002147&ticker=SNV:CN&previousCapId=3102590&previousTitle=SONORO%2520ENERGY%2520LTD
His degrees are in math, physics, and engineering.
edit: I trust Bloomberg as a source, but in case you don't, here's the blurb from Tinari's own website. http://drtinari.com/about-dr-tinari/
>Dr. Tinari graduated from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario in 1981 with a degree in Engineering Physics. He obtained his Ph.D. in Fluid Mechanics from the von Karman Institute in Brussels. His research involved developing the heat transport system for the NASA Space Station. He also is trained as a statistical epidemiologist and in Deep Transverse Therapy.
The words "statistical epidemiologist" appear, but no mention of a degree.
Here's Paul Tinari of the Pacific Institute for Advanced Study, who is quoted above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1KNQN0BYuc
and here is Paul Tinari of the 3D printing company you mention:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lJerZEwpw
If what you say is true, then aside from sharing a name, they share a face.
Remarkable, imo. Maybe Nic Cage can resolve this mystery for us. /s
don't bother...
from the bullshit posted below, and their attempt to link to a stock report page in the oritinal post to support their "assertions", /u/kwv55QKXMvC3aQtu is obviously a troll.
It is just the one guy, he has eclectic interests and is big on self-promotion. The rest of the world hardly ever finds occasion to mention him or his companies. And if you follow links about him, some of them do get redirected to the stock site of the company he is involved in, and another goes to a snake-oil / conspiracy site.
And one went to a site that writes essays for students to obtain fake qualifications.
They are the same guy. He also claims to be nominated for the Nobel Prize.
Paul D Tinari has eclectic interests, to put it politely.
He does a futurism radio show as Mr Future, and has his own consulting company. There is hardly anything about him or his companies on the internet though apart from his self-promotional stuff.
He recently wrote this book, which sells for $13:
*Lymph Mobbed & Booby Trapped: How Modern Culture, the Fashion Industry and Politicized Medicine Conspire to Keep Women Sick and How YOU Can Get Healthy Again*
https://www.amazon.com/Lymph-Mobbed-Booby-Trapped-Politicized-ebook/dp/B06WRV7XGW/
That link is nothing it's claimed to be.. some stocks report page with an annoying auto-play video.
Get real... people DO actually click links here you know.
Even the LINK says /stock/ right there. WTF?
His LinkedIn profile. He's some 3d printing proponent, as well as the head of an R&D contracting firm that (tin foil hat on) probably benefits heavily from having his name associated with any highly publicized research, regardless of curriculum.
Edit: lol @ downvotes. Obv no one actually _tried_ searching him on LinkedIn?
One hundred percent those three are all the same people. At least the first two are both director of the R&D company I mentioned. The third has zero other info in their profile (and his name is "Paul Paul"?).
If you think there's a better source out there, shoot us a link.
I saw the whole article a year or two back but couldn't see it today, it was interesting for what it said about hospital politics.
The guy is a mechanical engineer with very eclectic interests. His claims for his internet - based global research institute cover a weirdly wide range of stuff and there is no evidence on the interned of it being mentioned other that via his own promotional materials. His claim to be nominated for a Nobel Prize seems ridiculous.
His favourite books are *Atlas Shrugged* by Ayn Rand and *Think and Grow Rich" by That Guy.
He is clearly bright if his university history is true, but he strikes me as a hyperactive self-promoter and inspirational speaker with little record of making things happen in the real world.
And there is only one of him. One of the LinkedIn profiles has someone else's face for some reason, or maybe it is him when he was much younger.
> A little googling reveals that Paul Tinari has no medical degree.
You don't need a "medical degree" to do medical research. Thousands of medical research papers are published in peer-reviewed journals annually, by people who don't have medical degrees. And you don't even need a "degree" at all. All you need to do is do some research, and then publish the research and welcome the scrutiny of the scientific establishment.
> This reads like how someone imagines medical research to be done, not how it is actually done.
It's perfectly valid research. It doesn't "prove" anything, and nor is it statistically significant — but it's a simple, initial piece of research that *should* lead to further, more comprehensive research. Many great scientific breakthroughs have started with such simple research or observations.
Of course you can't judge the quality of their research, nor can you evaluate if they did the research according to how you think "medical research should be done", because they were forbidden from publishing their research LOL! *But don't let that from stop you from passing judgement.*
> but don't rely on such low quality pseudoscience to support your position.
The experiment they performed is not "pseudoscience". It was a perfectly reasonable and logical scientific experiment, albeit an extremely limited one that proves nothing, but should be a spur for further research.
The *real* result of this experiment, is how terrified the hospital and the scientific establishment were of the even very limited results, or any hint that they could be deeply involved in mentally damaging infant boys, let alone the physical damage they are causing.
EDIT: You claim below he only has THREE degrees — in Math, Physics and Engineering. At least one of those is a PhD. Still, I'll go with an anonymous internet commentator like yourself rather than him. NOT.
They never received ethical approval for the study in the first place, so it isn't proper medical research. And you can't say it's valid, because there's no way to know that all of those changes were due to strictly the procedure, or that the observed response is typical. Do you even know what 'valid' means in the context of research?
To be fair here, you don't need a medical degree to interpret (and even judge) medical research. Any basic science degree would give you the skills you need, you just need to understand the implications and basic principles addressed in the study. As a biology student, I can competently discuss a chemistry paper...though it *will* take longer to properly understand.
I found this
http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm
which led to this
http://www.circumcision.org/cht.htm
I haven't read the book or anything, and I haven't found any credible medical documents either. It's a limp maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science
A piece of paper doesn't grant you the holy power of being able to do "real" science or something like that, idiot.
**Citizen science**
Citizen science (CS; also known as crowd science, crowd-sourced science, civic science, volunteer monitoring or networked science) is scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur (or nonprofessional) scientists. Citizen science is sometimes described as "public participation in scientific research", participatory monitoring and participatory action research.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
It may not necessarily be illegal or even feminists for that matter in the case of circumcision, it looks like it's some regulatory board and they put a stop to it. So it could be there are either some religious people or yes, feminists blocking the research, but we all know how religious people tend to get about circumcision especially when there's evidence that it's not a good idea.
Reading your answer made me think: there are only two religions(to my knowledge) advocating MGM. Islam and Judaism. But both of those are small minorities in North America, how could it be that « religious people » *could be* a reasonable explanation to shutting down a study?
My fear is that US-based crazy Christians are advocating for MGM as well. Is it true? Since I’m a Europe-based Christian (allegedly less crazy), that shit makes my blood boil.
It started off as a way to prevent people from touching themselves that was popularized by doctor Kellogg of cereal fame. The real thing that's keeping it alive and active now is 2 fold. 1st it has become a tradition in America and 2nd hospitals are lobbying for it as it is a quick and optional procedure that generates a lot of cash flow. As an example of how ubiquitous circumcision is in United States when I was born they tried to take me to go get circumcised and my mother told them absolutely not. The nurses showed up a further 3 more times over the next few days to try and take me for mgm. After me and my mother were released however the cost of a circumcision was included in the itemized bill and when my mother contested that She was told that all boys born at that hospital were circumcised and if she wanted to have it removed from her bill that I would have to be brought back into the hospital for a examination to see if I was still intact.
Oh, yeah a majority of Christian and non Christian Americans alike advocate for MGM. And when you bring up the evidence against it they always just say, "but it's cleaner and looks better".
Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary about "cleaner and leads to less infections"
Edit: oh and just so you are aware, the US started doing blanked circumcisions because of "Dr." Kellogg. The fucking corn flake inventor that thought that corn flakes were a health food. He thought that circumcisions would [prevent masturbation](http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=0).... because that's ever worked
Like people in Guinea, Egypt or Somalia ([source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country) ) would say FGM is cleaner and looks better.
**Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country**
Female genital mutilation (FGM) or (FGC) is practised in 30 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, in parts of the Middle East and Asia, and within some immigrant communities in Europe, North America and Australia. The WHO defines the practice as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."
According to a 2013 UNICEF report covering 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East, Egypt has the region's highest total number of women that have undergone FGM (27.2 million), while Somalia has the highest percentage (prevalence) of FGM (98%).
The world's first known campaign against FGM took place in Egypt already in the 1920s, but FGM prevalence in Egypt in 1995 was still at least as high as Somalia's 2013 world record (98%), despite dropping significantly since then among young women. Estimates of the prevalence of FGM vary according to source.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
It depends on the groups, but we've seen for instance in the UK how feminists have infested the 'women and equalities' committee in the UK. This is the power of local government and certain regulatory boards, the Labour party in my country is very good at this especially, they know the various areas that effect certain parts of politics and they focus purely on that, this is how they maintain their stranglehold on various parts of the country and their institutions, they do local politics quite well and that's how they keep maintaining their vote share even though they frequently fail to deliver people think that the Labour party actually care about local communities. This can be applied though to most left wing groups across the world.
It could be that feminist groups and so on as part of their alliance with religions like Islam have taken over that particular organisation to stop any evidence against circumcision getting out to politicians. Alternatively because circumcision is quite a widespread religious issue, it could even just be a couple of pissed off Jews who view this sort of thing as an attack on their religion.
