Sunday, August 14, 2016

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA


People don't want to believe it.

Circumcision sends healthy, non-consenting minors to the NICU all the time.

You don't hear about these because they don't make the news, and people may not share with the world what is happening.

The cases I post here are cases that happen to surface on Facebook.

There are incentives for doctors to cover these up and encourage parents to do so also.

Doctors and hospitals don't want to face malpractice lawsuits.

Circumcision is a money maker, so doctors and hospitals want this practice to continue, and to do this, circumcision must remain blameless.

Doctors and hospitals aren't legally required to release information regarding adverse outcomes of circumcision, so there is no real way to find out exactly how many of these occur a year.

One thing is for sure; male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery.

As such, it is unconscionable that any adverse effects result.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

This latest case appears to have happened two days ago in Slidell, LA. (Names have been blanked out to protect privacy.)

Questions arise.

Were the parents fully informed of the risks?

Were they informed that circumcision is not medically necessary?

That world-wide, men are not circumcised and live healthy, normal lives?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors?

Let alone be presenting parents with any kind of "choice?"

American medical associations have incentive to minimize adverse outcomes and effects of male infant circumcision.

They can't readily disenfranchise their members, a great majority of whom reaps profit from the procedure.

So what is the real rate of risks and complications of male infant circumcision?

Is the AAP taking note?

Are Americans being given the full story?

Or are parents being sold a lie, and they don't find out until it's too late?

When are people going to wake up to this?

Related Posts:
GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy


INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

VICE Slams Intact on Facebook - Hides It From the Rest of the World


On a previous post, I talk about American doctors, medical associations and parent advice organizations keeping Americans in the dark regarding anatomically correct genitals; Americans aren't shown what the rest of the world knows.

Now, I've come across the exact opposite phenomenon; it seems American publications are keeping the world in the dark about what they show their American audience.

The publication recently published an article called "Rolling Back America's Cultural Hatred of Foreskin."

But while they posted it on Facebook with the following inflammatory headline, "Every uncut dick I have touched smells like feet," the post can't be seen by anyone outside of the United States.




If you're outside the U.S. you won't be able to see this Facebook post.
(Try visiting the link here.)


If you're not accessing the above link from within the US, you will get something that looks like this:







These screen shots were taken from acquaintances in the UK and Canada.

On the one hand, how sly and sneaky of VICE to be posting gratuitous slams against anatomically correct males, yet hiding it from the rest of the world.

On the other, this means that they know they couldn't get away with such a gratuitous swipe against intact men except in the United States.

The fact of the matter is that men in the rest of the world are for the most part (between 70 and 80%) not circumcised, they live healthy lives with intact bodies, and their male or female partners don't see a problem with it.

 But it must be asked; if intact men smell like feet, what do intact women smell like?




Do men or women who date them think this is a problem?

I just think it's interesting how the natural smells of the vagina are just accepted as part of the package, but people with a fetish for iatrogenically deficient penis raise a stink.

How much longer before Americans are shown the same information as people in the rest of the world?

Is the rest of the world aware of America's obsession with mutilated penis?

Related Posts:
BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

"I Did My Research" - The Quest for Scientific Vindication


Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud


 
OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

AFRICA: NGO's Taking Children from School to Circumcise Them Without Parents' Knowledge


In a post I published earlier this year, I talked about a case where US-funded organizations taking the liberty of simply kidnapping children off the streets and circumcising them without their parents' awareness or their consent.

This happened in Chipakuza Village, T/A Lundu in Chikhwawa, where a 9-yo boy had lost his entire penis, and his angry father was seeking to sue the Malawi Ministry of Health for damages.

It appears that NGOs are now simply going to schools and taking children away to have them circumcised, again, disregarding their parents' knowledge, consent, and/or cultural background; in some cases, parents are from a cultural background where the tribe traditionally does not circumcise.

It is not clear here whether the NGOs were being US-funded or not, in this case, although it could be assumed, given that "mass circumcision campaigns" are being funded and pushed by American organizations, and it's happened in the past.

UPDATE (8/3/2016):
Apparently the NGO responsible is Baylor Uganda and it is being sponsored by the CDC/PEPFAR, so this NGO is definitely being US-funded. Baylor Uganda's website can be accessed here.

Are the WHO and UNICEF aware that this is happening?

What is happening here is anything but "voluntary."

