Comments

Captainobvious, here is something obvious for you. You wrote "Maybe reducing the rate of infection is non-real to you?" It is a simple fact of science that pathogens (bacterials, fungals) are not gender specific. The same infectious pathogens that affect males also affect females and they are equally susceptible to the exact same medications regardless of gender. When was the last time you heard of a female being circumcised for one of these infections? Ever? Not likely! More so, why aren't we circumcising infant females as protection from these infections (which they contract at far higher rates)? The answer is simply because male prophylactic circumcision is culturally acceptable and female circumcision is abhorent in our culture. .

Well, there is science and then there is junk science and I’d say this clearly falls into the category of junk science. What?! This is by a student and not a real doctor? Can’t Popular Science afford a real doctor to provide health care information??????? Oh well, sit by my side grasshopper, you’ve got some learning to do. So far on this paper, you’ve gotten a big red “F” for your efforts and are in great danger of being demoted to dung beetle. You have conducted your research to support your position, not to find credible scientific information. First, phimosis. A phimotic foreskin does not “choke the penis.” A phimotic foreskin has a ring of tissue surrounding the foreskin opening that is tight and resists stretching. This is a condition that affects approximately 1 in 100 men and is most likely caused by mothers retracting the infant foreskin on instructions from an ignorant doctor for cleaning. Of those unfortunate men who suffer this condition, 99% are able to resolve the condition by simple stretching exercises. On failure of that, the men can be successfully treated by simply making a simple longitudinal cut at the tip of the foreskin that will enlarge it enough for the foreskin to slip past the glans. Circumcision is not necessary to resolve the problem and if used, is an over the top solution. You have to ask a man whether he is circumcised or not? Isn’t it apparent? I suspect you are Jewish and have never seen a foreskin in real life so I can understand your ignorance but asking a man this question on observing his penis is likely to do your professional reputation great harm. Now whether Louis had sex with his wives or not is very much up to question but I can assure you that men with phimosis can quite successfully engage in sex, quickly reach orgasm and procreate. As a matter of fact, these men are generally very unconcerned with their “problem” and generally do not have much concern to resolving it. On circumcision being an effective intervention to HIV infection, you should take a look at a truly effective intervention, the polio vaccine. Polio is present in the natural environment and passes by very casual contact. The polio vaccine is 70% effective and eliminated the infection in a single generation. In contrast, HIV exists only in the body and is relatively difficult to pass requiring intimate contact and transfer of body fluids. If circumcision truly were 60% effective, the vectors of transmission would be sufficiently broken that with 80% - 85% of the male population in The US circumcised, the infection would have never survived in The US. However, The US has the highest infection rate of any industrialized country. If circumcision truly were an effective intervention, the only way we could have this infection rate would be via a massive and constant re-introduction from Africa and that is just not happening. As a physician, your mantra is “First do no harm.” Penile cancer affects only 1 in 110,000 men. To the contrary, 3 separate studies have found that approximately 230 infants die from their circumcisions every year. That means that for every case of penile cancer averted, seven babies will die. Those are not fatal cases of penile cancer, just cases. This cancer, squamous cell carcinoma is the same type of cancer found on the face and arms and removed in the doctors office. A match head sized lesion is removed and that is the end of it. Speaking of infant deaths, there is not a single case in medical history of a child dying simply because he had a foreskin yet every year, 230 die just because someone wanted his foreskin off. “First do no harm.” You also need to study up on Thomas Wiswell. Ol’ Tom was on the AAP’s Taskforce on Circumcision when his study was found to be contrived and deceptive. He used all full term babies for his circumcised group and all premies for his uncircumcised group. It is well established that premies are at significantly higher risk of UTIs. Ol’Tom was removed from The Taskforce for his deception along with Edgar Schoen who vigorously defended him. It also appears that Ol’ Tom was reacting to another study when he conceived this one. There was a study at a naval hospital in Hawaii where Tom was stationed about 1982 that found that if parents are given truthful information about circumcision, they overwhelmingly rejected it. The circumcision rate at that hospital immediately fell from 80%+ to about 20% during the study period. Tom being one of the most radical and public advocates of circumcision in the world quickly put this study together. So quickly in fact as to be impossible. The number of medical records he claims to have reviewed was simply impossible given the time he had. In fact there is a market for foreskins although it may not be the “international cartel” you speak of. Infant foreskins are used to make replacement skin for burn victims, as testing material and for ingredients in cosmetics. The really heinous thing about this is that the foreskins can not be tainted with anesthetics that would make them useless. The babies that “donate” the foreskins suffer immeasurably to make their “donation.” That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany, doesn’t it? “Another foreskin Dr. Mengele?” However, we can’t really go after the international cartel. Recent research shows that only 16% - 23% of infants get any pain management for the procedure and just have to bear it out with gritted teeth. (gums?) Even if the international cartel wasn’t there, babies would still be suffering needlessly. Even the AMA has recognized this problem and in 1999 issued a policy statement that analgesics should be administered for the procedure but since then, it appears that the percentage of infants receiving analgesics has actually fallen by several percentage points. The most given reason by doctors for not administering analgesics is the time required. “Dr. Mengele, your wife called and asked that you be reminded about dinner with the Fuerher. You must rush to finish!” Grasshopper, you may want to think about a different career path. As a professional writer, you could simply make up your facts as you go and no one would refute them and cause you embarrassment. As a medical professional though, there is always going to be someone like me who has actually done their research and will call you out on misstatements and misrepresentations. As a medical professional, you literally hold the health and life of your patients in your hands. Such slip-shod knowledge and research puts those patients in jeopardy and will put your profession in jeopardy as well. .