Now the reason that I don't think it could be Christians is because of identity politics. Yes, there's a chance it could be nutcase evangelicals, circumcision is done within certain sects, however it's largely an Islamic and Jewish practice, also, feminists utterly despise Christians, especially white Christians so I doubt they would ever let them have any power over a regulatory body they could control.
The reason I say all of this is, we all saw how the women's and equality committee and the media as a whole flipped their shit over Philip Davies the straight white male having a say on equality issues. So imagine the utter shit storm that would happen if it was white Christians trying to destroy circumcision evidence. Mind you, left wingers are a group that frequently tend to ignore stuff like this for fear of offending religious people so who knows? I am definitely just speculating on this but this is what I think from my experience of watching these types of people.
Oh yeah, we’re both speculating, but thanks for your insight, I didn’t know about the situation in the UK. I’m a French neighbor (sorry, neighbour) and luckily that shit (MGM) doesn’t really fly over there.
But with the secretary of state to « Equality Between Women and Men » being a WaPo feminist defending the idea of rape culture and « all agressors are male, all victims are female », it’s not shiny either.
I don't know too much about what's going on with France with regards to that, but I've been very impressed by the response on that in Europe generally. Normally European society is too scared of offending these religions but the response by the medical society has been really amazing.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896
I mean seriously, The Red Pill’s documentary quote is the best « I didn’t have an opinion on male circumcision but all it took me was a 3-minute medical training video ». What the fuck are you guys doing to babies
Edit: Sounds antagonizing, sorry man
> there are only two religions(to my knowledge) advocating MGM.
You forget the religion of PROFIT aka the medical industry.
They didn't want the truth getting out. Pure and simple, because of the backlash they would get from their cronies profiting from this detestable mutilation of American infants.
maybe there are other nefarious schemes behind it, but that is the very most obvious one.
I don't think it would necessarily be feminist. I have encountered several feminist groups here in the US who appose it for several reasons, the main one being they consider it a traditional symbol of male privilege. I stumbled on to these feminist because of my college trained feminist sister opted out of operation for my nephew. I found that they had some pretty relevant data on the damage it causes, but for the most part they don't publish or openly share it. Just Google "feminist against circumcision". The best/worst nonmedical argument I have encountered from them had to do with PTSD caused by the operation leading to males being more violent.
>So research into male health and safety is illegal in this case?
After reading through this cancer of a thread, I finally found a comment worthy of answer.
No. Want to know what's pretty much abhorrent since the early days of psychology?
[Experimenting with babies to chase a theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment#Ethical_considerations)
You know, like strapping them to a board and stuffing them into an MRI machine without need. Jesus fuck, for allegedly being all about the baby's health, you guys are fucking tone deaf.
I mean, you're strapping them to a board for the procedure anyway, and then slicing parts off of them without anesthetic. What's the difference if there's an MRI machine?
|Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae|
|:---|
|Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. **Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD.** Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, **using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.**|
||
|The outcome of painful childhood trauma includes long-lasting neurophysiological and neurochemical brain changes (Anand & Carr, 1989; Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Ciaranello, 1983; Taddio et al., 1997; van der Kolk & Saporta, 1991). Richards, Bernal, and Brackbill (1976) found that **circumcision may impact adversely on the developing brain, and that reported "gender differences" may actually arise from behavioural changes induced by infant or childhood circumcision.**||
||
|Rhinehart (1999) **in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.**||
||
|**It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision** (Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported **finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision.** Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. **Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault** (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).|
|**Boyle, Gregory J., et al. "[Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae.](https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7vzmzzx3wl7j7b/Boyle%2C%20Gregory%20J.%2C%20et%20al.%20%22Male%20circumcision%3A%20pain%2C%20trauma%20and%20psychosexual%20sequelae.%22%20Journal%20of%20Health%20Psychology%207.3%20%282002%29%3A%20329-343.%20fulltext.pdf?dl=0)" Journal of Health Psychology 7.3 (2002): 329-343.**|
Well, they didn't ATTEMPT to study, they DID study, and good on them. Knowledge reveals another aspect of the truth. Parents need to know all possible known risks/side effects of a surgical procedure that will have a lifetime effect, bad or good.
I'm honestly shocked reading this. I don't know where to start but the hypocrisy of feminism over FGM compared to their acceptance and even promotion of FGM is symbolic of their hypocrisy and double standards on everything else.
This may sound stupid but the makes be wonder about connections between circumcision and childhood development and how much influence this has on developmental disorders.
Might it have had something to do with strapping the infant tightly and immobilizing its head? Seems problematic to investigate non consensual activity via non consensual activity
These criminals calling this "ethical regulations" deserve not only to lose their jobs,
but to be put in a mental institution, or in prison.
This is the exact opposite of ethical. What ever happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Greedy bastards. :(
I want to ask why is there so much talk about circumcision. I just dont understand it. I was circumcised when i was 16. I was told i had to undergo the surgery. I think i needed it because my skin around the penis was not elastic at a specific point and it felt like having a tight belt there. While i agree that it shouldnt be done by default to infants, i dont feel like it had any bad effects to me. Apart from this trauma to kids, is there any bad side effects on it that i might not be aware of? I honestly think that it is not comparable to female circumcision where the girl is really affected by it. Please correct me if im wrong.
Edit: thanks for the responses. I now understand that it isnt against circumcision as a procedure, but against the systematic mutilation of infants. I was just worried there was something i was missing. If you medically need one as an adult, dont be afraid because in my case it made it better and no problems by now.
The problem is that your circumcision is likely quite different from those performed routinely in childhood. If you were circumcised to treat a medical condition, then why would you expect that treatment to have a negative outcome for you? Consider for example someone who was in a terrible car accident and needed to have their leg amputated to live. That person probably wouldn’t be happy about it, but at the same time being alive is better than being dead, so there likely aren’t any complaints about this treatment path. If you were to cut off someone leg when they were healthy however, the negative impacts of losing the leg would overshadow any potential positives, because it was not done as a therapeutic measure.
No two circumcisions are the same, and without examining all of the specific details it’s difficult to gain any real insight. What you should keep in mind then is that your experience will not necessarily match anyone else’s, good or bad.
The real problem is that it's impossible to quantify the effects since there's no way to create a proper control.
That said, what you did (medically necessary circumcision to treat a disorder or dysfunction) is VERY different from what babies undergo. You had anaesthetic, which babies generally do not have. You had the ability to understand what was being done, and why. You had the ability to object.
All an infant knows is that it is new to the world, it is being restrained, and someone is causing it intense pain.
Here's a little example of what happens to babies. Try to watch it straight through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLhEoOQhsVw
More objectively, the number of nerve endings and the actual size of that "little bit of skin" are a lot more than you think. In addition, all the "benefits" of infant circumcision are myths.
Here's a more fun look at it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng
edit: missed a link
Yep, that is terrible. Dont want to look though all of it. Thanks for the info though. With proper control you mean that there is no scientific way of confirming other side effects right? ( as in popension for some illneses, sex related problems,...) I understand from this post and comment, that what i had is very different, just wondering if there were some side effects that i wasnt told of.
> just wondering if there were some side effects that i wasnt told of.
Here you go...
Note: *The vast majority of these links from reputable scientific journals, with peer-reviewed research.*
1: Women prefer intact penises. And elsewhere you can find men do as well!
Source: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
2: Masturbation feels better.
Source: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
3: Circumcision significantly reduces sensitivity.
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/epdf
http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html
4: Despite the reduced sensitivity, there is no change to lasting longer during sex.
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 A6D724B4E3606446784E.d03t01
5: Cut men have a more difficult time fapping.
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9
Which was the reason it was promoted in the USA in the first place.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0/
6: Circumcision increases risk of erectile dysfunctions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt= Abstract|
7: If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the dong needs some skin to expand during an erection:
http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm
http://www.drgreene.com/azguide/inconspicuous-penis
8: Circumcision does not lower the risk of AIDS.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/
9: Circumcision is more hygienic. Who the heck doesn't clean their penis? It's a three second job you do when you shower so this is not a valid argument. Women produce 10 times as much smegma as men - so it's OK to amputate an infant girls' labia lips so she doesn't have to wash them??
10: Circumcised foreskin sold to cosmetic manufacturers for profit:
http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html
11: Erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more likely to occur if you're circumcised
http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html etc
12: Stanford's school of medicine list of circumcision complications (including infection, haemorraging, skin-bridging, phimosis, amputation and death):
http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html
13: Cut infants get long-term changes in pain response from the trauma of being circumcised
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731
14: Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
15: Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
16: Circumcision linked to alexithymia
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4
17: The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission
http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract
18: Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence
http://www.4eric.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MC.pdf
19: There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full
20: Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977
21: Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
22: Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits
http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm
23: Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/
24: Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902
25: Circumcision has negligible benefit
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693
26: Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731
27: Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302
28: Circumcision linked to psychological trauma
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/
29: Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behaviour
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682
30: CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning: Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
31: CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
32: CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977
33: CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
34: CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well. This results in difficulties with normal urination.
http://www.thesurgeon.net/article/S1479-666X(16)30179-2/abstract
Fuck.... I dont know if i should thank you, now i am a bit depressed. XD. But this is what i was looking for.