The original article can be accessed here.
Trouble after school circumcises pupils without parents consent



By Violet Namatsi, Citizen Digital


Related Posts:
MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa


Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV


Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II


INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves


JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised


AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

JOHNS HOPKINS: Meatal Stenosis Article Scrubbed from Website




Intactivists have taken notice that Johns Hopkins Medicine scrubbed a very telling article from its website.

The article in question is one that admits that meatal stenosis is a common complication of circumcision, and it outlines a procedure to correct it.

The article was still available as late as May 23 this year, but intactivists noticed that the article went missing after they tried to access it recently.

Luckily we now have the Wayback Machine which faithfully archives articles such as these.

The archived page can be accessed here.

To archive the article even further, I've taken the liberty of copying it word-for-word and posting it here.

Furthermore, I took a screen shot and I'm including it in this post also.

2010

A Kid-Friendly Approach to Meatal Stenosis

Ming Hsien Wang dtl September 08, 2010
Ming-Hsien Wang, M.D.
Pediatric urologist Ming-Hsien Wang had seen one too many parents with complaints about their child’s “office procedure” to correct meatal stenosis, a common complication of circumcision characterized by a difficult-to-aim urinary stream and painful, prolonged urination due to the development of scar tissue at the urethral meatus and frequent urinary accidents. Not only was undergoing meatotomy with only a topical anesthetic in a physician’s office traumatic for the child, but then he had to use a dilator daily for several weeks following the procedure to prevent one side of the meatus from adhering to the other. Among the complaints were complications like bleeding, infection, voiding problems leading to urinary retention and bedwetting, and recurrence of the stenosis. So Wang decided to follow a kinder, kid-friendly approach. 

“I’d rather the child go to sleep with brief, quick sedation, and use magnification to excise the scar tissue and invert the urethral edges out precisely so there is no need for self dilation,” Wang says. “The cure rate is close to 100 percent.” 

In children who are not toilet-trained, Wang explains, the meatus frequently rubs against a wet diaper and over time causes the loss of the delicate epithelial lining of the distal urethra, resulting in adherence of the lining and leaving a pinpoint orifice at the tip of the glans. While studies show generally good surgical outcomes with the office procedure, Wang stresses there’s less pain and risk of complications like recurrence with her reconstruction approach. Parents are happy, too. 

“Parents say the child is urinating so much better,” Wang says. “Also, the child is no longer wetting his bed, or he’s only wetting his bed twice a month rather than every night.” 

For more information, call 410-955-2914.

This article is now missing, and the original link now redirects somewhere else.

Here's the original link:
Find the uploaded screenshot below:

 Click to enlarge

The question is, why was this article scrapped suddenly?

My only guess is that it's damning evidence.

At a time when male infant circumcision is in decline here in the US, and when Johns Hopkins is trying desperately to push male circumcision in Africa, they can't have articles like this raising eyebrows.

To sell the image that male circumcision is this "risk-free" surgery, medical organizations that advocate it must make sure to present only articles and "research" that presents male circumcision in a positive light, and conversely, hide all evidence of adverse effects.

As they say, however, you can fool some people, some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Sooner or later, people are going to find out the truth, and Johns Hopkins will have to explain why they kept important information from parents and male patients.















Related Posts:
GUEST AUTHOR: Meatal Stenosis


Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide


Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud


What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision


Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

Sunday, July 31, 2016

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU



I've said it many times. Circumcision has risks.

This just came up on my Facebook news feed. It apparently happened on July 19 in Georgia.



Circumcision has risks.

The risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Tales on Facebook abound, but the great majority will never make it to news outlets.

American medical associations have reputations, financial interests and members to protect, so they have plenty of incentive to minimize the risks of circumcision.

Hospitals have no obligation to release information regarding adverse outcomes

These are circumcision cases that parents have decided to post on Facebook; some are asked by doctors or hospitals to keep their cases secret.

Because circumcision is an elective, non-medical procedure, it is unconscionable to be putting healthy, non-consenting minors at these risks to begin with.

The cases presented here and otherwise were perfectly preventable.

Beyond this, I don't know what else to say.





I've said it all before and I don't know what I've already said and/or what I'm leaving out.


When are people going to wake up to this?




Are doctors really actually properly informing parents of the risks of circumcision?


Is the AAP keeping count? Because we sure are.

Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
 
MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies
 
CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light
 
 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel
 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Friday, July 22, 2016

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life


Saw this browsing through my Facebook news feed.
Baby dies after circumcision surgery

Health authorities probe case at Khorfakkan hospital
A one-month-old Emirati boy died just after undergoing a circumcision operation at a government hospital in Khorfakkan, prompting the Ministry of Health to open an investigation into the case, a newspaper reported on Thursday.


