| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Taylor" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2005 05:31:28 AM |
| Object: |
Glick speaks out on circumcision |
Glick speaks out on circumcision
By Dave Master, Collegian Correspondent
November 15, 2005
Last Saturday, Leonard Glick appeared at Jeffery Amherst Bookshop to
discuss his newly published novel, "Marked in Your Flesh." Glick talked
to a small, interested group of attendees, but he aims to reach an even
wider audience. In the book, Glick addresses the commonly misunderstood
practice of male circumcision, which has its roots in ancient Jewish
culture. Glick argues against the relevance of circumcision not only to
Jews, but to all who have an interest in the custom. He cites first-hand
accounts, thorough historical research and personal objections regarding
the arguably out-of-date sacrificial rite.
"Circumvent," said Glick, "is the opening in front of the boxer shorts
of Jewish men." He was received with chuckles from the audience, but his
point was serious.
"I am not doing this for tenure or money," said Glick. "I am retired and
have plenty of money to sustain my lifestyle."
Glick believes circumcision is wrong, despite the majority of men in
America who practice the Jewish tradition.
"The U.S. has the highest circumcision rate out of any country in the
world, somewhere between 57 and 58 percent," he said. "Even though they
have no affiliation with Judaism, the majority of males are circumcised
as routine after birth."
What started out as a distinctive religious ritual has now become the
cultural norm. As professor emeritus of anthropology, Glick taught
European-Jewish History at Hampshire College for 30 years and never
understood the role of circumcision. He describes the ancient tradition
as "treatment that seeks something to treat."
"People do it because it's what people do," said Glick.
Many people justify the practice by saying they do it for hygienic
reasons, as disease and infection prevention. "That's unnecessary,"
Glick said. "Most physicians agree that circumcision has no medical
benefits, and yet it is still widely practiced."
Through further research on the topic, Glick discovered circumcision's
subdued truths.
"It is not just a little 'snip,' as doctors say, rather it is radical
reductive surgery," said Glick. "Most of the time, the surgery is
performed on infants without anesthesia."
When showing his class a video that captures an infant's circumcision,
Glick says, "When I show the film, I have to walk out of the room. I
refuse to hear the baby's screams again. I can't take it anymore."
According to Glick, other research revealed that cortisol levels
increased when a newborn is circumcised. Cortisol is a substance
released into the bloodstream when the body is stressed. Consequently,
Glick feels that circumcision has now become a question of ethics.
"No one can claim ownership over another person. Then, do parents really
have the right to make that kind of decision, to circumcise or not to
circumcise, for their infant?" he said.
Throughout history, Jews held tightly to their way of life because of
persecution and the struggle to maintain a historical identity, but they
adapted accordingly, Glick argues, but that times are still changing.
"Circumcision is an outdated practice, beginning with the ancient Jews,"
he said. "It holds no positive contribution to the lives of modern
Jewish-Americans... Does circumcision have anything to do with modern
Jewish-American identity? I don't think so."
http://www.dailycollegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/15/437aae8d5f462
---
feedback:
(1 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/17/2005
its time america abandoned this barbaric practise, & its good to see
somebody w/ respect & influence saying so.
jono
(2 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/18/2005
I've never been able to understand why otherwise rational people would
want to cut part of their baby's anatomy off, after all, if they didn't
need it, boys wouldn't be born with it. I've heard so many bad things
about circumcision now that it's amazing how anyone could have thought
it was a good thing to do in the first place. It's great that the rates
are dropping so fast and that experts are finally speaking out.
Emily
(3 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/18/2005
I agree with Jono. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of bodily
integrity, and a completely needless procedure. In fact though, the
circumcision rate in America is thought by most to be even HIGHER than
it says in this article; it's a real shame.
Ralph
lmaonnaise@gma il.com
.
|
|
| User: "Briar Rabbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
20 Nov 2005 02:00:42 PM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
Glick speaks out on circumcision
By Dave Master, Collegian Correspondent
November 15, 2005
Last Saturday, Leonard Glick appeared at Jeffery Amherst Bookshop to
discuss his newly published novel, "Marked in Your Flesh." Glick talked
to a small, interested group of attendees, but he aims to reach an even
wider audience.
Who is this Leonard Glick? And how "small" was the group from NOCIRC?
In the book, Glick addresses the commonly misunderstood
practice of male circumcision, which has its roots in ancient Jewish
culture. Glick argues against the relevance of circumcision not only to
Jews, but to all who have an interest in the custom. He cites first-hand
accounts, thorough historical research and personal objections regarding
the arguably out-of-date sacrificial rite.
"Circumvent," said Glick, "is the opening in front of the boxer shorts
of Jewish men." He was received with chuckles from the audience, but his
point was serious.
"I am not doing this for tenure or money," said Glick. "I am retired and
have plenty of money to sustain my lifestyle."
Glick believes circumcision is wrong, despite the majority of men in
America who practice the Jewish tradition.
"The U.S. has the highest circumcision rate out of any country in the
world, somewhere between 57 and 58 percent," he said. "Even though they
have no affiliation with Judaism, the majority of males are circumcised
as routine after birth."
What started out as a distinctive religious ritual has now become the
cultural norm. As professor emeritus of anthropology, Glick taught
European-Jewish History at Hampshire College for 30 years and never
understood the role of circumcision. He describes the ancient tradition
as "treatment that seeks something to treat."
"People do it because it's what people do," said Glick.
Many people justify the practice by saying they do it for hygienic
reasons, as disease and infection prevention. "That's unnecessary,"
Glick said. "Most physicians agree that circumcision has no medical
benefits, and yet it is still widely practiced."
Through further research on the topic, Glick discovered circumcision's
subdued truths.