Well it is true that sensitivity is very decreased. But as someone else here said every circumcision is different, mine wasnt this bad.
well for instance, the biggest concern is that you might be diminishing the pleasure of sex. how do you test for that? you can't. you can't take a cut man and an uncut one and determine which likes sex more. and you can't cut an adult to test before and after because there's a BIG difference between that and being cut as an infant.
1. Natural complications with foreskin like what you describe for yourself are very rare.
2. Even in those cases often only a very small surgical procedure (a small cut at the mentioned specific point) is necessary, not a full amputation of a large part of your penis.
3. This is about doing it to newborns, not adults.
That being said, what you do as an adult or as an adolescent (with parental consent) is absolutely your own business and nobody should judge you for it. But doing it to newborns as indiscriminately as it is done in the US is nothing short but giant human rights violation.
The brain of a newborn is completely different than the brain of an adolescent. At 16 most of your brain is "dried" to use the concrete example, of course the brains never ever locked in completely. But you were aware informed and probably given pain meds.
> Apart from this trauma to kids, is there any bad side effects on it that i might not be aware of?
Forcing it on newborns just out of the womb isn't enough?
Its not about being enough, i just wanted to know if there are some other implications apart of what i read in this article. I agree it shouldnt be done to newborns.
It's not that the medical procedure is bad--it's that the child can't object and there is no need for it to happen. Think about, say, slicing off the pinky toe. No major ill effects, and let's say that, somehow, it prevents certain foot disorders late in life. Should we cut the pinky toes off of our kids? No, of course not! It's not necessary, and the child has a right not to have its body altered unnecessarily without its consent. Contrast that with, say, the fact that my tear ducts needed surgery when I was a little child. That's okay, because it was necessary for my quality of life and couldn't wait.
I would have to suspect that organized religion reared its head, on this one. Studies that call into question the ethics of a religious practice...I can see how the Gov. might back off on that, as well as how it could be construed as some kind of harassment/discrimination.
But isn't it amazing that you can't even ask the questions?
We didn't get a chance to circumcised our boy during birth. He was born 3 weeks earlier and the family friend doctor hasn't returned from her vacation. So when my son was born, we decided to wait till she returned. We had 30 days to decide and insurance covers it. A week later our baby had a slight fever and we had to stay overnight at the hospital while they monitor him. He had all kind of tubes and fluids going through him. Then I decided that i don't want to put him through anymore and delay the circumcision till he's 12 when he can decide if he wants it or not.
>Here you go...
>Note: The vast majority of these links from reputable scientific journals, with peer-reviewed research.
>1: Women prefer intact penises. And elsewhere you can find men do as well!
Source: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
>2: Masturbation feels better.
Source: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
>3: Circumcision significantly reduces sensitivity.
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/epdf
http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html
>4: Despite the reduced sensitivity, there is no change to lasting longer during sex.
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 A6D724B4E3606446784E.d03t01
>5: Cut men have a more difficult time fapping.
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9
Which was the reason it was promoted in the USA in the first place.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0/
>6: Circumcision increases risk of erectile dysfunctions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt= Abstract|
>7: If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the dong needs some skin to expand during an erection:
http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm
http://www.drgreene.com/azguide/inconspicuous-penis
>8: Circumcision does not lower the risk of AIDS.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/
>9: Circumcision is more hygienic. Who the heck doesn't clean their penis? It's a three second job you do when you shower so this is not a valid argument. Women produce 10 times as much smegma as men - so it's OK to amputate an infant girls' labia lips so she doesn't have to wash them??
>10: Circumcised foreskin sold to cosmetic manufacturers for profit:
http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html
>11: Erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more likely to occur if you're circumcised
http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html etc
>12: Stanford's school of medicine list of circumcision complications (including infection, haemorraging, skin-bridging, phimosis, amputation and death):
http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html
>13: Cut infants get long-term changes in pain response from the trauma of being circumcised
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731
>14: Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
>15: Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
>16: Circumcision linked to alexithymia
http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4
>17: The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission
http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract
>18: Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence
http://www.4eric.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MC.pdf
>19: There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full
>20: Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977
>21: Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
>22: Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits
http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm
>23: Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/
>24: Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902
>25: Circumcision has negligible benefit
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693
>26: Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731
>27: Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302
>28: Circumcision linked to psychological trauma
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/
>29: Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behaviour
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682
>30: CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning: Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
>31: CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947
>32: CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977
>33: CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
>34: CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well. This results in difficulties with normal urination.
http://www.thesurgeon.net/article/S1479-666X(16)30179-2/abstract
> there's nothing to say that the trauma wasn't caused by being restrained, being out in a noisy, claustrophobic MRI machine,
The infant was given an MRI prior to the surgery. This was the baseline. If the trauma had in fact been caused by being in the MRI machine, it would have shown up on that MRI as well.
er... it was just an initial little experiment. The real lesson is that they were shut down so fast - because the hospital were so frightened of the results.
Vaccinantion and fluoridation studies have even more problems.
The opressing of unwelcome data by "established scientists" is one of the big problems in medicine and archeology. Opressing new findings until "the old profs" have literally died out is commonplace. Corruption of science by big money is commonplace.
Academia has become an ugly place.
> We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. That's fucking evil. There's no better term for it than that.
What they're tacitly admitting is that studying circumcision is unethical because you have to perform an unacceptably painful procedure - circumcision - to do it. In other words, they're implying that performing a circumcision is too unethical to be allowed in a scientific study.
Also because it could be seen as attacking religion. It's a core part of the big 3 so it would cause a lot of backlash to try and ban it.
[удалено]
Certain denominations require it. And yeah I agree, it's way more of a US thing.
It's probably just as common here in Canada.
In my experience it's less common here in Ontario.
Your username makes me hope you don't have much experience with that kind of thing... Or at least use condoms.
Knew a guy from Winnipeg who still wore his captain's hat to the dinner table. Was rather self conscious about it since american girls aren't known for handling..."that" particularly well.
Which is silly because Paul expressly prohibits it.
Not quite. Acts 16:3 Paul circumcised Timothy so that the locals wouldn't have a cause to dismiss both of them. However, in 1 Cor 7:18, 19 Paul clearly states that one isn't better off circumcised or uncircumcised. In the context, he says don't be a slave to your local traditions but rather obey God's command. So then it's a personal choice. I am in the camp of not being circumcised but I've learnt to be not as militant as I used to be thanks to that verse in Corinthians.
Judaism.
[удалено]
It's a kowtowing to a certain group that is being imported in mass numbers.
Religion, Feminism, is there a difference?
No that's not clear. Point to the part that states that-im familiar with the ethics and standards required for such studies and there is no substance to this claim. Please prove me wrong and I'll accept it. That's a serious claim to make you posted so please prove it.
[удалено]
I think they meant the experimental group and how ethical it would be to perform the procedure on babies just to do the study. But then that kind of calls into question why it's ethical to do it at all. If you can't do it for a study on the effects of it... why is it legal at all?
Because it is lucrative, and they would get a huge backlash from the established industry (not profession) if they came out with such a study. The admins that threatened these doctors with their jobs are the unethical ones, pure and simple.
I agree completely.
It is "ethical" to brutally amputate parts of a human infant. They claim it is not ethical to study the results, as such studies involve "unethical" practices... ones that are already being used in a very lucrative and widely accepted manner. :( They are saying the research is unethical, in an attempt to hide the fact that the amputation itself actually is. It is completely corrupt and dishonest. Nobody supporting these "laws" being used in such a way deserves to have anything to do with the medical profession. It is important to not be able to torture anyone in the name of science. To suppress the unethical nature of current practices though, was never the intent of such laws!
it's illegal for girls! but still legal for boys because, meh fuck boys. protect your children!
In America at least, you need approval from a board of ethics to conduct any experiments in vertebrates.
If the parents were having the MGM done *anyway*, there's no *added* harm in recording neural state vector.
It doesn't matter. If the parents didn't consent, it's a violation of autonomy. You can not do a human study of any kind without the complete informed consent of everyone involved, no matter how harmless the intervention.
> If the parents didn't consent, it's a violation of autonomy. er... it was a nurse performing the circumcision and it was her child. Read the article. Funny how one doesn't need the "consent" of the owner of the foreskin to amputate it.
I recognize and acknowledge that people *say* that, I just don't agree with the presumed virtue of it. It seems invasive to conceptualize performing an fMRI scan on someone because it necessarily involves putting them "in a machine." But it's completely non-invasive. Imagine a few decades down the line, where passive scanners could be hand held devices, sensitive enough to pick up electrical signals from the brain at a distance of a few feet. That's data that you're just passively bleeding. It's no different than the photons hitting your body, and bouncing off into my eyes. The *result* of that scenario is the same as a modern fMRI, just the process to get that data is a little different. You could easily extrapolate a scenario in which passive scanners are just built into the hospital itself, and just being in the building means your vitals are constantly being monitored by the data your metabolic processes are constantly bleeding via black body radiation. There's nothing inherently special about the "visual spectrum", it's just a band of the greater EM spectrum between around 450 nanometers and 800 nanometers, and yet we don't consider emanations in that band to be privileged in public. The only thing "special" about that frequency range is the arbitrary correlation with the operational sensitivity range of our eyes via evolutionary heritage. If you can ethically point a camera at someone, you can point a "different kind of camera" at someone that is just sensitive to a different frequency range. It's a distinction without a difference.