Hamad Saeed, 23, said he took his son to the hospital for the surgery and waited for nearly two hours before the operation finished.


He told Emarat Al Youm daily that he saw his son carried out of the operation room covered with blood and that he was admitted to the intensive care unit.


“He was pale and my wife and I were much worried…I then heard the pediatrician arguing with the doctor who performed the surgery and realized that there is something wrong…10 minutes later, I was told my son is dead,” he said.


The paper said the Ministry of Health formed a committee to investigate the case and determine the cause of the baby’s death.


It quoted Saeed as saying he had reported the case to the prosecutor, who said that he would open a criminal case after receiving a coroner report.
 Original news article here. (Last accessed 7/23/2016)

Some may try to brush this child's death aside by blaming it on the physician; he should have done a better job. The circumcision didn't kill the child as much as the physician messed up. But here's an important question; was the surgery medically indicated? If there was no medical necessity, is it conscionable that the child was put at risk for death? When it comes to female circumcision, is it a matter of "physicians knowing how to perform the procedure well?" Were this any other surgery, the matter of medical indication would be immediately relevant.



Unless there is medical or clinical indication, circumcision is an elective, non-medical cosmetic procedure. The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death. These risks, however minimal they may be, are very real, and are exemplified by stories like these.

It is difficult to calculate the risks for complications because doctors who perform circumcisions and hospitals where circumcisions are performed have financial incentive to minimize the risks, if they are to report them at all. Hospitals and doctors are not required to release information on the adverse effects of male infant circumcision.

Whatever the risks may be, given that male infant circumcision is elective procedure, any deaths or complications above zero is unconscionable.

Related Posts:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
 

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life


CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

Search Joseph4GI: Death-related posts

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

There is a blackout in America concerning the human male reproductive system; Americans aren't getting the whole picture when it comes to the human penis. Much of what Americans do know about the human penis is either incomplete, half-correct, if not factually incorrect. This is because most textbooks, sex guides, books on pregnancy, medical websites etc., are all geared towards normalizing the circumcised penis.

In American medical schools, doctors don't learn about the development of males with anatomically correct genitals. Most doctors are taught that all males are circumcised as a matter of course. They are taught to treat, diagnose and care only for circumcised males. The only thing they ever learn about the foreskin is that it must be cut off as soon as possible, because it does nothing but cause problems and disease.

American doctors are taught to treat males with anatomically correct genitals as patients suffering a medical condition, for which the only cure can be circumcision. Before diagnosing or treating any other problem with the human penis, it must, first of all, be circumcised above all else. Only then can a male patient be diagnosed and treated for other problems, nevermind the problems that circumcisions could itself cause.

Actually, American doctors are taught that having a foreskin causes problems, and that circumcision can do nothing else but cure or prevent them. If a male is suffering any sort of ailment, he must be checked to make sure he is circumcised first. It's almost as if American doctors' brains were circumcised along with their penises, for they seem to lack the part of the brain holding information about how the human penis in its natural, intact state, works.

These doctors, in turn, go on to teach the same lack of information, if not misinformation considering the male reproductive organ to other doctors in training, nurses, male patients, parents etc.

This ignorance of anatomically correct human anatomy is reflected in American literature concerning the subject.

The anatomically correct male organ is often, if not always, depicted as circumcised. The foreskin is often, if not always, missing from diagrams depicting male anatomy. It is often described as "that piece of skin that is removed from the penis during circumcision," if it's even mentioned at all.

Pregnancy books talk about having male children circumcised as a given, and parents are "warned" about the risks, perils and hazards of letting male children keep their foreskins. There is no question about "if" a child will be circumcised, but "when." Not having children circumcised is treated as tantamount to not having them vaccinated.

Doctors, nurses, books, etc., rarely, if ever, mention the fact that 70% of the world's men aren't circumcised, that in pretty much of the rest of the industrialized world, the majority of men have anatomically correct genitals, and that they rarely, if ever, suffer the problems that circumcision was supposed to prevent. They rarely mention the fact that despite 80% of the male population being circumcised from birth, we have higher STD prevalent rates than numerous countries in the world where circumcision is rare if not practiced.

Circumcision is supposed to magically reduce the rates of HIV transmission, but somehow the US manages to have a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced, according to the CIA World Factbook. We have more HIV than Mexico.