"It is not just a little 'snip,' as doctors say, rather it is radical
reductive surgery," said Glick. "Most of the time, the surgery is
performed on infants without anesthesia."
When showing his class a video that captures an infant's circumcision,
Glick says, "When I show the film, I have to walk out of the room. I
refuse to hear the baby's screams again. I can't take it anymore."
According to Glick, other research revealed that cortisol levels
increased when a newborn is circumcised. Cortisol is a substance
released into the bloodstream when the body is stressed. Consequently,
Glick feels that circumcision has now become a question of ethics.
"No one can claim ownership over another person. Then, do parents really
have the right to make that kind of decision, to circumcise or not to
circumcise, for their infant?" he said.
Throughout history, Jews held tightly to their way of life because of
persecution and the struggle to maintain a historical identity, but they
adapted accordingly, Glick argues, but that times are still changing.
"Circumcision is an outdated practice, beginning with the ancient Jews,"
he said. "It holds no positive contribution to the lives of modern
Jewish-Americans... Does circumcision have anything to do with modern
Jewish-American identity? I don't think so."
http://www.dailycollegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/15/437aae8d5f462
---
feedback:
(1 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/17/2005
its time america abandoned this barbaric practise, & its good to see
somebody w/ respect & influence saying so.
jono
(2 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/18/2005
I've never been able to understand why otherwise rational people would
want to cut part of their baby's anatomy off, after all, if they didn't
need it, boys wouldn't be born with it. I've heard so many bad things
about circumcision now that it's amazing how anyone could have thought
it was a good thing to do in the first place. It's great that the rates
are dropping so fast and that experts are finally speaking out.
Emily
(3 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/18/2005
I agree with Jono. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of bodily
integrity, and a completely needless procedure. In fact though, the
circumcision rate in America is thought by most to be even HIGHER than
it says in this article; it's a real shame.
Ralph
lmaonnaise@gma il.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maze" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
26 Nov 2005 12:03:07 PM |
|
|
Another "Out There" post by that South African Fruit that used to call
himself "Wadi" until he was kicked off of every group that is aligned
with civilized society.
Briar Rabbit wrote:
Taylor wrote:
Glick speaks out on circumcision
By Dave Master, Collegian Correspondent
November 15, 2005
Last Saturday, Leonard Glick appeared at Jeffery Amherst Bookshop to
discuss his newly published novel, "Marked in Your Flesh." Glick
talked to a small, interested group of attendees, but he aims to reach
an even wider audience.
Who is this Leonard Glick? And how "small" was the group from NOCIRC?
In the book, Glick addresses the commonly misunderstood
practice of male circumcision, which has its roots in ancient Jewish
culture. Glick argues against the relevance of circumcision not only
to Jews, but to all who have an interest in the custom. He cites
first-hand accounts, thorough historical research and personal
objections regarding the arguably out-of-date sacrificial rite.
"Circumvent," said Glick, "is the opening in front of the boxer shorts
of Jewish men." He was received with chuckles from the audience, but
his point was serious.
"I am not doing this for tenure or money," said Glick. "I am retired
and have plenty of money to sustain my lifestyle."
Glick believes circumcision is wrong, despite the majority of men in
America who practice the Jewish tradition.
"The U.S. has the highest circumcision rate out of any country in the
world, somewhere between 57 and 58 percent," he said. "Even though
they have no affiliation with Judaism, the majority of males are
circumcised as routine after birth."
What started out as a distinctive religious ritual has now become the
cultural norm. As professor emeritus of anthropology, Glick taught
European-Jewish History at Hampshire College for 30 years and never
understood the role of circumcision. He describes the ancient
tradition as "treatment that seeks something to treat."
"People do it because it's what people do," said Glick.
Many people justify the practice by saying they do it for hygienic
reasons, as disease and infection prevention. "That's unnecessary,"
Glick said. "Most physicians agree that circumcision has no medical
benefits, and yet it is still widely practiced."
Through further research on the topic, Glick discovered circumcision's
subdued truths.
"It is not just a little 'snip,' as doctors say, rather it is radical
reductive surgery," said Glick. "Most of the time, the surgery is
performed on infants without anesthesia."
When showing his class a video that captures an infant's circumcision,
Glick says, "When I show the film, I have to walk out of the room. I
refuse to hear the baby's screams again. I can't take it anymore."
According to Glick, other research revealed that cortisol levels
increased when a newborn is circumcised. Cortisol is a substance
released into the bloodstream when the body is stressed. Consequently,
Glick feels that circumcision has now become a question of ethics.
"No one can claim ownership over another person. Then, do parents
really have the right to make that kind of decision, to circumcise or
not to circumcise, for their infant?" he said.
Throughout history, Jews held tightly to their way of life because of
persecution and the struggle to maintain a historical identity, but
they adapted accordingly, Glick argues, but that times are still
changing.
"Circumcision is an outdated practice, beginning with the ancient
Jews," he said. "It holds no positive contribution to the lives of
modern Jewish-Americans... Does circumcision have anything to do with
modern Jewish-American identity? I don't think so."
http://www.dailycollegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/15/437aae8d5f462
---
feedback:
(1 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/17/2005
its time america abandoned this barbaric practise, & its good to see
somebody w/ respect & influence saying so.
jono
(2 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/18/2005
I've never been able to understand why otherwise rational people would
want to cut part of their baby's anatomy off, after all, if they
didn't need it, boys wouldn't be born with it. I've heard so many bad
things about circumcision now that it's amazing how anyone could have
thought it was a good thing to do in the first place. It's great that
the rates are dropping so fast and that experts are finally speaking out.
Emily
(3 of 3 posts)
Posted 11/18/2005
I agree with Jono. Routine infant circumcision is a violation of
bodily integrity, and a completely needless procedure. In fact though,
the circumcision rate in America is thought by most to be even HIGHER
than it says in this article; it's a real shame.