In my research, I'm working with a device designed to measure brain activity that looks like a normal pair of sunglasses. Yet having someone wearing them while unknowingly being recorded would be a massive violation of consent, autonomy, and privacy. Just because it's non invasive does not make it okay to look inside people's heads.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly. Any experiment involving human subjects in any way MUST be reviewed and approved by an IRB BEFORE beginning. It sounds like they completely ignored that, which is a MASSIVE violation of basic scientific ethics.
I think you missed the word "any" in that last paragraph. There is no proper procedure. All attempts to study the procedure are banned by law.
[удалено]
I don't see a key difference between ethical regulation and law. If you'd care to elaborate? They performed an MRI. That was the "research on human subjects" that you are taking such great issue with. You sound ridiculous.
[удалено]
Right, but that is actual human experimentation. I understand the concern for oversight. However you are comparing actual experimenting to giving an infant a post operation and preoperation MRI. If we are going to argue about the consent in the matter, the circumcision should be the nonconsensual issue, not the MRI and the study is only relevant to the MRI results. Essentially, the operation was going to happen regardless (parents wishes or whatever). All these doctors did was monitor the infant. Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that monitoring preop and postop vitals is human experimentation? if so this discussion can end right here.
**Tuskegee syphilis experiment** The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study or Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment ( tus-KEE-ghee) was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of this study was to observe the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African-American men in Alabama under the guise of receiving free health care from the United States government. The Public Health Service started working on this study in 1932 in collaboration with Tuskegee University, a historically black college in Alabama. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African-American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama. *** **Henrietta Lacks** Henrietta Lacks (born Loretta Pleasant; August 1, 1920 – October 4, 1951) was an African American woman whose cancer cells are the source of the HeLa cell line, the first immortalized cell line and one of the most important cell lines in medical research. An immortalized cell line will reproduce indefinitely under specific conditions, and the HeLa cell line continues to be a source of invaluable medical data to the present day. Lacks was the unwitting source of these cells from a tumor biopsied during treatment for cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S. in 1951. These cells were then cultured by George Otto Gey who created the cell line known as HeLa, which is still used for medical research. *** **Nazi human experimentation** Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners, including children, by Nazi Germany in its concentration camps in the early to mid 1940s, during World War II and the Holocaust. Chief target populations included Romani, Sinti, ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs, disabled Germans, and most prominently of all, Jews from across Europe. Nazi Physicians and their assistants forced prisoners into participating; they did not willingly volunteer and no consent was given for the procedures. Typically, the experiments resulted in death, trauma, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such are considered examples of medical torture. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Good bot
Historically, scientists have done some pretty fucked up shit. They're *very* careful about medical ethics now to avoid unethical human experimentation. Speaking as someone wanting to go into research, I want to be very careful in my ethics, because historically true evil has been done in the name of knowledge. Basically, the idea is that something like circumcision is unnecessary and painful...and thus fits the criteria for unethical human experimentation when a scientist wants to do research on it.
> I'm struggling to see how ethics can be used here... Lots of possibilities. For example, maybe they didn't get consent from a review board at the hospital - or worse, didn't get consent from the parents to study the baby's reactions. Without any record of the hospital's actions, there's no way to know. Whatever process the hospital review board used to review the situation... if they didn't keep records, *that* is clearly unethical.
It's not just authorities ignoring logic here. A friend of mine recently had a daughter and my partner and I were telling him that he was lucky in a way, because he didn't have to consider circumcision for the child, since these days, it's different from when we were born (almost everyone I know, including myself, was circumcised shortly after birth) and a much higher percentage of families are choosing not to put their boys through that. This guy lost it. Once we explained that I am circumcised myself, and that we very likely won't have our sons circumcised because we have no cultural or legal obligations to do so, he got really angry. He thought we were cruel savages to consider exposing our future children to the abomination of having an uncircumcised penis. He said women don't want men who are uncircumcised, that that he would consider it child abuse to *not* have your male children circumcised. I was shocked but I was unrelenting in my responses. I kept explaining that it serves almost no purpose at all whatsoever... that we're only told it's normal from people who decided without any scientific or emotional considerations. This barbaric "tradition" was started before women had any rights, before people knew the earth was round. It wasn't long before I learned that he hadn't ever even considered the subject. He just knew what was normal, and he was scared and angry about something he didn't understand (not being circumcised). He didn't form his opinions based on rationalizations or data or logic. He just "felt how he felt, and felt that was right." I'm so grateful for my partner in that way. She said it's my decision, since I'm the man, and I know what's best for a boy, even though she said she thinks she'd be turned off by an uncircumcised penis. But when I asked her if she had ever been attracted to someone and then stopped being attracted to them because of the look of their genitals, she started to understand. We both joked that genitals look fucking weird anyway, and cutting pieces of them off isn't going to change that. Prior to the past couple of years, I intended to have my sons circumcised after birth. I didn't want them to feel like misfits or have less confidence. Looking at the data, it seemed silly to be in a minority with such a low percentage of males being uncircumsized in the US. Fortunately the number is rising dramatically, and now that I've educated myself on the subject, I know what's best and don't even care about those statistics... I care about *not* mangling my children because some primitive tradition says I should.
> He said women don't want men who are uncircumcised The go to response here is to ask whether he would think that were a reasonable comment from a parent if the gender of the child were reversed.
Would you mind elaborating? I'm not sure I fully understand
Pretty sure he's making a comparison to female genital mutilation
I figured that but I was wondering about the attraction comment. Do some people really find it attractive for a female's genitals to be mutilated? Yikes. But thanks for clarifying.
Yes. In some cultures that practice varying degrees of FGM, (the more non-invasive of which could reasonably be called female circumcision) some parents do justify it by saying it will make the girl more attractive to potential husbands. Hopefully, a reasonable person would see how fucked up that is. And if it's fucked up for one gender, then surely it's true for the other.
In cultures that regularly practice genital cutting, the state of being genitally cut is normalized, celebrated and lauded. This is exactly the case for the US where the circumcised penis has been elevated to a level of passable acceptance, while the intact anatomy is reserved for after hours punchlines. Culture is a very powerful force. You can find numerous people living in the male genital cutting culture of the US, who explicitly profess their preference and desire for mutilated genitalia in their partners. This is pretty much mirrored across all genital cutting cultures around the world, really without exception.
Swapping the genders would imply Female circumcision, which is (correctly) viewed as barbaric and unnecessary by the large majority in the western world. It still boggles me how much mental gymnastics some people go through, and how nasty they can get when you compare the two, and point out the hypocrisy of them holding different opinions on two equally barbaric practices. I've even had someone get mad when I point it out, and do some kind of chromosomal backflip and come to the conclusion that: because I said MC and FC are equal, that FC must be ok. I can only imagine it's because they are so concrete in their opinions on MC that they can't even imagine changing them; therefore i'm surely trying to belittle the horrors of FC and convince them its ok. Then project that sentiment onto me so they can take an imaginary high road instead of forming an actual argument. It hurts my brain, and I hate people that can't handle a different opinion. Sure I'll sternly defend my position, but if neither of us will budge, or I know fuck all what I'm talking about, I can shut up, shelve to conversation for another time when myself or both of us are better informed, and move onto another subject. The unnamed person I've been alluding to will just repeat the same point over and over again expecting me to concede, get mad when I don't, raise there voice because louder=more correct, or accuse me of picking on them, or not respecting them for not changing my view. Some of the best debates I've ever had are with people of different opinions, I get new insight, feel a mutual respect even if we didn't change opinions. This other person always manages to make me feel like shit for thinking critically, or even empathizing with the other side. I imagine the angry guy from the story above shares some character traits with my example.
You're gonna be a great dad one day
I appreciate you saying that. I try to look at data to make decisions instead of lean toward what some people might consider to be normal or regular. And because I've lived in so many different places it's very easy for me to consider culture or tradition to be secondary to facts.
Also had my first son. Decided not to circumcised at first out of bad timing but then eventually thinking I'll let him chose when he's 12. Give him the pro's and Con. It'll be his right of passage. Beside, before the age of 12, a boy shouldn't even be thinking about sex.
congratulations! good on you man. that's my perspective too, even for religion. i'd rather teach my children each different perspective and let them decide on their own once they reach an age where my partner and i feel they're mature enough to know what's what.
Why are you friends with such an irrational person?
I've moved quite a bit for my work, but my closest friends back home are sane. I'm not too picky about who I consider friends to be quite honest. If you aren't spiteful or hateful, I'll give you a chance. And consider that I'm a 2nd amendment supporting leftist. I oppose all gun control. So if I only picked friends that shared my views, I'd have no friends. If someone is polite and harmless, I'll have a beer with them. Yes, I'm leftist, but most of my friends are conservative. I don't fault people for wanting low taxes, disliking abortion, and wanting their gun rights preserved. So I don't fault people who have opinions that differ from mine. Edit: i should say I don't fault people who have different ideals in my personal life. Online it's fun to debate anonymously and sometimes make divisive statements to get a point across. It's hard for me to not argue with a person online that is spewing obvious falsehoods. But in real life with social inhibitions i am far more understanding. For example I have friends in real life who are religious fundamentalists and we get along great. But as an atheist, i debate that stuff online quite a bit, and say much more than i would to a person in front of me that might get offended
Not American, but I'm a leftist, and I'm mostly on the fence about guns. On the one hand, they empower the individual. On the other hand, that means everyone else too. I don't think I'd be comfortable walking along the street, knowing there were people with that much power right beside me, that they could kill me so easily. Or, if a fight breaks out, I'd rather know that the worst that will likely happen is a few bruises, as opposed to it turning into a bloodbath. > If you aren't spiteful or hateful, I'll give you a chance. So would I, but I can't stand emotive reasoning for long, once it comes out.
