Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Don’t schedule that repeat c-section until you read this!
I’ve long been a believer in the value of chiropractic treament for the frequent low back pain and sciatica that many women experience during pregnancy. But a recent question from a reader led me to consider whether chirpopractic might have other benefits during pregnancy.
A reader emailed me with a question: I have a prominent sacral promontory, and ended up with a c-section for my first birth. Does this mean an automatic repeat c-section for me? My doctor and midwife say that chiropractic treatment won’t help; is this true?
To answer the question, I turned to Dr. Dawn Tames, of Sacred Touch Chiropractic. A chiropractor specializing in pregnancy and pediatric care, Dr. Dawn has posted an article on her website that discusses the benefit of chiropractic treatment, not only for low back pain, but also for dystocia, or difficult labor.
I spoke with Dr. Dawn, who expressed her conviction that a prominent sacral promontory is not a defect that a woman is born with, but a variation from normal spinal alignment, which can be treated by chiropratic adjustments. To give you a visual picture of what we’re talking about here, compare the following diagrams:
This is a normal spinal curve. However, during pregnancy, most women develop what is called lordosis, or “sway back”. This is shown more clearly in the next diagram.
You can see more clearly in this image the difference between a normal curve of the spine and an abnormal curve. Notice the prominent sacral promontory–the inside surface of the sacrum which the baby has to navigate past when descending the birth canal. The exaggerated curve of this spine, or swayback as it’s commonly called, shifts the angle of the birth canal, causing the sacral promontory to protrude further into the birth canal. Not only can this cause decreased space for the baby to pass through, in extreme conditions it can cause a ”shelf-like” prominence upon which the baby’s head or shoulder can get stuck. Women with this condition are commonly told that they will need to deliver by c-section. This is what I learned in my training, and while I’ve always encouraged mothers to try vaginal delivery, because sometimes we are surprised, I’ve believed what I was taught about the slim chances that a woman with a prominent sacral promontory could deliver vaginally.
Dr. Dawn told me that a simple maneuver, which may need to be performed several times during pregnancy, can reposition the sacrum and modify the abnormal curve of the spine. Even women with scoliosis, she says, can benefit from about 6 months of treatment, greatly improving their chances of normal birth.
Dr. Dawn and her chiropractor colleagues initiated a research study to document their results. They collaborated with a group of perinatologists, who are medical doctors specializing in problem pregnancies. The group shared care of pregnant patients, with the perinatologists managing the prenatal care, and the chiropractors monitoring the spinal alignment of each woman, and making adjustments as needed. The results were very encouraging–women in the group who received chiropractic care as well as prenatal care had fewer c-sections, fewer problem labors, and fewer misaligned babies. As the researchers were preparing to submit their results for publication, the perinatologists made an unusual demand. They wanted the chiropractors to teach the nurses in the perinatology practice to perform the spinal adjustments, so the perinatology practice could bill for the adjustments in addition to prenatal care. When the chiropractors declined to do this, the perinatologists refused to release their data for study publication. Dr. Dawn is now in the midst of a new study, which she plans to publish in the near future.
With the wealth of new information being presented on the topic of treating spinal misalignment for prevention of labor dystocia, and posterior and breech babies, women now have even more reason not to schedule that repeat c-section, without first looking into what chiropractic treatment can do to help.
An important point to remember: chiropractors are not routinely trained in these specialized techniques. Dr. Dawn took additional specialty training in pregnancy and pediatric care. To find a chiropractor who is skilled in pregnancy care, check out the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Myths and Facts: Study Verifies That There Is No Value In Any Flu Vaccine
A remarkable study published in the Cochrane Libary found no evidence of benefit for influenza vaccinations and also noted that the vast majority of trials were inadequate.
The authors stated that the only ones showing benefit were industry-funded. They also pointed out that the industry-funded studies were more likely to be published in the most prestigious journals...and one more thing: They found cases of severe harm caused by the vaccines, in spite of inadequate reporting of adverse effects.
The study, "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults", is damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry and its minions, the drug testing industry and the medical system that relies on them.