Ralph
lmaonnaise@gma il.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Todd Gastaldo" |
|
| Title: Is Jesus really God? (also: NO CIRC = MAYBE CIRC) - was Re: Glickspeaks out on circumcision |
20 Nov 2005 02:47:00 PM |
|
|
IS JESUS REALLY GOD?
(Christians, when you answer, please indicate whether you think Jesus/God
would want MDs and other ritual/religious circumcisers amputating far more
infant foreskin than Jesus/God originally/reportedly commanded. See below.)
ALSO: NO CIRC = MAYBE CIRC
See below.
in article g8CdnVeQv5x3SB3enZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@is.co.za, Briar Rabbit at
Briar@Rabbit.net wrote on 11/20/05 12:00 PM:
Taylor wrote:
Glick speaks out on circumcision
By Dave Master, Collegian Correspondent
November 15, 2005
Last Saturday, Leonard Glick appeared at Jeffery Amherst Bookshop to
discuss his newly published novel, "Marked in Your Flesh." Glick talked
to a small, interested group of attendees, but he aims to reach an even
wider audience.
Who is this Leonard Glick? And how "small" was the group from NOCIRC?
<snip?
Briar Rabbit,
NO CIRC is actually in your mass infant mutilation promotion corner.
NO CIRC (Nurse Marilyn Milos et al.) in effect voted for the mass infant
penis ripping and slicing by voting down a resolution calling upon NO CIRC
nurses to finally report the mass child abuse.
NO CIRC had been saying (on bumper stickers) "Child Abuse Begins With
Circumcision" - which is an obvious indication that NO CIRC nurses suspected
child abuse.
Child abuse reporting is mandatory when abuse is so much as suspected; so NO
CIRC nurses in effect voted to violate penal law - after which NO CIRC began
calling the child abuse "genital" abuse.
In reality, NO CIRC = MAYBE CIRC - as in MAYBE the infant penis ripping and
slicing should end - as long as MDs don't get sent to prison and don't have
to pay back the billions they've "earned" since I exposed their phony babies
can't feel pain neurology back in 1987.
Briar Rabbit, I agree in part with NO CIRC - MDs shouldn't get sent to
prison - which is why I favor pardons in advance for MDs. As medical
students, MDs are TRAINED to perform obvious felonies.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
todd@chiromotion.com
PS Regarding Glick speaking out against infant circumcision...
It did not appear to me that Glick was aware that the ancient Jewish ritual
is far different from TOTAL foreskin amputation.
I am in favor of an exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient
Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.
FOR NEW READERS: Here is a recent post on the subject...
WOULD JESUS TORTURE BABIES?
This post could instantly save Americans an estimated $400 million dollars
per year - not to mention instantly ending a bizarre mass torture program
conducted by American authorities....
See below.
on 11/13/05 4:44 AM, Henry Morgan at quoted David
Plyer asking, "Who Would Jesus Torture?"
<snip>
Dave,
What a GREAT subject line question:
Who Would Jesus Torture?
Another great subject line question:
Who is JESUS?
I ask because according to many Christian authorities, Jesus is the son of
God.
Indeed, according to many Christian authorities, Jesus is the SAME as God -
Jesus IS God.
These same Christian authorities seem to believe in the routine torture of
infants that was ostensibly commanded by God - the same God who the Jew
named Jesus reportedly worshipped.
See African HIV hysteria and American
baby penises...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/4009
Right now, right here in the good ol' USA, the majority of male babies are
strapped to "Circumstraint" boards and forced to endure the torture
ostensibly commanded by God - WITH THE TACIT APPROVAL OF CHRISTIAN
AUTHORITIES.
Stated more graphically, most American male infants have their penises
ripped and sliced amid screams - with an occasional baby DYING (or losing
his penis) - with the tacit approval of Christian authorities - WITH NO
MEDICAL INDICATIONS.
In 1984, Brigman suggested criminal prosecution of American MDs - without
noting that American MDs were using phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology
to obtain "informed consent":
"[C]onstitutional rights...including freedom of religion, are inadequate
to prevent the states from using their authority to treat circumcision as
child abuse...The most obvious way to proceed with enforcement...is through
criminal prosecution under existing state laws." [Brigman WE: Circumcision
as child abuse: the legal and Constitutional issues. Journal of Family
Law, 1984;23(3):337-57]
Circa 1986, prominent media physician Dean Edell actually admitted on
national television that his instructors at Cornell Medical School taught
him that babies donąt feel pain. (He "bought it," he said, as in: "Aw, do I
have to do the circs today?...Nurses line up a bunch of babies...You donąt
think about it...Most doctors believe that babies canąt feel pain...Most
doctors today...I bought it..." [Edell D. KGO-TV, San Francisco circa
1986, NO CIRC conference tape, National Organization of Circumcision
Information Resource Centers, P.O. Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94960].
Dean Edell, MD was right: We DON'T think about this mass torture of our
male children.
In 1987, I exposed the phony neurology behind the preposterous claim of
American MDs that babies can't feel pain for "lack of myelin." (Most of the
nervous system never becomes myelinated and unmyelinated nerves are thought
to transmit the most excruciating qualities of pain.)
In late 1987, I called for an end to the obvious mass child abuse - and for
an exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient Jewish ritual that
leaves most of the foreskin on the penis. (Why aren't Christian authorities
joining me in demanding that if male infants are to be tortured, they should
at least be tortured MINIMALLY - as God - Jesus - originally/reportedly
intended?)
American MDs - many of them likely Christian - responded by 1) opposing ALL
religious exemptions from the child abuse statutes (Jan 1988); 2) calling
for anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse (Feb 1988); and declaring
their "no medical indications" mass child abuse "an effective public health
measure" "confirmed" to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS.