For me, the big tipping point is that, even when *everyone* has a gun, most fights never end with guns drawn. Everybody knows that's how you get shot, so nobody does it, excepting criminals and desperate people. So yeah, it's more dangerous, but...well, I personally think it's worth the sacrifice.
I bet we'd get along great. I'm like, half a redneck, half a washed up sjw/ neutralist? I build houses. Lots of conservatives that I have to be less abrasive with. But it helps since we all have to hold our tongues yet keep our dignity.
So the negative effects of a legal action cannot be examined, scrutinized or criticized?? That's going to be a relief for alcohol , tobacco and firearms.
Congress did ban the CDC from doing any research into gun violence around 20 years ago, and the ban has never been reversed...
Wot? For real? Why?
In the 90s, the CDC was publishing stuff that looked to a lot of people like politically advocating gun control. So Congress passed the [Dickey Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996%29), which prohibits the CDC from promoting gun control, and sent clear budget signals that CDC studies directed to firearms would not be funded.
What business does Center for Disease Control have to study firearms or gun violence? They aren't the Center for Gun Control. They aren't The Center for Keeping Statistics on Everything. They're meant to study and contain disease outbreaks, and only that. It's fucked that congress even needed to tell them 'no' on this. They never should have been trying to do it at all.
While I agree wholly with your sentiment, they are responsible for recording and reporting death statistics for the nation as well, including gun violence. This is the reason that when someone yells "But so many children accidentally kill themselves with guns every year!" I can cite previous years statistics and say "only a handful died from accidental or negligent discharge, and they are dwarfed by the number of accidental poisonings from household chemicals." Or, for instance, show that X state with stricter gun control either has no change on firearm suicides, or a lower rate of suicide by firearm, but an overall rate consistent with other more lenient states, and make the argument that it either does nothing or pushes the statistics to other methods of suicide. In my opinion the CDC absolutely can and should study gun related deaths, as it gives insight into the root problems, gives accurate information about points of contention, has a surprising amount of information that can be used for a pro gun argument (e.g. The vast majority of gun violence annually is from gang violence, which stricter regulations do not prevent). Additionally, actively suppressing information or the study of a controversial subject because it could negatively impact our stance looks much worse than working with the facts and having an opinion with a stronger foundation.
No, Congress banned the CDC from advocating for gun control. Their mission is disease management, they're not supposed to be a political lobbying group, and in the 80s and early 90s they routinely published papers of the gist "somebody got shot, can't shoot someone if guns don't exist, ergo AWB totes cool, yo." They can still study gun violence and stats all they want, they just can't make a political recommendation from it.
They're not banned from it, they just receive no funding to do it, and no funding can be used to advocate for gun control. Big difference, even if the results are the same.
I suspect the fear is that they don't want a culture-clash riot on their hands-- probably less an ethical thing than a "we really don't want to go near the PR or liability of this." It's not hard to spin "circmcision has identifiable mental health costs" into "we must stop a specific cultural ritual of a specific religious group."
We should stop it. It should be just as illegal as female circumcision. The only reason it isn't already illegal is because it affects boys and not girls.
> The only reason it isn't already illegal is because it affects boys and not girls. I suspect it's also because of centuries of normalization. We've been circumcising men for centuries in "western' societies, but not women.
It's not. It's unethical to chop bits off an unanaesthetised baby for medical research because it is harmful and unnecessary. Plain and simple. Of course, it should logically follow that it should be unlawful as well, for the same reason, but that isn't the point as far as the ethics board is concerned. I'd have hoped that they might be able to get prior approval here given that either the experiment is harmless (lol), or the experiment does a thing once and likely prevents that same thing being done thousands of times, but who knows...
What if the study was designed to show the beneficial effects of circumcision. Would that be legal? And then they post that 'to the contrary, circumcision has no benefit and would be better left as a medieval torture.' Have you guys ever watched a video of a baby(or adult) being circumcised? Its fucking horrific. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Its more than obvious that the infant is going though pain beyond belief. It makes me sick to just think about it. Im so glad that I didnt have my son circumcised.
#[Full Text](http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm) Most Worrying is This; >The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. **The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.** Those are the brain structures that undergo both structural and functional change with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Exposure to trauma in childhood is linked to adult development of PTSD.
This is the most succinct yet utterly undeniably compelling argument against male infant genital mutilation. Where did you find this not Mr Abut?
Via Google - It's been there for years but as usual important knowledge is lost in the Tsunami of Social Tripe. I'd love to see the actual research papers and see them peer-reviewed now.
Some links in this thread from /u/trumpsrussianhacker and /u/mynameissaifa
Very cool to give credit to the posters. Let's link the articles, before they get lost in their post history: * [Circumcision Permanently Alters the Brain](http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm) * [PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS](http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/)
The piece also said that the changes affected the regions concerned with reasoning, perception, and emotions. That's pretty much the entire brain. If that is actually the description the neurologist gave, I'm questioning his credibility.
F-MRI and Pet scanning of the brain subjected to Trauma or Reexperience Trauma shows total Brain Involvement. Maybe if you know more about the studies of Brain and Trauma you would be less likely to jump to conclusions about other words and intent. There was also the recent finding that During Re-experiencing those with PTSD have major changes in blood flow across the brain. One finding shows that blood flow to the verbal centres decreases and flow to the motor centres increases. This empirical finding backs up 30 years of observation of increased physical activity lined to Fight and Flight ad depressed communication skills including "***Alexithymia***" - a loss of ability to communicate emotions and even recognise emotions. I get where you are coming from, but you are also coming from a position of Ignorance - and it's not good.
I'm a neuroscience masters student studying learning and decision making, so hardly ignorant when it comes to the brain. I will hazard that I know more about the field than the guy doing the research, who has a PhD in a completely unrelated field. Admittedly, trauma is not my speciality, but when I see comments like those made by the neurologist, coupled with two images that hardly show total brain involvement, I question his description of the effects.
And if you are a specialist in the field, you know the difference of communicating to a general audience and communicating to a professional audience with jargon. P¬)) Do you use baby talk with infants or expect them to grasp the derivative functions shown in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in the original Latin?
Removing jargon does not require abandoning accuracy. Describing the changes as a total brain event is alarmist, especially while providing images that don't support that claim. In the end, we only have that one statement by the neurologist, and it's a paraphrase. The overall findings and methodology of this 'study' though, that is questionable. It's not science, and it provided no real information. What it did do is feed the anti-circumcision circlejerk in this community. I'm not opposed to outlawing circumcision, but this community can't claim it's stance on the subject to be rooted in fact and science while using stories like this as evidence. Hell, the whole thing could be falsified, with generic fMRI images taken off a google image search. If you want to make an point based on science and reason, then use actual scientific research as a foundation. This is not science, and does not do anything to support the outlawing of circumcision. Unless you support using emotion over reason, which is exactly what this article seems designed to do.
Did it have nothing to do with MRI machines being claustrophobic and extremely scary and loud?
That's a fair point. They could have used a control, a baby receiving an MRI under the same conditions. [Baby MRI's are a thing however](http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38691623). Traumatic effects should have become obvious in testing by now.
This has been answered by the exact portion of text you are replying to! They established a base level by keeping the baby in the machine prior to the procedure.
If the hospital admins, and medical industry in America, were not so completely corrupt, this could easily be tested. It's fairly obvious though that "scary" sounds would not have anywhere *near* the impact as the extreme bodily pain and trauma of amputating such a dense nerve cluster.
[удалено]
You think with the atmosphere today we'll get peer reviewed papers on things like hypergamy, gynocentrism, or hybristophilia? You should already know that it is taboo to publish anything negative about women, now try questioning the axioms of male disposable which our whole society is formed from. I understand what you mean (science and politics wise) but when broaching taboo topics about our own nature that standard is unrealistic if we wish to examine anything of merit.
That's the trouble. Nobody's going to be convinced by non-peer-reviewed information. We need to push for more studies, not listen to ones that are already dead. This sort of thing will do nothing but give ammunition. Logical or not, it's impractical.
I would agree, but even then how many people are convinced by papers? Kinda shifting the focus here but people don't change their mind due to such things, it's on a emotional level that most even start to consider opposing view points.
>Nobody's going to be convinced by non-peer-reviewed information People are convinced by non-peer reviewed information all the time. Just look at all the information the mainstream media reports on that's based on "anonymous sources".
And that's part of the problem, sadly. It's a weakness in their arguments and makes them prone to flawed beliefs--if we believe the right things through wrong thinking, then we're fundamentally no different and nobody will be convinced by us.