In the usual manner of understatement, the authors concluded:
The authors stated that the only ones showing benefit were industry-funded. They also pointed out that the industry-funded studies were more likely to be published in the most prestigious journals...and one more thing: They found cases of severe harm caused by the vaccines, in spite of inadequate reporting of adverse effects.
The study, "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults", is damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry and its minions, the drug testing industry and the medical system that relies on them.
In the usual manner of understatement, the authors concluded:
The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases.
The Study
The authors attempted to find and investigate every study that has evaluated the effects of flu vaccines in healthy adults aged 18-65. To this end, they "searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (1990 to June 2010)." They included 50 reports. Forty of them were clinical trials adding up to over 70,000 people. Two reported only on harmful effects and were not included in this study.
Studies of all types of influenza vaccines were included: live, attenuated, and killed – or fractions of killed – vaccines.
The primary outcomes they looked for were numbers and seriousness of influenza and influenza-like illnesses. They also looked at the number and seriousness of harms from the vaccines. The authors attempted to collect missing data by writing to the authors. They describe the response as "disappointing". In the end, they included 50 studies and refused to use 92, mostly because of highly significant flaws, such as using inappropriate controls, not being randomly controlled trials, inconsistencies in data presented, lack of study design, unclear definitions, poor reporting, lack of crude data, and lack of placebo.
The authors found that vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract, usually meaning by injection. reduced influenza-like symptoms by 4%. They found no evidence that vaccination prevents viral transmission! (There goes the whole herd immunity argument!) They also found no evidence that they prevent complications, either.
They attempted to ascertain the degree of complications, and though they did report on some, most of the studies simply did not address the issue or did so inadequately.
Five Myths to Keep in Mind About Flu Vaccines
Myth 1: The Flu Shot is very effective.
Statistically, you are less likely to get the flu if you haven’t had a flu vaccine. A BCTV reporter in Vancouver, commenting on the overload in BC emergency rooms, said that out of 32 people who had received a flu shot, 30 got the flu.
Statistically, you are less likely to get the flu if you haven’t had a flu vaccine. A BCTV reporter in Vancouver, commenting on the overload in BC emergency rooms, said that out of 32 people who had received a flu shot, 30 got the flu.
Myth 2: The Flu Shot has a high success rate.
This is a vaccine that only has a 6.25% success rate. This is a pretty big under-achievement, considering that the average reaction to placebo injections of distilled water is 30%.
This is a vaccine that only has a 6.25% success rate. This is a pretty big under-achievement, considering that the average reaction to placebo injections of distilled water is 30%.
Myth 3: The Flu Shot is safe.
Hugh Fudenberg MD, who is the world’s leading immunogeneticist, says that if a person had 5 flu vaccinations between 1970 and 1980 he/she is 10 times more likely to get Alzheimer’s Disease than if he/she had only one or two shots. Fudenberg said that this was because of the aluminum and mercury, which almost every flu vaccine contains. The gradual accumulation of aluminum and mercury in the brain leads to cognitive dysfunction.
Hugh Fudenberg MD, who is the world’s leading immunogeneticist, says that if a person had 5 flu vaccinations between 1970 and 1980 he/she is 10 times more likely to get Alzheimer’s Disease than if he/she had only one or two shots. Fudenberg said that this was because of the aluminum and mercury, which almost every flu vaccine contains. The gradual accumulation of aluminum and mercury in the brain leads to cognitive dysfunction.
Myth 4: There are no harmful ingredients in vaccinations.
Flu vaccines consist primarily of 3 categories of ingredients. First there are viruses and cultured bacteria. The second ingredient is the way in which they can be cultivated. This includes aborted human fetal cells, chick embryos, pig blood, monkey kidney tissue, cowpox pus, and calf serum, and all of these foreign proteins get injected straight into your bloodstream. A bit repulsive just thinking about it, isn’t it? The flu shot also contains neutralizers, stabilizers, carrying agents and preservatives such as mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is something that is used for embalming the dead and is known to cause cancer. There is no amount of formaldehyde considered safe when injected into a living organism.