American MDs are still trying to promote their HIV/AIDS "reason" for their
mass baby torture - but to date - American MDs themselves admit that there
are NO medical indications for the baby torture.
The ONLY "medical indication" for routine infant circumcision is to keep
American MDs - many of them Christians - out of prison.
Keeping American MDs - many of them Christian - out of prison is also a
"medical indication" for doing studies which try to demonstrate that the
mass child abuse by American MDs prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS...
See again: African HIV hysteria and American
baby penises...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/4009
American taxpayers have for years been sending a gift of billions of dollars
per year (for the purchase of American weapons I think) to the "Jewish"
country of Israel which according to some Orthodox Jews is not really Jewish
because it was crookedly created (before the coming of the Messiah).
One ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect, Neturey Karta, insists that Israel is "the
enemy of the Jews" because Israel was founded before the coming of the
Messiah. [Neturey Karta ad in the May 15, 1981 New York Times. Quoted in
Rosten L: The Joys of Yinglish, 1989, McGraw-Hill: New York, p. 385]
Clark [1996] quotes Rabbi Avi Shafran, editor of Agudath Israel's
quarterly Coalition in the March 1996 issue:
"The Jewish State, of course, never really was one at all..."
[Clark ED. Orthodoxy lurches to the right. Moment
(Jun)1996;21(3):29-35,59-9..]
See Wild Circumcision Rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.google.com/group/
alt.circumcision/msg/149655e985949b9e
Many American taxpayers worship the Christian version of the Jewish Messiah
(who they call Jesus/God).
Whether or not God (Jesus?) really ordered the torture of all Jewish
infants, the record shows that if he did, he ordered a MINIMAL infant penis
torture that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.
Ancient Jewish mortals reportedly switched to TOTAL foreskin amputation
because ancient Jews were stretching their foreskins to appear
uncircumcised...
The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for his
book, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy [NY:
Springer 1980].
Wallerstein wrote in a 1983 article:
"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]
In 1997, Hershel Shanks, PhD editor of Moment, noted that "the rabbis of the
Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added)...
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]
See again: African HIV hysteria and American
baby penises...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/4009
The infant screams caused by the Christian (and modern Jewish)-sanctioned
mass TOTAL infant foreskin amputation torture should have ended BILLIONS of
dollars' worth of infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed the phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology.
The infant screams caused by the Christian (and modern Jewish)-sanctioned
mass total foreskin amputation torture should end NOW (finally) thereby
saving an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVING the surgery as a
CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood.
THE PROBLEM: Trusted cultural authorities (MDs) are telling obvious lies -
and law enforcement is blithely looking the other way....
As Steve B. Harris, MD arrogantly boasts: "Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime. These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."
http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9
I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students, MDs are
TRAINED to perform mass felonies.
I am also still in favor of an exemption from the child abuse statutes for
the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
todd@chiromotion.com
PS MD FELONIES - PLURAL...
I noted above that I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs because as
medical students, MDs are TRAINED to perform mass felonies.
The mass infant penis ripping and slicing - bad as it is - is a relatively
minor MD felony.
MDs are also slicing VAGINAS en masse - surgically/fraudulently inferring
they are doing everything possible to open birth canals - even as they
senselessly close birth canals up to 30%.
Worse, MDs are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% when babies
get stuck.
Still worse, MDs are lying to cover-up.
For the Four OB cover-up lies (they are whoppers)...
See Dents in babies' skulls...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/3897
OBVIOUSLY, closing birth canals the "extra" up to 30% and lying to cover-up
has to be some of the worse torture inflicted by MDs - many of them
Christian.
A man of faith - Dave Plyer (quoted above) - says he just emailed
Congressman Hastert noting:
As people of faith, it is crucial that we stand up against the
evil practice of torture. Make sure your voice is heard! Click
here to take action:
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/wwjt?rk=sd_tgxs1FRcLW
I've made sure my opposition to the evil practice of torture was heard by
cc'ing this email to my Member of Congress via the URL man of faith Dave
Plyer provided.
Thanks for reading everyone.
Sincerely,
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon
USA
todd@chiromotion.com
My thanks to Henry Morgan for forwarding Dave Plyer's "Who Would Jesus
Torture" penetrating question/discussion.
In the preface to his forward, Henry asked a similarly penetrating question:
Is real money coming back?
Find out at: www.CurrencyAlert.US
This email copied to my Member of Congress and Speaker Hastert will be
archived for global access in the Google usenet archive.
Search http://groups.google.com for "Would Jesus Torture Babies?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
20 Nov 2005 07:54:18 AM |
|
|
Taylor wrote:
Last Saturday, Leonard Glick appeared at Jeffery Amherst Bookshop to
discuss his newly published novel, "Marked in Your Flesh." Glick talked
to a small, interested group of attendees, but he aims to reach an even
wider audience.
Yeah right, small and interested -- i.e, a tiny audience of fanatics
Prediction: we wont be seeing this infamous foreskin fanatics novel on
the NYT best seller list.
"The U.S. has the highest circumcision rate out of any country in the
world, somewhere between 57 and 58 percent," he said.
Completely wrong, of course, all arab and most muslim-majorty nations
have much higher rates. The US is way down the list -- lower than 20th
at least!. As usual, the foreskin fiend doesnt know the facts or
deliberately distorts them (and as usual Taylor, ever credulous about
any anti-circ statement from any source, no matter how absurd,
uncritically reproduces this rubbish).
Many people justify the practice by saying they do it for hygienic
reasons, as disease and infection prevention. "That's unnecessary,"
Sounds as if he has never sucked an uncircumcised *****. (Incidentally,
neither has Taylor, by his own admission!)