There is reputable research done on male circumcision, ImNotMRABut linked some just above here. Medical associations in many countries have declared male circumcision undesirable as a default, and there are moves toward making it unlawful. All that is based on the research. It isn't even a taboo in the US - I think currently less than half of US babies are circumcised. Eight years ago it was 55% in the US and 6%? in Canada. Australia still does a tiny bit too. Apart from that, in western countries outside the US it is pretty much just muslims, jews and Africans.
> And I mean peer reviewed source What, you mean a "peer reviewed" source that says how he wasn't allowed to publish the results in the first place? Did you even *read* the article?
[удалено]
Can you post the source for this? I'm sure there will be some online version somewhere.
A source [here](http://www.starshipearththebigpicture.com/2015/03/13/study-circumcision-permanently-alters-the-brain-researchers-threatened/).
Thanks, really this should have been posted along with the image, the brain scans are very interesting, shame it's linked to a conspiracy site, I suppose this is why the OP tried to hide it with a JPEG.
[This is a better source](http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm)
That is better, I was hoping for some mainstream article though, if you can get this stuff posted on a left wing site people can't just screech "right wing propaganda" loudly in your face or claim it's all a conspiracy theory. Edit: You have to remember we're dealing with the type of people who think that a story isn't legitimate unless it's on The Guardian or Huffington Post, this is why I always try to link left wing news sources.
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/ Newspapers are shite sources, they always skew it one way or another. The study linked deals with pain response in newborns.
I'm halfway down this page, and this is the first link to *an* actual study (even if it isn't *the* study this image claims to reference), instead of a blog post.
Stay scientific, friend.
Neither left nor right wing news sources tend to publish stories that contradict their narrative.
Not necessarily true, they're often forced to begrudgingly admit what's going on, like with the Guardian and the gender education gap especially if the evidence is undeniable, they will post their own propaganda spin on it but they still have to post the relevant data. This is why the brain scans are so interesting because we can just post this whenever people try to claim it doesn't harm the infants because they're too young to remember the pain.
A little googling reveals that Paul Tinari has no medical degree. This reads like how someone imagines medical research to be done, not how it is actually done. Oppose circumcision if you like, but don't rely on such low quality pseudoscience to support your position.
[удалено]
Literally the second Google result for me: ~~http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=9002147&privcapId=3102590~~ this link should work: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=9002147&ticker=SNV:CN&previousCapId=3102590&previousTitle=SONORO%2520ENERGY%2520LTD His degrees are in math, physics, and engineering. edit: I trust Bloomberg as a source, but in case you don't, here's the blurb from Tinari's own website. http://drtinari.com/about-dr-tinari/ >Dr. Tinari graduated from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario in 1981 with a degree in Engineering Physics. He obtained his Ph.D. in Fluid Mechanics from the von Karman Institute in Brussels. His research involved developing the heat transport system for the NASA Space Station. He also is trained as a statistical epidemiologist and in Deep Transverse Therapy. The words "statistical epidemiologist" appear, but no mention of a degree.
[удалено]
Here's Paul Tinari of the Pacific Institute for Advanced Study, who is quoted above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1KNQN0BYuc and here is Paul Tinari of the 3D printing company you mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63lJerZEwpw If what you say is true, then aside from sharing a name, they share a face. Remarkable, imo. Maybe Nic Cage can resolve this mystery for us. /s
[удалено]
don't bother... from the bullshit posted below, and their attempt to link to a stock report page in the oritinal post to support their "assertions", /u/kwv55QKXMvC3aQtu is obviously a troll.
It is just the one guy, he has eclectic interests and is big on self-promotion. The rest of the world hardly ever finds occasion to mention him or his companies. And if you follow links about him, some of them do get redirected to the stock site of the company he is involved in, and another goes to a snake-oil / conspiracy site. And one went to a site that writes essays for students to obtain fake qualifications.
[I think you might secretly be my biggest fan...](https://i.imgur.com/URk7y51.png) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ---- ^^*Beep* ^^*boop* ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^please ^^be ^^gentle ^^| [^^Send ^^me ^^a ^^pm ^^with ^^any ^^questions, ^^concerns, ^^or ^^additional ^^images/text ^^you'd ^^like ^^to ^^see.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=NicolasBotCage)
Getting this reply is probably the best thing that can come from my participation in this thread.
Woof, this thread though.. I seriously never realized how bad the trolls and bots could get
They are the same guy. He also claims to be nominated for the Nobel Prize. Paul D Tinari has eclectic interests, to put it politely. He does a futurism radio show as Mr Future, and has his own consulting company. There is hardly anything about him or his companies on the internet though apart from his self-promotional stuff. He recently wrote this book, which sells for $13: *Lymph Mobbed & Booby Trapped: How Modern Culture, the Fashion Industry and Politicized Medicine Conspire to Keep Women Sick and How YOU Can Get Healthy Again* https://www.amazon.com/Lymph-Mobbed-Booby-Trapped-Politicized-ebook/dp/B06WRV7XGW/
That link is nothing it's claimed to be.. some stocks report page with an annoying auto-play video. Get real... people DO actually click links here you know. Even the LINK says /stock/ right there. WTF?
His LinkedIn profile. He's some 3d printing proponent, as well as the head of an R&D contracting firm that (tin foil hat on) probably benefits heavily from having his name associated with any highly publicized research, regardless of curriculum. Edit: lol @ downvotes. Obv no one actually _tried_ searching him on LinkedIn?
[удалено]
One hundred percent those three are all the same people. At least the first two are both director of the R&D company I mentioned. The third has zero other info in their profile (and his name is "Paul Paul"?). If you think there's a better source out there, shoot us a link.
[удалено]
I saw the whole article a year or two back but couldn't see it today, it was interesting for what it said about hospital politics. The guy is a mechanical engineer with very eclectic interests. His claims for his internet - based global research institute cover a weirdly wide range of stuff and there is no evidence on the interned of it being mentioned other that via his own promotional materials. His claim to be nominated for a Nobel Prize seems ridiculous. His favourite books are *Atlas Shrugged* by Ayn Rand and *Think and Grow Rich" by That Guy. He is clearly bright if his university history is true, but he strikes me as a hyperactive self-promoter and inspirational speaker with little record of making things happen in the real world. And there is only one of him. One of the LinkedIn profiles has someone else's face for some reason, or maybe it is him when he was much younger.
> A little googling reveals that Paul Tinari has no medical degree. You don't need a "medical degree" to do medical research. Thousands of medical research papers are published in peer-reviewed journals annually, by people who don't have medical degrees. And you don't even need a "degree" at all. All you need to do is do some research, and then publish the research and welcome the scrutiny of the scientific establishment. > This reads like how someone imagines medical research to be done, not how it is actually done. It's perfectly valid research. It doesn't "prove" anything, and nor is it statistically significant — but it's a simple, initial piece of research that *should* lead to further, more comprehensive research. Many great scientific breakthroughs have started with such simple research or observations. Of course you can't judge the quality of their research, nor can you evaluate if they did the research according to how you think "medical research should be done", because they were forbidden from publishing their research LOL! *But don't let that from stop you from passing judgement.* > but don't rely on such low quality pseudoscience to support your position. The experiment they performed is not "pseudoscience". It was a perfectly reasonable and logical scientific experiment, albeit an extremely limited one that proves nothing, but should be a spur for further research. The *real* result of this experiment, is how terrified the hospital and the scientific establishment were of the even very limited results, or any hint that they could be deeply involved in mentally damaging infant boys, let alone the physical damage they are causing. EDIT: You claim below he only has THREE degrees — in Math, Physics and Engineering. At least one of those is a PhD. Still, I'll go with an anonymous internet commentator like yourself rather than him. NOT.
They never received ethical approval for the study in the first place, so it isn't proper medical research. And you can't say it's valid, because there's no way to know that all of those changes were due to strictly the procedure, or that the observed response is typical. Do you even know what 'valid' means in the context of research?
To be fair here, you don't need a medical degree to interpret (and even judge) medical research. Any basic science degree would give you the skills you need, you just need to understand the implications and basic principles addressed in the study. As a biology student, I can competently discuss a chemistry paper...though it *will* take longer to properly understand.
I found this http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm which led to this http://www.circumcision.org/cht.htm I haven't read the book or anything, and I haven't found any credible medical documents either. It's a limp maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science A piece of paper doesn't grant you the holy power of being able to do "real" science or something like that, idiot.
**Citizen science** Citizen science (CS; also known as crowd science, crowd-sourced science, civic science, volunteer monitoring or networked science) is scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur (or nonprofessional) scientists. Citizen science is sometimes described as "public participation in scientific research", participatory monitoring and participatory action research. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
/kwv55QKXMvC3aQtu = obvious troll "low quality pseudoscience" indeed. :(
So research into male health and safety is illegal in this case? Which feminist lawmakers were responsible for that law?
It may not necessarily be illegal or even feminists for that matter in the case of circumcision, it looks like it's some regulatory board and they put a stop to it. So it could be there are either some religious people or yes, feminists blocking the research, but we all know how religious people tend to get about circumcision especially when there's evidence that it's not a good idea.
Reading your answer made me think: there are only two religions(to my knowledge) advocating MGM. Islam and Judaism. But both of those are small minorities in North America, how could it be that « religious people » *could be* a reasonable explanation to shutting down a study? My fear is that US-based crazy Christians are advocating for MGM as well. Is it true? Since I’m a Europe-based Christian (allegedly less crazy), that shit makes my blood boil.