Flu vaccines consist primarily of 3 categories of ingredients. First there are viruses and cultured bacteria. The second ingredient is the way in which they can be cultivated. This includes aborted human fetal cells, chick embryos, pig blood, monkey kidney tissue, cowpox pus, and calf serum, and all of these foreign proteins get injected straight into your bloodstream. A bit repulsive just thinking about it, isn’t it? The flu shot also contains neutralizers, stabilizers, carrying agents and preservatives such as mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is something that is used for embalming the dead and is known to cause cancer. There is no amount of formaldehyde considered safe when injected into a living organism.
Myth 5: The Flu Shot works.
The flu shot could actually weaken your immune system and make you more likely to catch this virus. It is has absolutely no value and should probably be avoided for your own safety. Not only is it loaded with toxic chemicals, but many people actually get the flu shortly after getting the shot, because it weakens their immune system instead of making it stronger like it is claimed to do.
The flu shot could actually weaken your immune system and make you more likely to catch this virus. It is has absolutely no value and should probably be avoided for your own safety. Not only is it loaded with toxic chemicals, but many people actually get the flu shortly after getting the shot, because it weakens their immune system instead of making it stronger like it is claimed to do.
Dr. Viera Scheibner, arguably one of the world's most respected scientists and scholars on vaccine medical data stated from her research and writings on vaccine science and history:: "Ever since the turn of the (last) century, medical journals published dozens and dozens of articles demonstrating that injecting vaccines (can) cause anaphylaxis, meaning harmful, inappropriate immunological responses, which is also called sensitization. (This) increase(s) susceptibility to the disease which the vaccine is supposed to prevent, and to a host of related and other unrelated infections."
"We see it in vaccinated children within days, within two or three weeks. (Most of them) develop runny noses, ear infections, pneumonitis, (and) bronchiolitis. It is only a matter of degrees, which indicates immuno-suppression, (not immunity). It indicates the opposite. So I never use the word immunization because that is false advertising. It implies that vaccines immunize, which they don't. The correct term is either vaccination or sensitization."
In addition, "Vaccines (can) damage internal organs, particularly the pancreas," so everyone vaccinated, including for seasonal flu, is vulnerable to contracting severe "autoimmune diseases like diabetes," Addison's Disease, Arthritis, Asthma, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, Hepatitis, Lou Gehrig's Disease, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Osteoporosis, Polio, and dozens of others.
Some can kill. Others produce a lifetime of disability and pain because autoimmune disease happens when the "body attacks itself," or more accurately "is attacked" by an unhealthy lifestyle, stress, and various harmful ingestible substances; that is, toxins in drugs, food, air, water, and other liquids. According to immunologist, Dr. Jesse Stoff, human health is compromised four ways:
-- by poor nutrition;
-- man-made environmental toxins;
-- disease-causing organisms and their toxins; and
-- immune system trauma from factors like x-ray radiation and stress.
-- man-made environmental toxins;
-- disease-causing organisms and their toxins; and
-- immune system trauma from factors like x-ray radiation and stress.
Other factors include a lack of sleep and exercise, smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, and various excesses that throw the body out of balance, making it susceptible to a host of debilitating illnesses.
ConclusionsThe Cochrane study found very little evidence to support even a small improvement in time off work. Even that finding needs to be put into the context of industry influence. The authors wrote:
This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.
"...industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies..."
"...reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin..."
"...there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions..."
Most assuredly, the "content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding"!
Even without taking into account the shoddiness of the studies in general, the authors were still hard put to find any benefit of any sort for influenza vaccinations in healthy people. At best, they found a small decrease in number of days off work. They did not find that the vaccinations had any benefit whatsoever in complications or mortality.
In spite of the limited reporting on adverse effects, the authors did find some, including 1.6 Guillain-Barré cases per million.
The question that must be asked is: How can influenza vaccinations be justified when there is virtually no benefit—not even the oft-cited dubious herd-immunity—and cases of severe harm are documented, in spite of disgustingly limited reporting of adverse effects?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
H1N1 vaccine linked to 700 percent increase in miscarriages
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff
(NaturalNews) Recent data presented to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Children's Vaccines has revealed some shocking information about the effects of the H1N1 / swine flu vaccine on pregnant women. According to the report, the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit -- but the CDC denies the truth and continues to insist nobody has been harmed.