Glick said. "Most physicians agree that circumcision has no medical
benefits, and yet it is still widely practiced."
Sounds like Glick hasnt been keeping up to date on the research about
foreskins and HIV, HPV, cervical cancer, and chlamydia. Prediction:
we wont find anything in his novel about the role of foreskins in
untold millions of unnecessary deaths.
According to Glick, other research revealed that cortisol levels
increased when a newborn is circumcised. Cortisol is a substance
released into the bloodstream when the body is stressed. Consequently,
Glick feels that circumcision has now become a question of ethics.
Wow, talk about scraping the barrel! I bet kids cortisol level and
blood pressure go up when they get vaccinated, go to school for the
first time, visit the dentist, or throw a tantrum. Puleeeeeez!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephanie" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 03:06:34 PM |
|
|
<windinghighway@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1132494858.788052.37730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Taylor wrote:
Last Saturday, Leonard Glick appeared at Jeffery Amherst Bookshop to
discuss his newly published novel, "Marked in Your Flesh." Glick talked
to a small, interested group of attendees, but he aims to reach an even
wider audience.
Yeah right, small and interested -- i.e, a tiny audience of fanatics
Prediction: we wont be seeing this infamous foreskin fanatics novel on
the NYT best seller list.
"The U.S. has the highest circumcision rate out of any country in the
world, somewhere between 57 and 58 percent," he said.
Completely wrong, of course, all arab and most muslim-majorty nations
have much higher rates. The US is way down the list -- lower than 20th
at least!. As usual, the foreskin fiend doesnt know the facts or
deliberately distorts them (and as usual Taylor, ever credulous about
any anti-circ statement from any source, no matter how absurd,
uncritically reproduces this rubbish).
Many people justify the practice by saying they do it for hygienic
reasons, as disease and infection prevention. "That's unnecessary,"
Sounds as if he has never sucked an uncircumcised *****. (Incidentally,
neither has Taylor, by his own admission!)
I have. Is that supposed to be some kind of problem?
Glick said. "Most physicians agree that circumcision has no medical
benefits, and yet it is still widely practiced."
Sounds like Glick hasnt been keeping up to date on the research about
foreskins and HIV, HPV, cervical cancer, and chlamydia. Prediction:
we wont find anything in his novel about the role of foreskins in
untold millions of unnecessary deaths.
According to Glick, other research revealed that cortisol levels
increased when a newborn is circumcised. Cortisol is a substance
released into the bloodstream when the body is stressed. Consequently,
Glick feels that circumcision has now become a question of ethics.
Wow, talk about scraping the barrel! I bet kids cortisol level and
blood pressure go up when they get vaccinated, go to school for the
first time, visit the dentist, or throw a tantrum. Puleeeeeez!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maze" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
26 Nov 2005 12:00:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Sounds like Glick hasnt been keeping up to date on the research about
foreskins and HIV, HPV, cervical cancer, and chlamydia. Prediction:
we wont find anything in his novel about the role of foreskins in
untold millions of unnecessary deaths.
Quote your source, *****.
Wow, talk about scraping the barrel! I bet kids cortisol level and
blood pressure go up when they get vaccinated, go to school for the
first time, visit the dentist, or throw a tantrum. Puleeeeeez!
Quote your source, *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pumpkinhead" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 04:03:30 AM |
|
|
Glick said. "Most physicians agree that circumcision has no medical
benefits, and yet it is still widely practiced."
Sounds like Glick hasnt been keeping up to date on the research about
foreskins and HIV, HPV, cervical cancer, and chlamydia. Prediction:
we wont find anything in his novel about the role of foreskins in
untold millions of unnecessary deaths.
If it was such a threat to survival, I don't think it would have evolved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 05:24:01 AM |
|
|
Pumpkinhead wrote:
If it was such a threat to survival, I don't think it would have evolved.
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century. In africa, where the
epidemic has been around the longest and has made the deepest inroads,
there is very powerful darwinian process already at work. HIV has
generally made little impact on societies that practice universal or
near universal male circumcision, but has severely affected and even
devastated societies that practice universal or near universal foreskin
retention. Uncut societies like Botswana are looking at rates of 30-40
percent infection among adults.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 09:17:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
If it was such a threat to survival, I don't think it would have evolved.
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
---------------
Quit diddling yourself, there have been many sexually transmitted
pandemics before in human history. The foreskin evolved in THAT
milieu.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jaroslaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
05 Dec 2005 08:09:31 PM |
|
|
Gentlemen:
The foreskin in and of itself is NOT a vector of disease.
The underside of the uncut 4skin is a highly permeable mucous membrane, as
is the surface of the glans in uncut men. Mucous membranes are quite
permeable to not only HIV but a host of other viruses. For this reason,
uncut men are at greater risk of acquiring viral STDs when they have
unprotected sex with already-infected persons.
Circumcision removes half of the permeable surface, and the exposed glans
then proceeds to become keratinized, rendering it far less permeable to
viral STDs.
Bottom line...uncut men can more easily ACQUIRE viral STDs, but this doe NOT
equate to such men or their penises being "vectors" of any disease. The
usual precautions of safer sex place uncut men on a level playing field with
cut men when it comes to passing on any infection already present.
Gord
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:43828D8B.9E3@armory.com...
windinghighway@aol.com wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
If it was such a threat to survival, I don't think it would have
evolved.
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
---------------
Quit diddling yourself, there have been many sexually transmitted
pandemics before in human history. The foreskin evolved in THAT
milieu.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
06 Dec 2005 12:22:01 AM |
|
|
Jaroslaw wrote:
Gentlemen:
The foreskin in and of itself is NOT a vector of disease.
