Circumcision causes brain damage
Martin
Here's some 'research' which suggests that male circumcision causes
permanent brain damage.
I guess that explains a few things.
<http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/10/mri-studies-brain-permanently-altered.html>:
----- Begin Quote -----
MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision
by Dr. Paul D. Tinari Ph.D.
Two of my physics professors at Queen's University (Dr. Stewart & Dr.
McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography
(PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen's
physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of fMRI for observing
metabolic activity within the human body.
As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was
approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a
protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital.
They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the
procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain
that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that
they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea
to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of
circumcision on the infant brain.
The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine
and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal
operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense
pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she
was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal
was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to
ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics
committee was required to perform any routine male infant
circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission
to carry out this study.
We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic
"circumrestraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely
immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The entire
apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal
objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor
who performed the surgery used a plastic bell ("Plastibell") with a
sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anaesthetic was used.
The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate
baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was
used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery.
Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the
infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the
limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and
temporal lobes.
A neurologist who saw the results to postulated that the data
indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of
the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions.
Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after
the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its
baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this
research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was
permanently changed by the surgery.
Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the
open medical literature. All of the participants in the research
including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee
and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male
circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt
to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited
by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results
of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we
refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and
legal action.
I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning
machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our
results, and then publish the results in the open literature.
Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.
Director,
Pacific Institute for Advanced Study
----- End Quote -----
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
14 years, 9 months and 16 days.
David Canzi
Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
><http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/10/mri-studies-brain-permanently-altered.html>:
>----- Begin Quote -----
>MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision
>by Dr. Paul D. Tinari Ph.D.
>Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the
>open medical literature. All of the participants in the research
>including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee
>and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male
>circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt
>to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited
>by the ethical regulations.
In the name of ethics, they forbid investigations into whether
circumcision is unethical. By refusing to find out, they maintain
a state of useful ignorance that lets them claim their actions
are ethical because they have no knowledge to the contrary.
--
David Canzi | Every time you write clever code in
| production software, God kills a kitten.
Jake Waskett
If you believe the tale...
Jack
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:57:23 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
You're familiar with this one:
"Infants Feel and Remember Circumcision Pain - Study
TORONTO, Feb. 28, 1997 - Male infants feel pain during circumcision
and they remember that pain six months later when they receive their
routine vaccination, according to a study led by Hospital for Sick
Children (HSC) researchers."
Memory is a lasting alteration of the brain.
Jack
> In article <1158.1256796628.20091...@hiv-poz.co.uk>,
>
> Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
> ><http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/10/mri-studies-brain-permanently-alt...>:
> >----- Begin Quote -----
> >MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision
> >by Dr. Paul D. Tinari Ph.D.
> [...]
> >Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the
> >open medical literature. All of the participants in the research
> >including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee
> >and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male
> >circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt
> >to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited
> >by the ethical regulations.
>
> In the name of ethics, they forbid investigations into whether
> circumcision is unethical. By refusing to find out, they maintain
> a state of useful ignorance that lets them claim their actions
> are ethical because they have no knowledge to the contrary.
Yeah... at least a century of (im)plausible denial that infants feel
pain has ended. But doctors still don't use anesthesia half the
time. One of the many cruel oddities of a entrenched ritual.
"Circumcision study halted due to trauma
December 23, 1997
Web posted at: 11:46 p.m. EST (0446 GMT)
ATLANTA (CNN) -- A new study found circumcision so traumatic that
doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to
the operation without anesthesia."
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
David Z
news:bd93db0b-f038-4c64...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
*********************************************************
Unfortunately your memory is shot. How many times have you posted this
study before?
David Z
*****************************************************
How many times have you posted this "new" study? Do you remember?
Martin
(David Canzi) wrote:
>In article <1158.1256796...@hiv-poz.co.uk>,
>Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
>><http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/10/mri-studies-brain-permanently-altered.html>:
>>
>>Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the
>>open medical literature. All of the participants in the research
>>including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee
>>and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male
>>circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt
>>to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited
>>by the ethical regulations.
>In the name of ethics, they forbid investigations into whether
>circumcision is unethical. By refusing to find out, they maintain
>a state of useful ignorance that lets them claim their actions
>are ethical because they have no knowledge to the contrary.
It's a blog entry, so we should view it with some skepticism.
Dr Paul D. Tinari, PhD seems to have quite a downer on circumcision,
and often writes to diss it.
