|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Circumcision Gadget Is Easier and Safer, but Does It Hurt?Posted on Aug 7, 2011
It has been shown that heterosexual men are significantly less likely to spread HIV when they are circumcised. Rwanda hopes to circumcise 2 million men across the spectrum of ages using a new device that promises to be cheaper, safer and easier than alternatives. Unfortunately, the BBC makes you wait until the very end of its wince-inducing report to find out whether the procedure is painful. Apparently, it isn’t. Judging by the reaction of the men in the video, the most painful part of the procedure may be when the nurse measures her patient to determine what size to use. The device itself is simple-looking. It is made of two separate rings, one of which has a kind of elastic band around it. Together they close off blood flow to the foreskin, which, a week later, is ready to be cut off with a pair of scissors. You’ll have to head over to the BBC to see for yourself. —PZS Advertisement Previous item: N.J. Gov. Christie Won’t Hear It From Shariah ‘Crazies’ Next item: Tsunami Did a Number on Antarctic Ice Shelves New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
More Exposés, Less Action
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By drbhelthi, August 13, 2011 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment
The publication by Truthdig of this issue to an intelligent forum engendered opinions that tend
to place in proper perspective the fraudulent motive of one of hundreds of such undertakings.
These frauds normally slide under the bar without scrutiny.
All of which frauds front goodwill and health, for the underprivileged, while being motivated by
the desire to acquire profit, via income tax write-off, while simply getting rid of a product that
was a flop. Similar to millions of doses of alleged “inoculations” against “Bird Flu,” “Swine Flu,”
“H1N1.” Empirical reviews establish that inoculatons contribute to illness, pharma & MD
pimp profitability. Epidemics break out after wholesale inoculations in geographical areas.
Three cheers for physicians who practice healing, instead of financial greed and avarice.
Report thisTo the Dr. Mengele types get their rocks off by unnecessarily cutting and poisoning patients,
Hari-Kari is a neat demonstration of atonement and self-respect.
By Sandorvaal, August 13, 2011 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The saddest thing about this for Rwandan men is that this circumcision drive is
based on two flawed studies that were abandoned once they get the positive
results they were looking for. And even their positive results weren’t spectacular.
From Pharyngula:
“They all overstate their results. That 50-60% reduction was in relative rate, in
Report thiscomparison across the two groups. The actual calculated protection in absolute
terms conferred by circumcision was a 2% reduction in the likelihood of infection.
That doesn’t dazzle me, either, and given that the studies were terminated when
they got their best results.”
By re-live, August 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hi Again,
OK, OK, this is probably my last comment.
Just looking into this disturbing topic… Good
comments
on a link to yahoo answers…
Does circumcision hurt for 12 year olds? - Yahoo!
Answers
answers.yahoo.com › Home › All Categories › Health ›
Men’s Health - Cached - Block all answers.yahoo.com
results
11 answers - Apr 2, 2009
Once the foreskin is gone, he can’t get it back, and
many circumcised men suffer life-long sexual
dysfunction due to this procedure. ...
from above (yahoo answers)...
Report thisand that’s why civilized countries do NOT circumcise,
with the exception of americans
only jews, muslims circumcise. americans circumcise
due to ignorance. its disturbing
Edited 2 months ago
By re-live, August 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hi Again,
Sexual effects of circumcision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conversely, a 2002 review by Boyle et al. stated that
Report this“the genitally intact male has thousands of fine
touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve
endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with
an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation
experienced by circumcised males.” They concluded,
“intercourse is less satisfying for both partners
when the man is circumcised”.[3]
By re-live, August 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hello ALL,
Ya why is this article here on td—what is going on
with this site lately.
In terms of this topic, Do you want the relative
truth?
Two main points here: First point is personal observation of
circ. vs uncirc.
Second point, someone please help them, BEWARE, dire
urgency, BEWARE, these are greed mongers… As well, now US
pharmas are pushing their toxic side effect laden
pills to ‘poor ignorant ones’ in India.
Someone has to tell the truth, circumcised men are
just not as sexy… and maybe not as whole(sorry)
it’s just one observation experience and so maybe
others will differ or be offended,(yet, wonder
if any relate). So… The Men…
One fellow a great personality actually, I just
could not feel good abt the intimacy;
and the relation fell thru after a few short months.
Remembering specifically an isolated
and sad encounter (yet
although also truly shining and caring personality he
was and yet, at least in that respect we hit it off).