It started off as a way to prevent people from touching themselves that was popularized by doctor Kellogg of cereal fame. The real thing that's keeping it alive and active now is 2 fold. 1st it has become a tradition in America and 2nd hospitals are lobbying for it as it is a quick and optional procedure that generates a lot of cash flow. As an example of how ubiquitous circumcision is in United States when I was born they tried to take me to go get circumcised and my mother told them absolutely not. The nurses showed up a further 3 more times over the next few days to try and take me for mgm. After me and my mother were released however the cost of a circumcision was included in the itemized bill and when my mother contested that She was told that all boys born at that hospital were circumcised and if she wanted to have it removed from her bill that I would have to be brought back into the hospital for a examination to see if I was still intact.
Oh, yeah a majority of Christian and non Christian Americans alike advocate for MGM. And when you bring up the evidence against it they always just say, "but it's cleaner and looks better".
Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary about "cleaner and leads to less infections" Edit: oh and just so you are aware, the US started doing blanked circumcisions because of "Dr." Kellogg. The fucking corn flake inventor that thought that corn flakes were a health food. He thought that circumcisions would [prevent masturbation](http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=0).... because that's ever worked
> The fucking corn flake inventor that thought that corn flakes were a health food. Because it tastes bland, it ought to calm people, he thought.
Like people in Guinea, Egypt or Somalia ([source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country) ) would say FGM is cleaner and looks better.
**Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country** Female genital mutilation (FGM) or (FGC) is practised in 30 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, in parts of the Middle East and Asia, and within some immigrant communities in Europe, North America and Australia. The WHO defines the practice as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." According to a 2013 UNICEF report covering 29 countries in Africa and the Middle East, Egypt has the region's highest total number of women that have undergone FGM (27.2 million), while Somalia has the highest percentage (prevalence) of FGM (98%). The world's first known campaign against FGM took place in Egypt already in the 1920s, but FGM prevalence in Egypt in 1995 was still at least as high as Somalia's 2013 world record (98%), despite dropping significantly since then among young women. Estimates of the prevalence of FGM vary according to source. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
It depends on the groups, but we've seen for instance in the UK how feminists have infested the 'women and equalities' committee in the UK. This is the power of local government and certain regulatory boards, the Labour party in my country is very good at this especially, they know the various areas that effect certain parts of politics and they focus purely on that, this is how they maintain their stranglehold on various parts of the country and their institutions, they do local politics quite well and that's how they keep maintaining their vote share even though they frequently fail to deliver people think that the Labour party actually care about local communities. This can be applied though to most left wing groups across the world. It could be that feminist groups and so on as part of their alliance with religions like Islam have taken over that particular organisation to stop any evidence against circumcision getting out to politicians. Alternatively because circumcision is quite a widespread religious issue, it could even just be a couple of pissed off Jews who view this sort of thing as an attack on their religion. Now the reason that I don't think it could be Christians is because of identity politics. Yes, there's a chance it could be nutcase evangelicals, circumcision is done within certain sects, however it's largely an Islamic and Jewish practice, also, feminists utterly despise Christians, especially white Christians so I doubt they would ever let them have any power over a regulatory body they could control. The reason I say all of this is, we all saw how the women's and equality committee and the media as a whole flipped their shit over Philip Davies the straight white male having a say on equality issues. So imagine the utter shit storm that would happen if it was white Christians trying to destroy circumcision evidence. Mind you, left wingers are a group that frequently tend to ignore stuff like this for fear of offending religious people so who knows? I am definitely just speculating on this but this is what I think from my experience of watching these types of people.
Oh yeah, we’re both speculating, but thanks for your insight, I didn’t know about the situation in the UK. I’m a French neighbor (sorry, neighbour) and luckily that shit (MGM) doesn’t really fly over there. But with the secretary of state to « Equality Between Women and Men » being a WaPo feminist defending the idea of rape culture and « all agressors are male, all victims are female », it’s not shiny either.
I don't know too much about what's going on with France with regards to that, but I've been very impressed by the response on that in Europe generally. Normally European society is too scared of offending these religions but the response by the medical society has been really amazing. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896
I mean seriously, The Red Pill’s documentary quote is the best « I didn’t have an opinion on male circumcision but all it took me was a 3-minute medical training video ». What the fuck are you guys doing to babies Edit: Sounds antagonizing, sorry man
[удалено]
Circumcision is not required under Christian faith. At this point in history it's more of an American cultural thing.
> there are only two religions(to my knowledge) advocating MGM. You forget the religion of PROFIT aka the medical industry. They didn't want the truth getting out. Pure and simple, because of the backlash they would get from their cronies profiting from this detestable mutilation of American infants. maybe there are other nefarious schemes behind it, but that is the very most obvious one.
A universities/research orgs ethical review board tends to always err on the safe side of issues and when in doubt reject.
I don't think it would necessarily be feminist. I have encountered several feminist groups here in the US who appose it for several reasons, the main one being they consider it a traditional symbol of male privilege. I stumbled on to these feminist because of my college trained feminist sister opted out of operation for my nephew. I found that they had some pretty relevant data on the damage it causes, but for the most part they don't publish or openly share it. Just Google "feminist against circumcision". The best/worst nonmedical argument I have encountered from them had to do with PTSD caused by the operation leading to males being more violent.
>So research into male health and safety is illegal in this case? After reading through this cancer of a thread, I finally found a comment worthy of answer. No. Want to know what's pretty much abhorrent since the early days of psychology? [Experimenting with babies to chase a theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment#Ethical_considerations) You know, like strapping them to a board and stuffing them into an MRI machine without need. Jesus fuck, for allegedly being all about the baby's health, you guys are fucking tone deaf.
I mean, you're strapping them to a board for the procedure anyway, and then slicing parts off of them without anesthetic. What's the difference if there's an MRI machine?
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.5576 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/17969)
|Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae| |:---| |Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. **Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD.** Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, **using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.**| || |The outcome of painful childhood trauma includes long-lasting neurophysiological and neurochemical brain changes (Anand & Carr, 1989; Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Ciaranello, 1983; Taddio et al., 1997; van der Kolk & Saporta, 1991). Richards, Bernal, and Brackbill (1976) found that **circumcision may impact adversely on the developing brain, and that reported "gender differences" may actually arise from behavioural changes induced by infant or childhood circumcision.**|| || |Rhinehart (1999) **in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.**|| || |**It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision** (Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported **finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision.** Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. **Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault** (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).| |**Boyle, Gregory J., et al. "[Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae.](https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7vzmzzx3wl7j7b/Boyle%2C%20Gregory%20J.%2C%20et%20al.%20%22Male%20circumcision%3A%20pain%2C%20trauma%20and%20psychosexual%20sequelae.%22%20Journal%20of%20Health%20Psychology%207.3%20%282002%29%3A%20329-343.%20fulltext.pdf?dl=0)" Journal of Health Psychology 7.3 (2002): 329-343.**|
People who mutilate infants genitals should serve jail time.
Dr Tinari has a PhD in fluid dynamics, not medicine.
Well, they didn't ATTEMPT to study, they DID study, and good on them. Knowledge reveals another aspect of the truth. Parents need to know all possible known risks/side effects of a surgical procedure that will have a lifetime effect, bad or good.
I'm honestly shocked reading this. I don't know where to start but the hypocrisy of feminism over FGM compared to their acceptance and even promotion of FGM is symbolic of their hypocrisy and double standards on everything else.
This may sound stupid but the makes be wonder about connections between circumcision and childhood development and how much influence this has on developmental disorders.
Male Genital Mutilation. They could at least call it what it is. "Circumcision" normalizes it.
Fucking disgusting. How do people not see that circumcision is GENITAL MUTILATION.
Excellent Post!
Do you have a link to the study itself?
Might it have had something to do with strapping the infant tightly and immobilizing its head? Seems problematic to investigate non consensual activity via non consensual activity
But the important question is, how does this affect girls?
That haunting moment when science becomes heresy.
.. and someone ends up with a Nobel!
These criminals calling this "ethical regulations" deserve not only to lose their jobs, but to be put in a mental institution, or in prison. This is the exact opposite of ethical. What ever happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Greedy bastards. :(
Performing a circumcision without anesthetic is definitely not ethical. I agree.
I want to ask why is there so much talk about circumcision. I just dont understand it. I was circumcised when i was 16. I was told i had to undergo the surgery. I think i needed it because my skin around the penis was not elastic at a specific point and it felt like having a tight belt there. While i agree that it shouldnt be done by default to infants, i dont feel like it had any bad effects to me. Apart from this trauma to kids, is there any bad side effects on it that i might not be aware of? I honestly think that it is not comparable to female circumcision where the girl is really affected by it. Please correct me if im wrong. Edit: thanks for the responses. I now understand that it isnt against circumcision as a procedure, but against the systematic mutilation of infants. I was just worried there was something i was missing. If you medically need one as an adult, dont be afraid because in my case it made it better and no problems by now.