For example
<http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Tinari,%20Paul/africancirc.htm>:
----- Begin Quote -----
If the industry truly cared about the health of Africans, then it
would be funding proper epidemiological studies, not the severely
flawed, politically motivated “research” that has just been
selectively made public. Why the obsession with ONLY studying male
circumcision and HIV infection? Why is it that although female
circumcision was also found to reduce HIV infection at the same
conference where Auvert presented his alleged “evidence” that male
circumcision can help lower HIV rates that absolutely no media
attention was given to the study involving cutting female genitals?
After all, the female labia have exactly the same cellular receptors
as the male foreskin. Since it has now been established that
circumcised females have a lower risk of HIV infection than intact
ones, then why are researchers not demanding large scale circumcision
of females in North America to give women the same alleged protection
from HIV that men are getting?
----- End Quote -----
But, of course, anything that doesn't promote male circumcision in a
positive light will be swept under the carpet. Some religions and
cultures regard it as an absolute right, and an intrinsic part their
beliefs. To question circumcision is to question those beliefs.
Jack
> "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jake apparently forgot about it.
Jack
> "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You've never had anything to say about it. Ignoring it won't make it
go away.
David Z
*****************************************************
You're the one who forgets. Jake, and everyone else here, is just tired of
your redundancy and lack of memory.
Jake Waskett
Oh, I think I see what you mean. Tinari claimed that "We were told that
while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any
attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly
prohibited by the ethical regulations." But if that were true then the
Canadian pain study could never have been conducted. So you're citing the
latter as proof that Tinari is ... well ... being economical with the
truth. Is that right?
Jack
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, but I see what you mean. I was being obtuse and it would be an
exercise in vain to parse it apart. Anyway, hi, thanks for posting.
It nice that there's at least one person who posts with thought and
substance. Which David Z never does, but that's just how he is.
Martin
>You're the one who forgets. Jake, and everyone else here, is just tired of
>your redundancy and lack of memory.
A typical response from a circumcision enthusiast, who assumes his
opinion is shared by everyone else.
It's little wonder that such people force their fetish onto baby boys,
with the assumption that later in life they'll be pleased to have been
circumcised.
Does "David Z" disagree with the points I make? Let's sit back and
see whether he overcomes brain damage to argue against them or remains
in silent agreement.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
14 years, 9 months and 17 days.
Jack
Kinda scatterbrained there, Martin.
David Canzi
Jake Waskett <ja...@waskett.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Infants Feel and Remember Circumcision Pain - Study TORONTO, Feb. 28,
>>> 1997 - Male infants feel pain during circumcision and they remember
>>> that pain six months later when they receive their routine vaccination,
>>> according to a study led by Hospital for Sick Children (HSC)
>>> researchers."
>
>while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any
>attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly
>prohibited by the ethical regulations." But if that were true then the
>Canadian pain study could never have been conducted.
Tinari did his experiment at a hospital in Kingston. The Hospital
for Sick Children is a different hospital, in Toronto. Different
hospitals, different ethical regulations.
The stated reason why the Kingston hospital forbade research
on harmful effects of circumcision would, 20 or 30 years ago,
have forbidden research on the harmful effects of smoking.
What attracted my attention to this issue was the unethicality
of the Kingston hospital's ethical regulation. By forbidding
research into whether circumcision is harmful, they're choosing
not to find out whether they're doing harm.
There may be a subtler and more ethical motive. If circumcision
was found to be harmful, the hospital probably could not refuse
to circumcise infants. If hospitals did that, parents would just
take their children elsewhere -- possibly somewhere less safe,
to be operated on by somebody less skilled.
Jake Waskett
> In article <1UCGm.792$ei3...@newsfe22.ams2>, Jake Waskett
> <ja...@waskett.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Infants Feel and Remember Circumcision Pain - Study TORONTO, Feb.
>>>> 28, 1997 - Male infants feel pain during circumcision and they
>>>> remember that pain six months later when they receive their routine
>>>> vaccination, according to a study led by Hospital for Sick Children
>>>> (HSC) researchers."
>>
>>Oh, I think I see what you mean. Tinari claimed that "We were told that
>>while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any
>>attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly
>>prohibited by the ethical regulations." But if that were true then the
>>Canadian pain study could never have been conducted.
>
> Tinari did his experiment at a hospital in Kingston. The Hospital for
> Sick Children is a different hospital, in Toronto. Different hospitals,
> different ethical regulations.
If you re-read the sentence I quoted, you'll see that it refers to Canada,
not one particular hospital.
> The stated reason why the Kingston hospital forbade research on harmful
> effects of circumcision would, 20 or 30 years ago, have forbidden
> research on the harmful effects of smoking.
By analogy, yes. Also, it would have forbidden research on adverse
effects of any surgical or medical intervention.
> What attracted my attention to this issue was the unethicality of the
> Kingston hospital's ethical regulation. By forbidding research into
> whether circumcision is harmful, they're choosing not to find out
> whether they're doing harm.
It does seem rather implausible, doesn't it?
> There may be a subtler and more ethical motive.
Um, before speculating about motives, wouldn't it make sense to first
confirm that these events actually happened? If a story seems too strange
to be true, chances are that it is a fabrication.
john
"Martin" <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1158.1256796628.20091029@hiv-
>
> I guess that explains a few things.
>
sure does http://www.whale.to/a/male_circumcision_h.html
Martin
>sure does http://www.whale.to/a/male_circumcision_h.html
Some nice pictures at
<http://www.whale.to/b/male_genital_mutilation_p.html> for the
circumcision fetishist to add to his personal collection.
Fourth picture down, Rabbi Yosef David Weisburg. I bet there are a
few people reading this who would pay good money to do that job.
Of course they'd anaesthetise first, so that makes it okay.
I was wondering why you had an image of a torture device from the
middle ages on that page until I clicked on it, see
<http://knittedinthewomb.com/wp/?p=455>, and discovered it's a
"Circumstraint Board." Nice. $265.00 at
<http://www.quickmedical.com/olympicmedical/circumstraint/immobolizer.html>
and it's a "Best Seller" too. The mind boggles.
----- Begin Quote -----
In less than 30 seconds, a nurse can immobilize the struggling infant
securely in the correct position with Circumstraint. The immobilizer
works on a proven principle of positive 4-point restraint. Soft wide
Velcro straps encircle the infant's elbows and knees, depriving
him/her of leverage. The child is held safely and securely without
danger of escape. Circumstraint's comfortable contoured shape
positions the infant, hips elevated, perfectly presenting the
genitalia. The platform between the infant's legs provides support for
a circumcision clamp. Without pins, towels, plastic shells or the
threat of strangulation, Circumstraint snugly and securely immobilizes
the infant with their entire torso visible.
[...]
Circumstraint has become the infant immobilization standard for modern
nurseries.
----- End Quote -----
Perhaps this type of device was considered "modern" a few hundred
years ago, but surely not so today.
In find it interesting that babies who can't talk, or even feed
themselves, instinctively know circumcision is wrong and have to be
forcibly restrained while the barbaric procedure is performed.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
14 years, 9 months and 18 days.
David Canzi
Jake Waskett <ja...@waskett.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:12:18 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
>
>> In article <1UCGm.792$ei3...@newsfe22.ams2>, Jake Waskett
>> <ja...@waskett.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Infants Feel and Remember Circumcision Pain - Study TORONTO, Feb.
>>>>> 28, 1997 - Male infants feel pain during circumcision and they
>>>>> remember that pain six months later when they receive their routine
>>>>> vaccination, according to a study led by Hospital for Sick Children
>>>>> (HSC) researchers."
>>>
>>>Oh, I think I see what you mean. Tinari claimed that "We were told that
>>>while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any
>>>attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly
>>>prohibited by the ethical regulations." But if that were true then the
>>>Canadian pain study could never have been conducted.
>>
>> Tinari did his experiment at a hospital in Kingston. The Hospital for
>> Sick Children is a different hospital, in Toronto. Different hospitals,
>> different ethical regulations.
>
>If you re-read the sentence I quoted, you'll see that it refers to Canada,
>not one particular hospital.
Canada does not have "ethical regulations". It has laws. Some
workplaces, such as universities and hospitals, have ethics codes.
Just because one of a workplace's ethical rules refers to the
laws of the land, that doesn't make it a law of the land.
>> The stated reason why the Kingston hospital forbade research on harmful
>> effects of circumcision would, 20 or 30 years ago, have forbidden
>> research on the harmful effects of smoking.
>
>By analogy, yes. Also, it would have forbidden research on adverse
>effects of any surgical or medical intervention.
>
>> What attracted my attention to this issue was the unethicality of the
>> Kingston hospital's ethical regulation. By forbidding research into
>> whether circumcision is harmful, they're choosing not to find out
>> whether they're doing harm.
>
>It does seem rather implausible, doesn't it?
I don't find it implausible that a university administrator
would write an incompletely thought out rule with unintended
consequences into the ethics code. I doubt that hospital
administrators writing ethics codes are much different.
The result of Tinari's experiment, as described, is plausible and
unsurprising. Put a baby into an MRI machine and circumcise him
without anaesthesia. Put him into the MRI machine again a day or
a month later, and it's no surprise his readings aren't baseline.
(What this demonstrates is conditioning, not brain damage.)
--
David Canzi