The underside of the uncut 4skin is a highly permeable mucous membrane, as
is the surface of the glans in uncut men. Mucous membranes are quite
permeable to not only HIV but a host of other viruses. For this reason,
uncut men are at greater risk of acquiring viral STDs when they have
unprotected sex with already-infected persons.
-----------------
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
The actual research would need to be done, but despite unsuitability
of the fraudulent research that has been tossed around here and ITS
severe defects methodologically, it has not YET been done.
Circumcision removes half of the permeable surface, and the exposed glans
then proceeds to become keratinized, rendering it far less permeable to
viral STDs.
Bottom line...uncut men can more easily ACQUIRE viral STDs, but this doe NOT
equate to such men or their penises being "vectors" of any disease.
---------------------
There is no evidence that is persuasive that uncut men acquire
"diseases" more easily, OR for which "diseases" this may be true
and for which diseases it is NOT!
The
usual precautions of safer sex place uncut men on a level playing field with
cut men when it comes to passing on any infection already present.
Gord
-----------------------
The thing is, you're actually accepting his so-called "research",
when it should NOT be accepted since it is rife with methodological
problems and uncontrolled confounding variables. It is so poor that
nothing actually certain about viral acquisition really CAN be
determined from it scientifically! Ignoring the fact that the men
were unavailable for sex after circumcision for a prolonged and
unstudied time while the uncircucised cohort were not is the LEAST
of these methodological faux pas. THAT is the SIZE of error that
quite literally ERASES the margin of result they purport to have
studied! AND there are at LEAST a dozen others JUST as severe.
Steve
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:43828D8B.9E3@armory.com...
windinghighway@aol.com wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
If it was such a threat to survival, I don't think it would have
evolved.
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
---------------
Quit diddling yourself, there have been many sexually transmitted
pandemics before in human history. The foreskin evolved in THAT
milieu.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "jake Waskett" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
06 Dec 2005 06:12:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:22:01 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
What utter nonsense!
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
06 Dec 2005 10:09:47 PM |
|
|
jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:22:01 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
What utter nonsense!
----------------------
Nope, that would be your response, how trivial and WEAK of you to
merely posture in the face of reason!
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "jake Waskett" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
07 Dec 2005 05:42:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 04:09:47 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:22:01 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
What utter nonsense!
----------------------
Nope, that would be your response, how trivial and WEAK of you to
merely posture in the face of reason!
Steve
There wasn't any reason, just a bald assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
07 Dec 2005 09:05:22 PM |
|
|
------------------
Your's is the nonsensical bald assertion.
Steve
Your turn, Jake !!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
07 Dec 2005 03:47:46 PM |
|
|
jake Waskett wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 04:09:47 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:22:01 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
What utter nonsense!
----------------------
Nope, that would be your response, how trivial and WEAK of you to
merely posture in the face of reason!
Steve
There wasn't any reason, just a bald assertion.
------------------
Your's is the nonsensical bald assertion.
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Briar Rabbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
07 Dec 2005 06:50:47 AM |
|
|
jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:22:01 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
What utter nonsense!
The man is a lunatic, he operates mouth in absence of brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
07 Dec 2005 03:48:24 PM |
|
|
Briar Rabbit wrote:
jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:22:01 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
What utter nonsense!
The man is a lunatic, he operates mouth in absence of brain.
------------------------
You refer to yourself, your world is you.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Briar Rabbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
09 Dec 2005 08:50:06 PM |
|
|
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Briar Rabbit wrote:
jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:22:01 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:
The inner biochemical milieu of the intact foreskin has its own
powerful evolved antiviral AND antibacterial and antifungal properties
that cannot be merely ignored because it is permeable. Nor can the
absence of this advantage be used to condemn the circumcised glans
in a viral environment.
What utter nonsense!
The man is a lunatic, he operates mouth in absence of brain.
------------------------
You refer to yourself, your world is you.
Steve
Tell us about your trailer world, Steve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
10 Dec 2005 08:49:02 PM |
|
|
Briar Rabbit wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
The man is a lunatic, he operates mouth in absence of brain.
------------------------
You refer to yourself, your world is you.
Steve
Tell us about your trailer world, Steve.
-----------------
I have no trailer, you ignorant little whacked *****.
Steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
11 Dec 2005 04:05:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:49:02 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
said:
Briar Rabbit wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
The man is a lunatic, he operates mouth in absence of brain.
------------------------
You refer to yourself, your world is you.
Steve
Tell us about your trailer world, Steve.
-----------------
I have no trailer, you ignorant little whacked *****.
Steve
Don't bother, Steve, that is what she lives for.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
07 Dec 2005 11:19:15 AM |
|
|
I don't waste my time with him any more. He's made it clear he's the
authority about everything, and all contary positions are to be
belittled anyway, so what's to discuss? Ironically, he's appointed
himself God despite his hatred for all that follows from God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
07 Dec 2005 03:49:48 PM |
|
|
Ian wrote:
I don't waste my time with him any more. He's made it clear he's the
authority about everything, and all contary positions are to be
belittled anyway, so what's to discuss? Ironically, he's appointed
himself God despite his hatred for all that follows from God.
----------------------
Nobody HAS to be "god" to be smarter than fixated fundie clowns.
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
22 Nov 2005 10:32:45 PM |
|
|
R. Steve Walz wrote:
windinghighway@aol.com wrote:
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
---------------
Quit diddling yourself, there have been many sexually transmitted
pandemics before in human history. The foreskin evolved in THAT
milieu.
Correct -- with its a warm, moist, rarely cleaned environment the
foreskin offered a veritable petri dish for a variety of nasty
pathogens. So evolution took a hand, and gave the foreskin some
immunological properties, notably the langerhans cells, to stave off
chronic infections. Then along came HIV, a virus that actually
attacks the immune system, and directly infects foreskinned men through
those langerhans cells. So, as I said,
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
And as over 30 scientific studies from different parts of the world
have shown, foreskins faciliate transmission of this horrible disease.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Steve Walz" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
23 Nov 2005 02:25:18 AM |
|
|
wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
wrote:
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
---------------
Quit diddling yourself, there have been many sexually transmitted
pandemics before in human history. The foreskin evolved in THAT
milieu.
Correct -- with its a warm, moist, rarely cleaned environment
---------------
Self-cleaning environment. Smegma is a by-product of that process.
the
foreskin offered a veritable petri dish for a variety of nasty
pathogens.
----------------
One with antibiotics and white cells present in large numbers.
So evolution took a hand, and gave the foreskin some
immunological properties, notably the langerhans cells, to stave off
chronic infections.
------------------
Which they do.
Then along came HIV, a virus that actually
attacks the immune system, and directly infects foreskinned men through
those langerhans cells. So, as I said,
----------------------
Which is junk science,
and which is irrelevant since you never speak of the benefits of
circumcision AFTER one has contracted HIV. HIV is best prevented
by preventing exposure.
Get your fucking lies organized before you set out to lie!!
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
And as over 30 scientific studies from different parts of the world
have shown, foreskins faciliate transmission of this horrible disease.
----------------------------
Nonsense, here's the Truth:
Steve
--
STEPHEN STRAUSS:
No shortcuts in circumcision
CBC News Viewpoint | November 21, 2005 |
about the author: Stephen Strauss wrote articles, columns and
editorials about science and technology for the Globe and Mail for more
than 20 years. He has also authored three books, several book chapters,
and for his efforts received numerous awards. Through all his time in
journalism, he still remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the motto
of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is.
Snippety, snip, snip. Could that be the sound of AIDS in retreat in
Africa?
The auditory metaphor and its effect come to mind if you spend any time
reflecting on a much-publicized South African study tying a dramatic
decline in HIV infection rates to circumcision. But well might you think
just the opposite if you were apprised of the sometimes putrid public
health politics underlying publication of said study.
The facts seem straightforward on the surface. Some 3,000 young men –
hardly any married – were selected from a semi-rural area near
Johannesburg. Half were put in a group that got circumcisions, half in a
non-circumcised group. After more than a year, 20 of the circumcised men
had become HIV positive versus 49 of the uncircumcised men, this even
though the circumcised men had more sexual encounters.
The scientists were jubilant. "The result is equivalent to saying that
during the period [of the study] the intervention prevented six out of
10 potential infections," wrote the French and South African researchers
who conducted the research, adding, "this provides a degree of
protection against acquiring HIV infection equivalent to what a vaccine
of high efficiency would have achieved."
The finding was so striking, the researchers stopped the trial before it
was supposed to finish because the "protective effect of male
circumcision was so high it would have been unethical to continue." That
is to say, they thought there was no doubt that circumcision protected
against HIV infection.
Finally, the effectiveness of circumcision led the scientists to argue
that decision makers should herewith consider making circumcision of all
African men a public health priority.
Wonderful, except for all the ethical and methodological mud splattered
on the findings.
As a background you should know the project grew out of more than two
decades of observation that places in Africa where circumcision was the
norm had less AIDS than the uncut places. We are not, by the way, simply
talking about Muslim Africa but also tribes where male circumcision is
part of a rite of passage into adulthood.
While scientists have been able to come up with numbers of physical
explanations for why what has sometimes been snidely called the "cut
cure" works, nobody has been certain about the connection. This is
because no previous studies have controlled for confounding factors –
age at circumcision, number of sexual partners, safe sex practices –
that could distort results. So the Johannesburg study was vital in
translating anecdote and intimation into believable science.
However, there was a fundamental ethical problem with its methodology.
The men were given HIV tests before the project began and 146 were found
to be HIV positive, but – underline the following in lipstick red – they
weren't told about their status as researchers "considered it unethical
to inform participants of their HIV status without their permission."
Gasp. You don't tell people with a life-threatening, highly infectious
disease they are both sick and dangerous to others because knowing
somehow violates their sense of privacy?
To justify this position, French and South African scientists involved
argued that they were just respecting a fear of AIDS stigma so intense
that "many of these people prefer to be dead than rejected by their
communities."
Gasp again. This is a public health position so obviously crazy – think
in the Canadian context of not telling people with SARS they had it
because they would be stigmatized and quarantined – it led the British
journal The Lancet to reject the publishing of the AIDS paper on the
grounds it was ethically flawed.
And there may be a worse confusion to come. Not everyone believes the
HIV infection numbers in men who hadn't been circumcised were so
conclusive they justified the trial being shut down early. Part of the
concern was caused by two recent papers that suggest that clinical
trials claiming huge, big, early effects from drugs or other treatments
as often as not turn out to be statistical blips and not true results.
Could that be the case here?
"My sense is that the circumcision study may have been stopped too early
and that there is a real danger we may be subjecting hundreds of
thousands or millions of men to having circumcisions that may not have
the benefit we assume," Jeremy Grimshaw, director of the Clinical
Epidemiology Program at the University of Ottawa, warns me about the
South African study.
Gasp a third time. So why stop a study when the number of people who had
become infected wasn't even half as large as the number who had the
disease to start with and weren't told they had it? My guess is a guilty
conscience. The doctors wanted an excuse to tell all the infected of
their condition, no matter the stigmatization, and the early, positive
statistics gave them just such an out.
My justification for this charge is that immediately after they closed
down the trial, the researchers changed the rules so they could inform
people of their disease, even if the people initially said they didn't
want to know.
Maybe other, still ongoing trials will support the cut cure, but for the
time being my faith in this one has gone snippety, snip, snip.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051121.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jake Waskett" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
23 Nov 2005 08:29:10 AM |
|
|
R. Steve Walz wrote:
windinghighway@aol.com wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
windinghighway@aol.com wrote:
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
---------------
Quit diddling yourself, there have been many sexually transmitted
pandemics before in human history. The foreskin evolved in THAT
milieu.
Correct -- with its a warm, moist, rarely cleaned environment
---------------
Self-cleaning environment. Smegma is a by-product of that process.
Nope.
the
foreskin offered a veritable petri dish for a variety of nasty
pathogens.
----------------
One with antibiotics and white cells present in large numbers.
No antibiotics, but white blood cells are certainly present in the blood.
So evolution took a hand, and gave the foreskin some
immunological properties, notably the langerhans cells, to stave off
chronic infections.
------------------
Which they do.
Well, infections do happen, but it could be worse.
Then along came HIV, a virus that actually
attacks the immune system, and directly infects foreskinned men through
those langerhans cells. So, as I said,
----------------------
Which is junk science,
Nope.
and which is irrelevant since you never speak of the benefits of
circumcision AFTER one has contracted HIV. HIV is best prevented
by preventing exposure.
Get your fucking lies organized before you set out to lie!!
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century.
And as over 30 scientific studies from different parts of the world
have shown, foreskins faciliate transmission of this horrible disease.
----------------------------
Nonsense, here's the Truth:
Steve
--
STEPHEN STRAUSS:
No shortcuts in circumcision
CBC News Viewpoint | November 21, 2005 |
No, that's an opinion. Do you have trouble comprehending the difference?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 05:30:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Pumpkinhead wrote:
If it was such a threat to survival, I don't think it would have evolved.
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century. In africa, where the
epidemic has been around the longest and has made the deepest inroads,
there is very powerful darwinian process already at work. HIV has
generally made little impact on societies that practice universal or
near universal male circumcision, but has severely affected and even
devastated societies that practice universal or near universal foreskin
retention. Uncut societies like Botswana are looking at rates of 30-40
percent infection among adults.
You manage to cram a lot of jibberish into a little space.
Congratulations!
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 05:46:08 AM |
|
|
Richard Smol wrote:
windinghigh...@aol.com wrote:
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century. In africa, where the
epidemic has been around the longest and has made the deepest inroads,
there is very powerful darwinian process already at work. HIV has
generally made little impact on societies that practice universal or
near universal male circumcision, but has severely affected and even
devastated societies that practice universal or near universal foreskin
retention. Uncut societies like Botswana are looking at rates of 30-40
percent infection among adults.
You manage to cram a lot of jibberish into a little space.
Congratulations!
If you think there is a lot of gibberish in there, why dont you expose
it for all to see? Come on Dickie, spell out each and every mistake
and tell us exactly why it is wrong!
I will make it easy for you -- I will lay out each of the seven
assertions above one by one, and then you can tell us all why they are
gibberish. OK?
1.The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
(This is gibberish because___________________)
2 .It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century. (This is gibberish
because____________________)
3. In africa, where the epidemic has been around the longest and has
made the deepest inroads (This is gibberish
because_______________________________)
4. there is very powerful darwinian process already at work. (This is
gibberish because_____________________)
5. HIV has generally made little impact on societies that practice
universal or near universal male circumcision (This is gibberish
because_________________________)
6 but has severely affected and even devastated societies that
practice universal or near universal foreskin retention. (This is
gibberish because_____________________________)
7. Uncut societies like Botswana are looking at rates of 30-40 percent
infection among adults. (This is gibberish
because____________________________________)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 06:55:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Richard Smol wrote:
windinghigh...@aol.com wrote:
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century. In africa, where the
epidemic has been around the longest and has made the deepest inroads,
there is very powerful darwinian process already at work. HIV has
generally made little impact on societies that practice universal or
near universal male circumcision, but has severely affected and even
devastated societies that practice universal or near universal foreskin
retention. Uncut societies like Botswana are looking at rates of 30-40
percent infection among adults.
You manage to cram a lot of jibberish into a little space.
Congratulations!
If you think there is a lot of gibberish in there, why dont you expose
it for all to see? Come on Dickie, spell out each and every mistake
and tell us exactly why it is wrong!
I will make it easy for you -- I will lay out each of the seven
assertions above one by one, and then you can tell us all why they are
gibberish. OK?
<- snip ->
Please provide a detailed explanation why circumcision of the male
penis would
prevent AIDS, preferably substantiated with articles from scientific
and medical
journals.
RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jake Waskett" |
|
| Title: Re: Glick speaks out on circumcision |
21 Nov 2005 07:55:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
windinghighway@aol.com wrote:
Richard Smol wrote:
windinghigh...@aol.com wrote:
The foreskin evolved over eons in different environmental conditions.
It has been confronted with HIV, for which is is now a vector on a
global scale, only within the past half century. In africa, where
the epidemic has been around the longest and has made the deepest
inroads,
there is very powerful darwinian process already at work. HIV has
generally made little impact on societies that practice universal or
near universal male circumcision, but has severely affected and even
devastated societies that practice universal or near universal
foreskin
retention. Uncut societies like Botswana are looking at rates of
30-40 percent infection among adults.
You manage to cram a lot of jibberish into a little space.
Congratulations!
If you think there is a lot of gibberish in there, why dont you expose
it for all to see? Come on Dickie, spell out each and every mistake
and tell us exactly why it is wrong!
I will make it easy for you -- I will lay out each of the seven
assertions above one by one, and then you can tell us all why they are
gibberish. OK?
<- snip ->
Please provide a detailed explanation why circumcision of the male
penis would
prevent AIDS, preferably substantiated with articles from scientific
and medical
journals.
RS
Take a look at these articles. They explain it rather well.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592
http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/161/3/867
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