According to theCDC, nearly 50 percent of allpregnant womenwere vaccinated with theH1N1 vaccineduring the 2009 / 2010 influenza season. Those whose physicians instructed them to get a seasonalflu shotwere three times more likely to get it, while those instructed specifically to get theH1N1shot were ten times more likely to get it. And the numbers clearly show that along with the rise in vaccinations due to the H1N1 scare came the sharp increase inmiscarriages, including a slew of actual reportedadverse events.
But the CDC does not seem to care about the facts, as numerous reports indicate the agency has failed to report any of this vital informationto vaccine suppliers. In fact, when presented with the data for the third time, Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, actually had the audacity to claim that there were no vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women caused by thevaccine.
"This baseless and fallacious assessment by the CDC assessment group has given the green light to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to continue their recommendation to give the 2010/11 flu shot to all people, including pregnant women," explained Eileen Dannemann, director of the National Coalition of Organized Women, presenter of the information.
"This upcoming 2010/11 flu vaccinecontains the same elements that are implicated in the killing of these fetuses, the H1N1 viral component and the neurotoxin mercury (Thimerosal). Additionally, it contains two other viral strains -- a three-in-one shot for all people."
Overall, the number of vaccine-related "fetal demise" reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriagestatistic. Meanwhile, the CDC continues to lie to the public about the vaccine, urging everyone, including pregnant women, to get it.
To read the report for yourself, visit: http://www.progressiveconvergence.c...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030657_vaccines_miscarriages.html#ixzz17ZCY5Yf8
(NaturalNews) Recent data presented to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Children's Vaccines has revealed some shocking information about the effects of the H1N1 / swine flu vaccine on pregnant women. According to the report, the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit -- but the CDC denies the truth and continues to insist nobody has been harmed.
According to theCDC, nearly 50 percent of allpregnant womenwere vaccinated with theH1N1 vaccineduring the 2009 / 2010 influenza season. Those whose physicians instructed them to get a seasonalflu shotwere three times more likely to get it, while those instructed specifically to get theH1N1shot were ten times more likely to get it. And the numbers clearly show that along with the rise in vaccinations due to the H1N1 scare came the sharp increase inmiscarriages, including a slew of actual reportedadverse events.
But the CDC does not seem to care about the facts, as numerous reports indicate the agency has failed to report any of this vital informationto vaccine suppliers. In fact, when presented with the data for the third time, Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Vaccine Risk and Assessment Working Group, actually had the audacity to claim that there were no vaccine-related adverse events in pregnant women caused by thevaccine.
"This baseless and fallacious assessment by the CDC assessment group has given the green light to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to continue their recommendation to give the 2010/11 flu shot to all people, including pregnant women," explained Eileen Dannemann, director of the National Coalition of Organized Women, presenter of the information.
"This upcoming 2010/11 flu vaccinecontains the same elements that are implicated in the killing of these fetuses, the H1N1 viral component and the neurotoxin mercury (Thimerosal). Additionally, it contains two other viral strains -- a three-in-one shot for all people."
Overall, the number of vaccine-related "fetal demise" reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriagestatistic. Meanwhile, the CDC continues to lie to the public about the vaccine, urging everyone, including pregnant women, to get it.
To read the report for yourself, visit: http://www.progressiveconvergence.c...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030657_vaccines_miscarriages.html#ixzz17ZCY5Yf8
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
A fool-proof way to minimize surgical complications
Savvy advertisers are jumping on the bandwagon about risks of c-sections. One common complication of surgical birth, adhesions, consists of scar tissue that grows over the surgical incision on the uterus and other tissue layers, and may attach to other tissues or organs. Upon repeat surgery, the adhesions can be so thick that it literally involves meticulously peeling, cutting, and burning the sticky scar tissue out of the way so the uterus can be opened. Picture a thick cobweb inside your body, and you are visualizing adhesions. Severe adhesions can significantly increase bleeding and the amount of time the woman must be under anesthetic. But now, many concerned health care providers are seriously considering how they can reduce the problems associated with repeat surgeries.Consider this advertisement, for a product called Gynecare Interceed®. The manufacturer, Ethicon, tells healthcare providers:
“You can play a part in preventing adhesions from happening the first time.”