When American textbooks begin to talk about anatomically correct male anatomy, they treat it as a medical liability. The most typical description of the male foreskin in American literature goes like this:

"The foreskin is a loose flap the skin covering the head of the penis, which is removed during circumcision at birth. Not removing the foreskin increases a male's chances of contracting STDs and developing penile cancer. To prevent these problems, it is better to circumcise a child from birth, as adult male circumcision is traumatic and painful."

(Note: All surgery is traumatic and painful; it is not, however, always medically necessary. In addition, touched off by the race to circumcise the entire African continent, companies vying for a a piece of the HIV/WHO pie are coming up with innovative devices that are making adult circumcision simpler, easier, less painful and/or less traumatic. As a result, the claim that "adult circumcision is much more painful and traumatic" is increasingly becoming outdated.)

Imagine, if you will, if I described female breasts as "those mounds of flesh that are removed from a woman's chest during a mastectomy."

"But that's not a fair comparison," I can already hear some readers muttering to themselves. "Female breasts have function. The foreskin is an appendage and it may even be the cause of diseases such as penile cancer." To which I would reply by saying that, actually, the foreskin also has function, and breasts can also be the cause of breast cancer.


When we describe any other part of the body, we begin by describing its appearance, shape and function. When we begin talking about female mammary glands, we begin by talking about their development, the fact that they produce milk to feed young, that they me be sexually arousing for men. We do not begin by talking about the fact that they can develop breast cancer, and that they may have to be removed

Why then, do we begin talking about the male foreskin by describing its removal? All the potential problems and diseases it could be a part of? Why don't we begin by describing it as an intrinsic part of the penis? Its mechanics? Its function? The role it plays in sex? Masturbation?

The peculiar thing about this phenomenon is that it seems to be unique to America. People in the rest of the industrialized English-speaking world get a different story.

In contrast, doctors in other parts of the world learn about male human anatomy in its entirety. They learn about penises with foreskins by default. And why not? This is what all human males have from birth.

Doctors in the UK, Denmark, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. all learn to treat the foreskin as an intrinsic part of male anatomy, like the labia in female anatomy.

They learn to treat the penis with its foreskin as an entire organ, and to turn to surgery only as a very last resort.

Doctors who learn this way learn to treat penile problems differently; they treat the foreskin as an important part of the penis that must be saved if at all possible.

They teach other doctors, nurses, parents, etc. how to care for children with intact organs.

What Americans learn about male human anatomy is starkly different than what their counterparts in other parts of the world learns.

This is a problem.

Browsing my Facebook news feed, I came across a very clear example of this difference in information dissemination.

Below is a side-by-side comparison of what the same website, BabyCenter (BabyCentre in the UK last accessed 7/12/2016) tells parents concerning circumcision and male human anatomy in newborns.




I want to let readers check and see for themselves.

Why this stark difference in information?

Human anatomy is the same wherever you go.

So why is different information being dispensed for the same body part?

Why this chasm of difference in information?

Isn't denying information to parents actually a disservice?

Is the goal BabyCenter/BabyCentre to disseminate factual information to parents to be?

Or to offer corroboration, comfort and validation?

The fact is no respected medical organization in the world recommends the routine circumcision of infants. The AAP tried very hard to do so in their last policy statement on circumcision in 2012, but couldn't commit to a recommendation in the end, because, in their own words on the policy statement, "the health benefits aren't great enough." This statement got rejected by pretty much the rest of the world, because it takes an unfounded position against the best medical authorities in the West.

Pediatric medical associations in every other developed country take clear stances against amputating functional, healthy body parts from non-consenting minors.

These are just a few:


It is my opinion that one of the reasons that forced male circumcision continues in this country is the information blackout that exists concerning basic human anatomy. It is my belief that if doctors taught factually correct information, information recognized by medical organizations in the rest of the world, concerning anatomically correct male anatomy, to other doctors, nurses, parents etc., the forced male circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors would decrease dramatically.

As it stands, doctors teach little to no information, if not misinformation concerning male anatomy. When it comes to intact male genitals, America is living in the dark ages, myths, lies and half-truths abound, and websites like BabyCenter/BabyCentre help perpetuate them.

It is my opinion that part of our work as intactivists is to close this gap concerning information. We need to work raise awareness of this issue, help bring down the firewall that exists between the United States and the rest of the world, and bring American medical literature and academia up to date. The deliberate keeping of Americans in the dark must be exposed and dealt with directly.

Related Links:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves


"I Did My Research" - The Quest for Scientific Vindication

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

 
OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization