UTI, Penile Cancer, Circumcision Jokes

UTI's:

Two other publications back up Dr. Altschul's finding that, I found not a single confirmed case of UTI in a normal male infant. All of the confirmed cases occurred in infants who had clear-cut urinary birth defects.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services pamphlet, Understanding Urinary Tract Infection says, UTI's are rarely seen in boys and young men. UTI's may occur in infants who are born with abnormalities in their urinary tract.

Urinary Tract Infection in Childhood, [Infect Urol 8(4), 111, 114-120, 1995]: 60% of children with UTI's have anatomic abnormalities in their urinary tracts.... In older children, UTI's are significantly more common in girls and become as much as 50 times more common in girls by the age of five years. 0.3% to 1.2% of all infants will develop symptomatic UTI's during the first year of life. If we remove the girls from the .3% to 1.2%, remove 60% of that remainder (with anatomic abnormalities), then remove the circumcised boys from that number, we would be circumcising about 2,000 boys to keep one from having an infection that can easily be treated!

Question: Do the circumcision promoters actually believe that circumcision will cure congenital birth defects?

Question: Why don't the circumcisors go after the tissue surrounding the opening of the short urinary tract of infant girls (clitoral foreskin, labia minora and labia majora) due to such a higher incidence of UTI's? Haven't they calculated the profits? Or are they having problems concocting convincing excuses?

Penile Cancer:

Tim H. sent me a BJM article on penile cancer in an uncircumised population (Demmark 1943-1990). Same incidence among the 98.4% intact Danes found among the mostly circumcised U.S. population, yet the researchers again quote the unscientific 1932 Wolbarst study. As we know, the Maden et al case/control study has exposed the Wolbarst fraud, but is rarely cited by any other researchers on the subject. There seems to be one item that has not been considered by the researchers of yesterday or today - that all tissue is at risk for carcinomas, so of course the foreskin would be at risk, too (Maden found 17% of carcinomas on the foreskin, 83% at other sites), therefore, the entire penis would have to be amputated to prevent 5 out of 6 penile cancers.

It appears that some circumcised men with neoplasms on their penis have been told by urologists (and other physicians) that there this nothing to worry about since they are circumcised and can't get penile cancer and are left untreated. Hopefully, some informed physician will take it seriously and finally take a biopsy before the cancer is in its final phase or an autopsy discovers the cancer he couldn't have! The promoters of the hoax that circumcision is a preventative against penile cancer may be causing unnecessary losses of the entire penis, and deaths, because some doctors have been convinced of the hoax, too.

Question: Would the removal of the nipples be a preventative for breast cancer? Makes just as much sense.

Circumcision Jokes:

I remember circumcision jokes in the `50's and `60's. Toward the end of the 10th or 11th grade someone asked me if I would like a job for the summer and of course I did. They are hiring at the hospital. Whats the job? In the circumcision ward. Pays $1.25 an hour plus tips. Being intact among mostly circumcised peers and circumcised friends, many jokes like this hurt very much. They were validating circumcision with humor and trivializing the surgery and the effects, making it a normal infant procedure and the normal way a penis should look and function. These jokes had an impact about as great as other detrimental comments that helped lead me to believe that I may be inferior in the physical and sexual aspects of my being and that circumcision, perhaps, might be a good thing after all. I am very thankful that I became educated and aware of how wonderful a natural penis is before I did something drastic and irreversible. My gratitude knows no words to amply express the feelings. I hated those jokes and trivializing the soul sickness of circumcision and still do. Humor is often utilized as a powerful, hidden force in promoting any evil intentions, just as the sick ethnic, racial, regional, or sex oriented jokes or caricatures and name calling have in achieving desired results.

Well, says the doctor, We have to rob from Peter to pay Paul. All of these sick jokes included MD's and hospitals. Although there were some Jewish families in town, I had never heard of a mohel and the jokes seemed to be just fine and repeated by all the folks. Now, when mohel is inserted for doctor there is indignation and charges of anti-semitism if told by a gentile! However, the only times I have heard these jokes with the mohel inserted is when they are told by Jews. There are few non-Jews who know what a mohel is.