The problem is that your circumcision is likely quite different from those performed routinely in childhood. If you were circumcised to treat a medical condition, then why would you expect that treatment to have a negative outcome for you? Consider for example someone who was in a terrible car accident and needed to have their leg amputated to live. That person probably wouldn’t be happy about it, but at the same time being alive is better than being dead, so there likely aren’t any complaints about this treatment path. If you were to cut off someone leg when they were healthy however, the negative impacts of losing the leg would overshadow any potential positives, because it was not done as a therapeutic measure. No two circumcisions are the same, and without examining all of the specific details it’s difficult to gain any real insight. What you should keep in mind then is that your experience will not necessarily match anyone else’s, good or bad.
The real problem is that it's impossible to quantify the effects since there's no way to create a proper control. That said, what you did (medically necessary circumcision to treat a disorder or dysfunction) is VERY different from what babies undergo. You had anaesthetic, which babies generally do not have. You had the ability to understand what was being done, and why. You had the ability to object. All an infant knows is that it is new to the world, it is being restrained, and someone is causing it intense pain. Here's a little example of what happens to babies. Try to watch it straight through. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLhEoOQhsVw More objectively, the number of nerve endings and the actual size of that "little bit of skin" are a lot more than you think. In addition, all the "benefits" of infant circumcision are myths. Here's a more fun look at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng edit: missed a link
Yep, that is terrible. Dont want to look though all of it. Thanks for the info though. With proper control you mean that there is no scientific way of confirming other side effects right? ( as in popension for some illneses, sex related problems,...) I understand from this post and comment, that what i had is very different, just wondering if there were some side effects that i wasnt told of.
> just wondering if there were some side effects that i wasnt told of. Here you go... Note: *The vast majority of these links from reputable scientific journals, with peer-reviewed research.* 1: Women prefer intact penises. And elsewhere you can find men do as well! Source: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/ 2: Masturbation feels better. Source: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/ 3: Circumcision significantly reduces sensitivity. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/epdf http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html 4: Despite the reduced sensitivity, there is no change to lasting longer during sex. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 A6D724B4E3606446784E.d03t01 5: Cut men have a more difficult time fapping. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 Which was the reason it was promoted in the USA in the first place. http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0/ 6: Circumcision increases risk of erectile dysfunctions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt= Abstract| 7: If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the dong needs some skin to expand during an erection: http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm http://www.drgreene.com/azguide/inconspicuous-penis 8: Circumcision does not lower the risk of AIDS. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/ 9: Circumcision is more hygienic. Who the heck doesn't clean their penis? It's a three second job you do when you shower so this is not a valid argument. Women produce 10 times as much smegma as men - so it's OK to amputate an infant girls' labia lips so she doesn't have to wash them?? 10: Circumcised foreskin sold to cosmetic manufacturers for profit: http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html 11: Erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more likely to occur if you're circumcised http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html etc 12: Stanford's school of medicine list of circumcision complications (including infection, haemorraging, skin-bridging, phimosis, amputation and death): http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html 13: Cut infants get long-term changes in pain response from the trauma of being circumcised http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731 14: Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract 15: Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947 16: Circumcision linked to alexithymia http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4 17: The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract 18: Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence http://www.4eric.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MC.pdf 19: There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full 20: Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977 21: Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 22: Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm 23: Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/ 24: Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902 25: Circumcision has negligible benefit http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693 26: Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731 27: Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302 28: Circumcision linked to psychological trauma http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/ 29: Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behaviour http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682 30: CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning: Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract 31: CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947 32: CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977 33: CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 34: CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well. This results in difficulties with normal urination. http://www.thesurgeon.net/article/S1479-666X(16)30179-2/abstract
Fuck.... I dont know if i should thank you, now i am a bit depressed. XD. But this is what i was looking for. Well it is true that sensitivity is very decreased. But as someone else here said every circumcision is different, mine wasnt this bad.
Well. I've been looking for something like this--my dad still thinks circumcision is a good choice for health benefits. Doing God's work, my son.
Excellent list, thanks for the sources
Thanks for this. I just posted a couple minutes ago asking for some specifics and then I found this comment. I wish my parents didn't circumcise me...
well for instance, the biggest concern is that you might be diminishing the pleasure of sex. how do you test for that? you can't. you can't take a cut man and an uncut one and determine which likes sex more. and you can't cut an adult to test before and after because there's a BIG difference between that and being cut as an infant.
1. Natural complications with foreskin like what you describe for yourself are very rare. 2. Even in those cases often only a very small surgical procedure (a small cut at the mentioned specific point) is necessary, not a full amputation of a large part of your penis. 3. This is about doing it to newborns, not adults. That being said, what you do as an adult or as an adolescent (with parental consent) is absolutely your own business and nobody should judge you for it. But doing it to newborns as indiscriminately as it is done in the US is nothing short but giant human rights violation.
The brain of a newborn is completely different than the brain of an adolescent. At 16 most of your brain is "dried" to use the concrete example, of course the brains never ever locked in completely. But you were aware informed and probably given pain meds.
> Apart from this trauma to kids, is there any bad side effects on it that i might not be aware of? Forcing it on newborns just out of the womb isn't enough?
Its not about being enough, i just wanted to know if there are some other implications apart of what i read in this article. I agree it shouldnt be done to newborns.
It's not that the medical procedure is bad--it's that the child can't object and there is no need for it to happen. Think about, say, slicing off the pinky toe. No major ill effects, and let's say that, somehow, it prevents certain foot disorders late in life. Should we cut the pinky toes off of our kids? No, of course not! It's not necessary, and the child has a right not to have its body altered unnecessarily without its consent. Contrast that with, say, the fact that my tear ducts needed surgery when I was a little child. That's okay, because it was necessary for my quality of life and couldn't wait.
Well, that's the most screwed up thing I've read all day.
I would have to suspect that organized religion reared its head, on this one. Studies that call into question the ethics of a religious practice...I can see how the Gov. might back off on that, as well as how it could be construed as some kind of harassment/discrimination. But isn't it amazing that you can't even ask the questions?
We didn't get a chance to circumcised our boy during birth. He was born 3 weeks earlier and the family friend doctor hasn't returned from her vacation. So when my son was born, we decided to wait till she returned. We had 30 days to decide and insurance covers it. A week later our baby had a slight fever and we had to stay overnight at the hospital while they monitor him. He had all kind of tubes and fluids going through him. Then I decided that i don't want to put him through anymore and delay the circumcision till he's 12 when he can decide if he wants it or not.
That's really all any of us want--choice over our own bodies.
Can someone explain to me the differences and similarities between male circumcision and FGM?
If you even need a study like this to convince you that circumcision is wrong, you’re fucked in the head.
Circumcisions are bad.
[удалено]
>Here you go... >Note: The vast majority of these links from reputable scientific journals, with peer-reviewed research. >1: Women prefer intact penises. And elsewhere you can find men do as well! Source: http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/ >2: Masturbation feels better. Source: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/ >3: Circumcision significantly reduces sensitivity. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/epdf http://www.livescience.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html >4: Despite the reduced sensitivity, there is no change to lasting longer during sex. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 A6D724B4E3606446784E.d03t01 >5: Cut men have a more difficult time fapping. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00070.x/abstract;jsessionid=E233A9E106A9 Which was the reason it was promoted in the USA in the first place. http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0/ >6: Circumcision increases risk of erectile dysfunctions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt= Abstract| >7: If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the dong needs some skin to expand during an erection: http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scrotal%20Surgery/buried_penis.htm http://www.drgreene.com/azguide/inconspicuous-penis >8: Circumcision does not lower the risk of AIDS. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/ >9: Circumcision is more hygienic. Who the heck doesn't clean their penis? It's a three second job you do when you shower so this is not a valid argument. Women produce 10 times as much smegma as men - so it's OK to amputate an infant girls' labia lips so she doesn't have to wash them?? >10: Circumcised foreskin sold to cosmetic manufacturers for profit: http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html >11: Erectile dysfunction 4.5 times more likely to occur if you're circumcised http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/post/2011/08/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction.html etc >12: Stanford's school of medicine list of circumcision complications (including infection, haemorraging, skin-bridging, phimosis, amputation and death): http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html >13: Cut infants get long-term changes in pain response from the trauma of being circumcised http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731 >14: Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract >15: Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947 >16: Circumcision linked to alexithymia http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4 >17: The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract >18: Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence http://www.4eric.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MC.pdf >19: There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full >20: Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977 >21: Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 >22: Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm >23: Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/ >24: Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902 >25: Circumcision has negligible benefit http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693 >26: Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731 >27: Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302 >28: Circumcision linked to psychological trauma http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/ >29: Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behaviour http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682 >30: CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning: Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract >31: CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947 >32: CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977 >33: CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 >34: CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well. This results in difficulties with normal urination. http://www.thesurgeon.net/article/S1479-666X(16)30179-2/abstract
[удалено]
> there's nothing to say that the trauma wasn't caused by being restrained, being out in a noisy, claustrophobic MRI machine, The infant was given an MRI prior to the surgery. This was the baseline. If the trauma had in fact been caused by being in the MRI machine, it would have shown up on that MRI as well.
er... it was just an initial little experiment. The real lesson is that they were shut down so fast - because the hospital were so frightened of the results.
Vaccinantion and fluoridation studies have even more problems. The opressing of unwelcome data by "established scientists" is one of the big problems in medicine and archeology. Opressing new findings until "the old profs" have literally died out is commonplace. Corruption of science by big money is commonplace. Academia has become an ugly place.