Yet, the physical did not quite work out for us, poor
fellow, I could not
tolerate for some reason, the feeling at all; and it
turned out to be ‘the injury’ and I did not even
actually go thru with the intimacy.
p.s. Also I had no conscious bias in that regard
prior to that experience. I later realized where the
problem may lie: (circumsision), realized after the fact (not after
the act)-(there was none)his little fellow was just
so tight looking and seemed all wrong to me.
And it took this article for me to put 2+ 2
together… my two circ men just really were
“different”
Please respect all the honesty I’ve shared here.
A summary:
After my healthy sampling, throughout my living
sexuality, of lets say, ‘aprox 6’ men ... luckily for
me, most of those gents were not circumcised.
The two that were, it was strikingly apparent
(noticed by me in the heat of the moment), that they
seemed inept and actually injured… even though long
years passed after the cutting was over.
To me it seemed much less warmth and sincerity and
so… where that goes from there ... one can only
imagine the life.
Again, please keep in mind,
this is only one person’s experience
and opinion, there can be no general consensus on this,
due to varied myriad experiences.
Point no.2:
BEWARE of all greed mongers… to re-iterate part of
another comment
(the 2nd on this blog) by L. De Bourg:
amputated in the false belief that it would make them
Report this“immune” to HIV now have lost 50-75% of their sexual
sensation—and it did not make them immune at all.
The circumcision industry (and yes, there is one) and
the pro-circumcision nuts who are shilling for it saw
the handwriting on the wall with circumcision rates
falling in North America. They needed to find a new
customer, and found quite the rube in the continent
of Africa, where governments are corrupt and the
population is largely illiterate and quite
superstitious.
By drbhelthi, August 12, 2011 at 12:09 am Link to this comment
Why was this article published, on a site which calls itself Truthdig? Tom Tobin
Thank you, Truthdig, for bringing this issue to an intelligent forum.
Report thisIt engendered several opinions that tend to place in proper perspective the fraudulent motive
of one of hundreds of such undertakings, which normally slide under the bar without scrutiny.
All of which frauds front goodwill and health, for the underprivileged, while being motivated by
the desire to acquire profit, via income tax write-off, while simply getting rid of a product that
was a flop. Similar to millions of doses of alleged “inoculations” against “Bird Flu,” “Swine Flu,”
“H1N1,” none of which work as advertised, but all of which contribute to illness, pharma & MD
pimp profitability
By Tom Tobin, August 11, 2011 at 3:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I sent a letter to the editor, to ask why this was
Report thispublished. I detailed my concerns. I never got an
answer.
Again, this begs the question:
Why was this article published, on a site which calls
itself Truthdig?
Is their credibility undermined? Are they responsible
people? Or do they simply parrot what someone else
puts out?
You decide.
By drbhelthi, August 11, 2011 at 2:02 am Link to this comment
” - pharmaceutical industries (and all the other organisations mentioned
in the above, for from exahustive, list) profit exorbitantly from the
misery of people.” Marian Griffith
How sadly accurate.
Thus, the simple cure developed by Dr. Johanna Budwig of Germany in 1956
was suppressed. Thus, the Dr. Hulda Clark findings and her “zapper” and
her 21 day cure for cancer are ridiculed. Thus, the Dr. Robert Beck
electric device, which also removes AIDS, is ridiculed. Reminds me of
the book by Suzanne Somers, and her incident of fabricated cancer, in
which one group of physicians insisted that she had cancer, which was
never found. Reminds me of a friend who was diagnosed with cancer, a
large tumor under his jaw was surgitized, then he was poisoned with five
rounds of nitrogen extracts. He was rendered so sick, and for months, he
wanted to die; and thus died. His wife later told me that cancer cells
were never isolated - - .
Greed and avarice.
Report thisFinally, accurate information about Lyndon B. Johnson and the Texas
crime syndicate that murdered JFK is being revealed. When will someone
get around to revealing the overtaking of the pharma and medicine
industry, and the genuine family history of the owners of MONSANTO ?
By Marian Griffith, August 10, 2011 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Hugh7
—-Rwanda was doing a good job reducing its HIV transmission rate by promoting “zero grazing” - one partner at a time - which works because the virus is most infectious just after it has been transmitted, but that seems to have been forgotten.—-
It was not forgotten. It simply was not profitable.
Report thisI mean, a working approach against the spread of HIV infections that requires no expensive specialist, no committees, no religious leaders gaining power and influence from condemning and scaring innocent populace and that requires neither expensive equipment nor expensive medicines? That clearly is completely unacceptable. It is the god-given right that pharmaceutical industries (and all the other organisations mentioned in the above, for from exahustive, list) profit exorbitantly from the misery of people.
By drbhelthi, August 9, 2011 at 12:47 am Link to this comment
“- - Wawer et al. started to find that heterosexual men are significantly MORE
likely to spread HIV when they are circumcised, but (so?) they cut that study
short before that could be confirmed.” Hugh7
Genuinely scientific research, that reveals the truth about toxins such as
ASPARTAME, VIOXX and the nitrogen extracts from mustard gas, mis-used in
“chemotherapy,” is carefully excluded from journals, that once upon a time,
were professional.
Occasionally, accurate info is published in “scandal sheets.” The phrase, “-
the study was stopped – “ is often false. In many cases, the study was
completed, clearly demonstrated the truth, but in order to be approved for
publication, “doctoring” required the addition of the falsehood, “- stopped
prior to conclusion”. Accurate findings are removed from the “official” research
that is stored in USGOV records.
For over thirty years, all research supported by a USGOV grant of any nature,
is reviewed by USGOV, pharma, or pimp officials. Their role is to insure that
no information, unfavourable to pharma industry gimmicks, such as ASPARTAME,
VIOXX - now gardasil- reaches publication.
Take the politically manipulated approval of ASPARTAME, by Donald Rumsfeld,
1981. After about ten years of disapproval by the FDA, Rumsfeld replaced the
honorable research chief of the FDA with his MD pimp. A few days later, the MD
pimp approved ASPARTAME. A sad day in the history of medicine in the USA.
Equally sad, was Rumsfeld´s approval for funding 1,500 FDA employee slots with
private, pharma funding.
ASPARTAME, now found in 9,000 foods, beverages and chewing gums. How many
billions of humans have had their health decremented by ASPARTAME, since 1981?
And how many have died due to aspartame-initiated, vascular disruptions
increased by VIOXX , and similar drugs that simply do not work? The same
Donald Rumsfeld, who initiated torture of the illegally-held captives on
Guantanamo and secretive lockups around Europe. Some of which lock-ups exist
today.
The same greed found in Hitler-types and their Zionist cousins has turned the
Medical Doctor profession into an industry that pursues profit at the cost of
patient health. Not enough healthy organs to install into the bodies of adults
whose life habits have ruined an organ or two? Eat, drink and make Merry, or
Sarah, or Nicole, for tomorrow, instead of dying, you can receive an organ
transplant.
Proper nutrition, exercise and life-style?
Not beneficial to Hitler & Zionist types of the pharma industry, who prefer
nitrogen extracts as one form of legal euthanasia.
As far as circumcision is concerned, who was the propagandist that introduced
Report thisthe idea of “health issue” to a religious clan practice ?
By Hugh7, August 8, 2011 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“It has been shown that heterosexual men are significantly less likely to spread HIV when they are circumcised.” WRONG WRONG WRONG. It has allegedly been shown that they are significantly less likely to BE INFECTED with HIV. (But there are several serious concerns about those studies.) Wawer et al. started to find that heterosexual men are significantly MORE likely to spread HIV when they are circumcised, but (so?) they cut that study short before that could be confirmed.
The device works by cutting off the circulation to the foreskin (it’s not “just skin”; it has arteries and veins, muscles and nerves) making it die. It’s the same principle (with the inner ring [C] to stop it taking off everything) as the Elastrator™ ring, which is used to castrate farm animals and dock their tails.
Rwanda was doing a good job reducing its HIV transmission rate by promoting “zero grazing” - one partner at a time - which works because the virus is most infectious just after it has been transmitted, but that seems to have been forgotten.
Report thisBy ceti, August 8, 2011 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t think the supporters of this plan understand the ramifications of what is
Report thisgoing to happen. Men who are circumcised will think of themselves as
invulnerable to STD transmission and many who are so inclined will sleep with
either many more women or even lead to an even worse rape epidemic that is
affecting the warzones on Rwanda’s doorstep. I guess this is a cheap way to deal
with a horrific problem, but it may rebound viciously.
By Tom Tobin, August 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment
by having the potential to kill, I am referring to:
http://www.nbrlawfirm.com/Medical-
Malpractice/Blogs/toddler-dies-after-circumcision-at-
manhattan-hospital
http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=7526&Itemid=131
Quotes from a doctor, who advocates circumcision, and
has performed 5,000 of them
hospital or clinic.
“Some parents demand the operation to be carried out
at home. I tell them complications may occur,
although the chances are one in a thousand,” Dr.
Ersan said.
“Breathing may stop, or drug allergies may be
observed. Intervention in such a case would be much
harder at home, it’s best not to take risks and take
their kids to a medical facility in line with their
financial resources.”
“Other more common complications include infections,
bleeding, damage to the urinary tract, intoxication,
gangrene of penis head,” he said, before adding
another danger that may haunt the boy in later life.
“It’s highly possible that the penis head is cut a
little too much and the kid will suffer premature
ejaculation when he grows up.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/us-turkey-
Report thiscircumcision-idUSTRE76C1I420110713
By SarcastiCanuck, August 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
You can’t even get these guys to use condoms and you expect them to cut half thier foreskins off???Good luck with that one geniuses…
Report thisBy Tom Tobin, August 8, 2011 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment
drbhelthi, by profitable gimmicks which can kill you,
Report thiswere you referring to using the Mogen circumcision
clamp? The one which severed the glans of one boy,
and removed such a significant portion from two
others, that the lawsuits caused the manufacturer to
close.
Or the gimmick of not informing the parents, and
selling the baby’s foreskin to a biogen or cosmetics
company for $300? Not ethical, but not illegal,
either.
I wouldn’t knock gardsil too hard, unless you have
some information we are not privy to.
Still waiting for the link to your blog.
By Tom Tobin, August 8, 2011 at 10:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Oh, drbhelthi, do you mean things such as doctors
Report thisselling foreskins to biogen companies to make skin?
Or to cosmetics companies to make women’s skin care
products? The doctors don’t even have to inform the
parents, and get to make $300 profit in the US. Or
would you be meaning the Mogen circumcision clamp,
which deprived 1 boy of his entire glans, and 2 boys
of a significant portion of theirs, before legal
liability forced them to close down?
I wouldn’t be knocking the HPV vaccine just yet, if I
were you.
Still waiting for a pointer to your blog, so you can
“assist [me] to get it straight”. I’m certain the
boys who are getting the unneeded partial genital
amputations really appreciate your neutral stance.
By drbhelthi, August 8, 2011 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
- sort of like the recent fallacy of injecting teenage boys with Gardasil to prevent girls from getting cancer of the uterus - perhaps - someday - if they dont die of other profitable gimmicks first.
Gimmicks that turn profits.
Report thisBy sal678, August 8, 2011 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
Why is it that people get so upset with female genital mutilation but turn a blind eye to
Report thisthis common practice amoung boys ? Nature evolved the foreskin for a multitude of
reasons. The “cut it off because it’s dirty” diatribe is a fallacious argument ! Hello !!
It’s called washing !,,,It’ls a little like the guillotine preventing mouth cancer !!!!!
By Spencer Lingenfelter, August 8, 2011 at 9:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why is it that people get so upset when girls are subjected to genital mutilation ?
Report thisHowever, with boys it’s common practice. Narture evolved the penis with a foreskin for
many reasons. All the “cut it off because it’s dirty” diatribe is fallacious ! Hello ! It’s called
“washing” ” !!!!
By Tom Tobin, August 8, 2011 at 7:02 am Link to this comment
And where can your blog be found, drbhelthi?
Report thisBy drbhelthi, August 8, 2011 at 6:51 am Link to this comment
“So, let me get this straight, drbhealthy. You are advocating that people get a
healthy 35% to 50% of the skin of their genitals removed, because it only takes
one person to infect you?” Tom Tobin
Thanks for the idea. No.
Report thisIn my blog, I neither advocate nor recommend.
I only state one basic, statistical fact.
My clarification should assist you to get it straight.
By Tom Tobin, August 8, 2011 at 6:24 am Link to this comment
So, let me get this straight, drbhealthy.
Report thisYou are advocating that people get a healthy 35% to 50%
of the skin of their genitals removed, because it only
takes one person to infect you?
All it takes is a condom to protect both me and the
partner, with no amputation required.
In what universe does this make sense? Is this
medicine you are preaching? As in, “first, do no
harm”?
How is removing 20,000 nerves from someone’s genitals,
because of fear of AIDS, *not* doing them harm?
By drbhelthi, August 8, 2011 at 5:58 am Link to this comment
One, and only one, infected sexual partner is required for a sex-related infection.
As the number of sexual partners increases, so increases the statistical probability of having contact with that ONE.
Report thisBy artis moon amarche, August 8, 2011 at 5:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
tom tobin, thanks for following up with some real statistics. maybe truthdigs should give you a job! both of my sons are uncut and they also do not have the commonly mistaken ‘unclean’ penises, no infections, no ‘smegma’.... i second your suggestion - PASS OUT CONDOMS AND TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY IF THEY DON’T KNOW….!
Report thisBy Tom Tobin, August 8, 2011 at 4:01 am Link to this comment
The Laumann study (USA, 1997), based on over 30,000
Report thisAmerican men, showed no advantage to the circumcised
group as to STDs. The most recent comparative study
from Dunedin, New Zealand (cohort of about 500 men)
backs this up, concluding: “Circumcision does not
appear to shield men from most types of STDs in
developed nations”. In the US cut and natural men have
HIV and HPV in the same %. ONLY the number of sexual
partners and NOT circumcision status is linked to HPV
in men in the US.
By Tom Tobin, August 8, 2011 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
So, in the interest of digging for the truth, why
would an otherwise reputable outfit, especially one
named Truthdig, print such a mindless article?
“It has been shown that heterosexual men are
significantly less likely to spread HIV when they are
circumcised.”
No, it hasn’t. The studies which ‘proved’ it, are
poorly designed, had few controls, and are all done
by known circumcision enthusiasts. One guy
(Halperin) emulates his grandfather, the mohel. 6
studies which ‘proved’ that men with foreskins were
less likely to contract HIV than their circumcised
counterparts were give no press at all. Here’s one
from the NIH, on American Navy men, which noted no
difference at all.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA458066
What has been proven, is the whole process makes no
sense. If you still have to wear a condom to be
safe, why lose the most sexually responsive part of
your penis? The health minister of Rwanda even
states that circumcision reduces the HIV infection
rate “when you are having risky sex”. Is she doing
her job, and advocating and distributing condoms?
No. You can see she is lying with her eyes, trying
to convince herself.
So, why did Truthdig take the bait?
Circumcision, the latest stone age technology. Now
Report thisbrought to you better, faster, less painfully.
By Kat Katapaltes, August 8, 2011 at 3:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
A lot of attention is paid to whether or not circumcision is painful, as if that were the most important aspect of the procedure (especially in the case of non-consensual infant circumcision).
More attention should be paid to the life-long sexual dysfunction caused by circumcision - to the man and his wife.
Report thisBy artis moon amarche, August 8, 2011 at 2:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
STOP THE CIRCUMCISION PROPAGANDA!!! exactly, the first sentence is not even true! you say ‘it has been shown’, but by who?! stop male (& female !!!) mutilation! it’s traumatizing enough for a baby who buries the memory in their subconscious, and awful for a boy or a full-grown man who remembers the ordeal! this is a crock of sh*@! is this an article or an ad? please recant.
Report thisBy PLumbgray, August 8, 2011 at 12:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Reading this article make my legs go funny - Still have
Report thismine !
By Ron Low, August 7, 2011 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m sure it hurts when you finally realize how much of your sexual enjoyment was due to the slinking action of the foreskin.
I’m sure it hurts when you realize that the corrupt ineffectual Rwandan government is promoting circumcision to fight HIV even though the HIV incidence is markedly HIGHER among circumcised Rwandan men.
Report thisBy Locuta de Bjorg, August 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If you were really digging the truth, you would know that the first line of this article is complete hogwash. If anything, male circumcision INCREASES the sexual transmission of HIV, especially male to female. The Rwandans are going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise in about 10 years when the men who had their foreskins amputated in the false belief that it would make them “immune” to HIV now have lost 50-75% of their sexual sensation—and it did not make them immune at all.
Report thisThe circumcision industry (and yes, there is one) and the pro-circumcision nuts who are shilling for it saw the handwriting on the wall with circumcision rates falling in North America. They needed to find a new customer, and found quite the rube in the continent of Africa, where governments are corrupt and the population is largely illiterate and quite superstitious.
Do us all a favor and stop perpetuating the junk science “studies” perpetrated by the pro-circumcision nuts.
By Tom Tobin, August 7, 2011 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How could doing something which is going to remove
35% to 50% of the skin of your genitals, not hurt?
The Mogen clamp was recommended by the World Health
Organization, because it was reported to hurt less.
After the manufacturer was sued multiple times, for
removing or severely damaging the heads of penises,
the company is no longer in business.
Most American men are circumcised. That didn’t stop
Report thishundreds of thousands of men from dying of AIDS, per
year. If you really want to prevent HIV, use condoms.
They protect both partners, and you get to keep all
of your body. Even the most responsive parts.