Yes, I can play a part in preventing adhesions from happening the first time–by making sure that I give my client the optimal support to be able to deliver her baby vaginally.
Picture a soft-focus photograph of a cute pregnant belly, with the mom’s hands caressing her unborn baby. The bold headline of this advertisement reads: “She’s likely to come back for another C-Section. Minimize her risk of adhesions.” The miracle product? Gynecare Interceed® again.
And why is “she” likely to come back for another C-Section, even after the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends supporting VBAC? Could it be that the physician who performed her first c-section is encouraging her to come back for another c-section next time around? Maybe a better way to minimize her risk of adhesions would be to minimize her risk of c-section.
The November issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) features a multi-page article on placenta accreta, the new darling diagnosis of OBs. The rapid rise in the incidence of this potentially life-threatening complication of pregnancy can be largely attributed to the corresponding rise in cesarean births.
The more cesarean births a woman has, the higher her risk of a placenta accreta, or one of its cousins, placenta percreta and placenta increta. All are variations of the location and growth of the placenta, most involving a low-lying placenta that is over the old uterine scar and grows into the placenta to varying degrees. In its worst form, the placenta actually invades other body organs such as the bowel and the bladder, necessitating major surgery to remove the damaged tissue.
The AJOG article highlighted a chart outlining the frequency of placenta accreta according to the number of cesarean deliveries and the presence of placenta previa, where the placenta is partially or fully covering the cervix. Incidence of placenta accreta remains low through the fifth c-section in all women who did not have placenta previa, too.
The story is dramatically different for women who do have placenta previa. The first c-section carries a 3% risk of placenta accreta complicating the placenta previa. The second c-section carries an 11% risk. It is at the third c-section that we see a dramatic increase in risk, to 40% of women. The fourth through sixth c-sections remain fairly consistent in the 61-67% range.
The rest of the article is filled with management tips for obstetricians: help in identifying an accreta, and preparing for the risky surgery that it requires.
Not once in the article is there even a hint of a suggestion that a simple solution to this problem might be a decrease in the c-section rate. Ladies, this is a very serious danger to repeat c-sections, and one that is often not discussed with women in the informed consent process. Here is where we must speak up and protect ourselves and our future babies.
If you have had prior cesarean births, a VBAC should be offered to you. You should be given clear information about the risks of placenta accreta and the fact that you are at greater risk for this complication with every additional c-section. The best prevention for placenta accreta/percreta/increta and surgical adhesions is avoiding the first (or second, or third) c-section.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Short answers on Circumcision
When they say: | Short Answers are: | ||||
"It's cleaner." | So wash it.or Females also have smegma - should we cut them too?or What other part of the body do you cut off to keep it clean?or Do you brush your teeth, or do you have them pulled? | ||||
"It protects against penile cancer." | There's much less penile cancer in Denmark than the US and they don't circumcise there.or More men get breast cancer than penile cancer: why not cut off their breasts? | ||||
"It protects against Urinary Tract Infections." | Less than one boy in a hundred gets a UTI, and some of those are circumcised.or More girls get UTIs than boys - do you want to cut them too?or The best way to protect against UTIs is to breast-feed - and circumcision makes that harder. | ||||
"It protects against AIDS." | Not in Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda or Tanzania, it doesn't, and not in the US. | ||||
"They'll tease him in the locker-room." |
or Tell him to say, "Stop looking at my dick."or Nowadays they might tease him because he's the only circumcised one (and then what can you tell him?) | ||||
"It's a parental decision." | It's his decision. or So let's decide not to do it.or His body, his choice. (Other variations with pro-choice themes may useful, depending on the audience.) | ||||
(human rights) "Parents have to make lots of decisions for their children." |
This is the only case where parents decide how much of his body he gets to keep.or Yes, and deciding not to do it is the best/simplest/wisest/easiest decision.or This is the only decision that reduces his options irrevocably for the whole of the rest of his life.or Why only this part of the body, why only boys, and why only when he's too young to complain? or Yes, they have to decide between things of roughly equal merit. Cutting off part of his body is not in the same class as those.or Yes, and parents don't have to make lots of decisions (like whether to: dye their children green / cut off their earlobes / cut part off her genitalia) | ||||
"My sons say they're glad I had them circumcised" | Yes and before the Civil War, you'd find lots of slaves who'd say they were glad to be slaves. (but arguments by analogy always risk getting side-tracked into the details of the analogy: here is a version to avoid that risk:) They wouldn't if they knew what they're missing.or, more threatening: They won't when they find out what they're missing.or Most boys and men with foreskins are really glad they're not circumcised. | ||||
"You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine." | And babies grow up to be men who have a right to their opinion about what part of their bodies they have cut off. | ||||
"I can’t grasp why you say it's an ethical issue." | Is it an ethical issue if the baby is a girl? | ||||
No question, and this one isn't too big for me to tackle.or Yes, and less important, which many people give more energy to.or Every issue is less important than some other issue*, so you can always say that.or Would you rather I was a couch-potato?or Yes, but if everybody gives all their attention to those, who's going to work on this one? *except "saving the universe" (and for the record, everything is more important than "feeding rocks"). | |||||
(trauma) "Lots of events in a child's life are traumatic: birth is traumatic." | You can't avoid birth. You can avoid circumcision.or So why make it worse? | ||||
"Jesus was circumcised." | He was also crucified or So was Judas. | ||||
"It's only a flap of skin." | |||||
"It's useless skin." | Men who still have it find it very useful.or That's for him to decide. | ||||
"It's just a snip." | Yeah, like having all your toenails/teeth pulled is "just a yank".or No, it's an amputation. or Not exactly:
| ||||
"A boy should look like his father." | Leave him alone and he can look like his father whenever he wants. (One intact boy was overheard saying, "Now I look like Daddy, now I look like me, now I look like Daddy....") Let him look like him.or Let's hope your father doesn't lose an eye or an arm. If the father wants to match him, let him have his own penis modified - made much smaller, for starters.or How come they never said that before they started doing it? See this cartoon. | ||||
"Women prefer it." | Men in Africa prefer circumcised women.or Many women prefer complete/whole men.or Whose penis/body is it? | ||||
"I let my husband decide. He's the one with a penis." | But you're the one with a prepuce. | ||||
"He'll never get oral sex if he's not circumcised." | Tell him to dip it in chocolate.or Yes, a foreskin makes a good airhead repellant. | ||||
"If I had any more sensitivity, I couldn't stand it / I'd have a heart attack." | No wonder, the nerves they left you with are mainly sensitive to pain - but the nerves they took from you are mainly for pleasure.or Men who have all their penis can stand it just fine / don't have heart attacks.or Try stroking the palm of your hand, and compare it with the back. It's not just more sensitive, it's different.or If you have more penis, you have more space for that sensitivity, so it's no trouble.or If you had more nerves, you'd have more control. It's as if they took the accelerator pedal out of your car and left you with an on-off switch. | ||||
Especially for men bemoaning their own circumcisions: | |||||
"It was years ago." | My foreskin hasn't grown back yet. | ||||
"I don't remember it." | Maybe not, but how long did it take you to forget? (One study found circumcised babies react differently to the pain of vaccination months later.) or So if you cut part off someone, but drug them first so they won't remember, does that make it all right? | ||||
"It was painless." | Have you heard how the babies shriek when the foreskin is torn away from the glans?or You want painless? Try leaving babies' dicks alone.or I'm still hurting. | ||||
"It was over in a few minutes." | But it's off for good. | ||||
"You can still feel things, right?" | Not as much as I was born to feel. | ||||
"... and you can still come, right?" | That depends whether you mean orgasm or just ejaculation. | ||||
"You have a penis fixation." | If this is a penis fixation, what do you call a compulsion to cut parts of penises off?or Do you tell a woman who's had a mastectomy [breast off] and wants a prosthesis [an implant] that she has a breast fixation? (Thanks to Ken Drabik) | ||||
"It had to be done." | It didn't have anything. Otherwise-intelligent human beings made a conscious decision to do it. | ||||
"It wasn't a big deal"or "You're making a big issue out of nothing" | I thought you just said it was very important to do itor In that case, it'll be no big deal if it isn't doneor My penis, my deal. | ||||
"You have to get over it." | I'll do that when they get over doing it. | ||||
Especially for people debating in public: (Thanks to David Bradt) | |||||
"Hands up everyone in favour of circumcision." | I don't see any newborn babies' hands going up.or Hands up everyone in favour of human rights for all humans. | ||||
"But it's disgusting." | What's disgusting is cutting healthy parts off babies' genitals.or That's what they say in countries where they cut little girls, too. | ||||
"I'm proud of my full German helmet." | Very few Germans are circumcised.or (if he's been annoying) Does yours come to a sharp point? | ||||
"All that extra skin is ugly. Circumcision is prettier." | Whose skin is it? Let him decide if he thinks it's prettier.or That's what you say today, but by the time he grows up the fashion will have changed. | ||||
"Anti-Semite." | 95% of infant circumcision in the US is gentile. We're against all of it.or We've got nothing against the covenant [bris], only the surgery [milah].or Don't you think Jewish babies have the same human rights as other babies? (Click here for the case for Brit Shalom.) | ||||
"But when you're young it doesn't matter." | It doesn't grow back when you're old. | ||||
"Why do you want to talk about babies' dongs?" | Why do you [or Why does anyone] want to cut babies' dongs?or I'm talking about leaving them alone. | ||||
"Pervert!" | Who's the perverts - us, or the people who're obsessed with cutting babies' genitals? | ||||
"If they're wrong about that, they're wrong about everything." | They were wrong about thalidomide, wrong about tonsillectomy, wrong about sex reassignment, and they're wrong about circumcision. | ||||
"Foreskins are used for skin grafts." | Yeah, robbing a peter to pay Paul.or Only in America: artificial skin is just as good - and it's ethical. | ||||
"It never did me any harm." | You're one of the lucky ones, then.or How do you know?or You mean, you don't know what you're missing. | ||||
"You/I can't miss what you/I never had" | I/you did have one, but it was taken from me/you by force. | ||||
"Too late for me." | Sorry to hear that, but not too late for a million US babies a year. | ||||
"Get a life!" | [The classic no-brainer, not worth answering, but:] This is a better life than cutting parts off babies.or If you think this is not important, why is it so important to do it? | ||||
The case for intactness in two minutes
Male babies are born with a foreskin. Sometimes one is born without one (aposthia) and no other defects, so if a foreskin were disadvantageous in any way, aposthia could and would have become the norm naturally. The foreskin has several functions, protective and erogenous. Rich in specialised nerves, it enhances the sexual response. Men with foreskins don't have to work as hard as men without them to achieve orgasm, and can appreciate more sensation on the way, so they can control their progress more easily and enjoy the journey as well as the arrival. They can pay less attention to their own pleasure and hence more to their partner's. An intact body is a basic human right. Parents do not have to make any decision about cutting normal, healthy, functional, non-renewable parts off their children. On the contrary, they hold their children's bodies in trust, with a responsibility to deliver them back to them on maturity in as far as possible their original condition. Circumcision is a stone-age ritual that only survives because the people who do it are not those who have to live with it, and men circumcised as babies don't know what they are missing. The medical benefits claimed for circumcision were all invented after it was already customary, justifications after the fact. By the circumcision-advocates' own figures, the vast majority of circumcisions are wasted in preventing any disease. Circumcision carries a finite risk of death, but (scandalously) that is unknown. Neither doctors or parents are willing to acknowledge that their decision to circumcise, and doing so, led to a baby's death, so many circumcision deaths are probably blamed on some secondary cause. The risk and harms of circumcision are understated, since parents imagine they need pay no attention to the circumcised penis, and circumcised men assume that what they have is all that anybody has. Very few adult men ever choose to be circumcised, and where it is not already customary, very few ever are. Parents should defer to what the future adult would most likely choose when making irrevocable decisions about their children. Circumcision meets the definition of bodily harm. By any rational reading of the law, circumcision without medical need is already illegal. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)