I hope I am not perceived as anti-semitic in expressing the following thoughts, but Mormons flourish after discarding polygomy and other religions have likewise ceased certain outdated and destructive practices and made great headway in their following. I don't care if we are talking about taking young boys and holding them down and circumcising them in Muslim areas, doctors of any locale or religion tearing, crushing and chopping off the foreskins of restrained babies in hospitals, or mohels doing the same in homes. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is time to put this attrocity in the history books, and however I am perceived in trying to make this happen is beyond my control. I have tried to educate through facts the truth in the matter and be low-keyed when that works, more enthusiastic when that works, gentle and kind most of the time. Some folks are more defensive than others, some are more righteous than others. No one has the right to another's body parts. The Sacramento Bee alert just happens to focus on the mohel, jokes, and the Brit Milah today.

At least some of the doctors were mislead into actually believing they were performing a surgical procedure that would be of medical benefit to the male back in those days and it was a minor part of his practice. This is quite different. That mohel in the article says, A circumcision is a spiritual, joyful occasion - one of the major milestones of a Jewish man's life. Maybe I'm wierd, but to me spirituality means the immaterial, i.e., love, acceptance, gratitude, humility, tolerance, compassion, patience, faith..., not the premeditated pain and suffering of an infant through a primitive and barbaric procedure performed in the name of spirituality. Joyful for whom? I wonder how many baby boys smiled at the mohel during and after this joyful experience or remember him fondly when he finds out just what was done to him. Milestones of a Jewish man's life? He is a man at eight days? I thought milestones in life were occasions and events known to that person, that he took a conscious and a willing part, and played an active role, that the individual achieved through his own efforts, work and choices. Circumcision is a community milestone.

Mohels are exempt from laws, as the practice is a protected religious activity? The Freedom of Religion? Where is that infant's protection? What happened to his Freedom of Religion? It was just taken from him at the ripe old age of 8 (days). No human being is born a Catholic, Methodist, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. Male or female, yes. Caucasian, Negro, Oriental, yes. A Christian or Jew? No. Born into a family which will try to mold him to fit into their religious observations? Yes. This is called a teaching and learning process, not the process of body part removal. This is not educating, it is promoting a social dis-ease.

Question: What are the Jewish women's milestones? I am not going to get into that arena, but you all probably know that many of the laws in this regard that have been discarded. But circumcision? NEVER!!

Question: Is circumcision an obsessive compulsion? Must be, it abhors reason and insists on exposure and acceptance regardless of means employed to reach the desired ends. What is the conveyance? I looked through old and newer documents from the patent office from the Kessler device, Gomco Clamp, Sheldon Clamp, Mogen Clamp, electrocautery devices to burn off the foreskin, etc. These are the devices to achieve the end result and give it a medical flare of new technique. I am not going to get in to the inventors. Who have been the outspoken promoters through these years? I am not going to list names here, either, but there is enough blame to go through the entire contents of the North American melting pot.

Question: Has the bottom line in promoting circumcision in North America (since Dr. Freud's observation that the core of anti-semitism is the practice of circumcision) since the 1930's been to convince all families to alter their sons to look the same by using ulterior motives? Is it more of a real fear of an obvious physical difference? I can see where such a real fear could reasonably exist among Jews in light of the atrocities of a part of the 20th century and perhaps there was the choice of ending the practice or convincing everyone else to join in. I don't know. I would like some feed-back on that question. The use of lies and misinformation seem to spark some reasonable suspicions.

Articles on Female Genital Mutilation

Questions: How much different is MGM than FGM? Can the former be legitimized by expressing only the horrors of the latter? Does the greater loss of a leg amputation somehow trivialize the amputaion of the foot sufficiently enough to rationalize a justification or validation of foot removal? (Or binding?) He just lost a foot. She lost her whole leg!

K. Derifield

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.