Letters re Alex Renton articles
http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?p=17699
Dear Sirs,
How is it that Alex Renton's article was deemed passable as an article?
Alex Renton is quick to plug all the virtues of circumcision without mentioning
any of its shortcomings. He also lies by omission. Why doesn't he mention
African countries where it was circumcised men where HIV prevailed? Countries
like Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania? Why
doesn't he mention the reality that the US, despite being a country with a
primarily circumcised male population, has a higher HIV rate than in the UK,
where men are primarily intact?
The cancer myth has been but debunked by the American Cancer Society.
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/acs/
And speaking about passing HIV to women, why does he choose to not mention that
women would be unprotected if a man is carrying HIV?
People not only wish to know pertinent medical information, they wish to know
accurate and correct information, something they can be sure not to get from
Alex Renton.
Alex Renton also lies. He cannot tell a child what he doesn't remember.
Circumcision hurts, especially once the anaesthesia wears off. How exactly does
he know that President Obama is circumcised? And what does it matter to a boy in
Africa who will be at risk if he has unprotected sex whether he is circumcised
or not?
This very article mentions that the procedure does not guarantee protection
against HIV. Even if it "reduced the chances of HIV," if circumcised men mustn't
stop using condoms, then what's the whole point? If condoms subplant
circumcision, why are millions of dollars being spent on circumcision instead of
condoms?
It sounds like Mr. Renton is trying to legitimize circumcision for himself as
well as for his audience. Even though this article was supposed to be about
supposed HIV preventative circumcision, he also feels the need to note the fact
that circumcision is an ancient tradition, as if that alone was enough to
warrant it. Slavery and the subjugation of women are also quite old. What is his
point?
And why does he compare four distinctly different Asian countries? Why doesn't
he mention Japan, where infant genital mutilation isn't practiced and their HIV
rates are lower than any of the countries he mentions? Convenience if you asked
me.
He mentions everything from syphilis, herpes and UTIs. Does he not know that
recent studies in Israel showed that UTIs were actually more prevalent in
circumcised boys?
http://www.icgi.org/2009/04/circumci...in-infant-uti/
Am I to understand that circumcised men get NONE of these diseases? Why doesn't
Mr. Renton mention the fact that the diseases he mentions are prevalent in the
US where most men are already circumcised?
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/20...all-.html#more
WHY does he mention a study from 1955 regarding cervical cancer but doesn't
bother to mention the fact that there is now gardasil, an actual vaccine againts
HPV?
And precisely what cells do viruses targets? Is he refering to the Langerhans
cells which actually BLOCK HIV???
http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/
None of what he mentions about mucous membranes and keratinization has ever been
proven. That a keratinized glans "blocks" HIV has only been speculated.
And I'm supposed to take his word for it about his "friend?" How about the rest
of the UK? Is everyone "bursting in a geyser of blood" there?
The randomized trials in Africa show that circumcision FAILS. The studies are
flawed, but even if we said they weren't for the sake of argument, 40% of the
circumcised men in the studies still got HIV. In other words, circumcision is
like a condom that fails 40% of the time. 60% is a very poor showing for any
immunity. No drug can ever clame to be an immunization or prevetative against a
disease if it only provides a 60% protection. And furthermore, the 60%
protection rate would only apply for the time frame in which the trials
tookplace. Circumcision doesn't work like a vaccine, making the body immune to
the HIV virus.
Alex Renton presents Dr. Halperin as if he has no conflict of interest; Dr.
Halperin is Jewish, and would have to have circumcised his son because of
religious convictions anyway.
The biggest flaw in the African "studies" is that biased, self-serving
researchers were not looking for a better HIV prevention method; that
circumcision prevented HIV was a forgone conclusion.
Even IF, these studies held any water, even IF the studies indicate that
circumcision reduces the chances of getting HIV, how are they relevant in
infants who are not even sexually active?
And finally, Mr. Renton trivializes the circumcision procedure. Circumcision is
the removal of the prepuce; a substantial piece of flesh that can be as big as
3x5 inches in an adult male. The prepuce has over 20,000 specialized nerve
endings that are removed during circumcision. It also removes mucous membrane,
leaving a man with an exposed glans that hardens and keratinizes over time,
necessitating lubrication for sexual activities and reducing his sexual
sensation for the rest of his life. Circumcision permanently alters the state of
the normal, healthy penis. It is a shame that he advocates and has been involve
in facilitating the circumcision of non-consenting individuals. The Observer
should be ashamed that it has allowed the promotion of the violation of basic
human rights.
Isn't a trusted news source supposed to check the information it dispenses?
Since when does The Observer allow creative writers to have a personal blog?
I must reiterate how simply incredible it is that such an article was allowed to
be published.
I sincerely hope that somebody is reading these articles and that they have
better judgement in the future.
To: reader@observer.co.uk
Dear Sirs,
An article full of misinformation was published in the Observer by one Alex
Renton.
How is it that it was even passed as an article?
Alex Renton is plugs the virtues of circumcision without mentioning any of its
shortcomings. He also lies by omission. Why doesn't he mention African countries
where it was circumcised men where HIV prevailed? Countries like Cameroon,
Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania? Why doesn't he mention
the reality that the US, despite being a country with a primarily circumcised
male population, has a higher HIV rate than in the UK, where men are primarily
intact?
The cancer myth has been but debunked by the American Cancer Society.
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/acs/
And speaking about passing HIV to women, why does he choose to not mention that
women would be unprotected if a man is carrying HIV?
People not only wish to know pertinent medical information, they wish to know
accurate and correct information, something they can be sure not to get from
Alex Renton.
Alex Renton cannot tell a child what he doesn't remember. Circumcision hurts,
especially once the anaesthesia wears off. How exactly does he know that
President Obama is circumcised? And what does it matter to a boy in Africa who
will be at risk if he has unprotected sex whether he is circumcised or not?
This very article mentions that the procedure does not guarantee protection
against HIV. Even if it "reduced the chances of HIV," if circumcised men mustn't
stop using condoms, then what's the whole point? If condoms subplant
circumcision, why are millions of dollars being spent on circumcision instead of
condoms?
It sounds like Mr. Renton is trying to legitimize circumcision for himself as
well as for his audience. Even though this article was supposed to be about
supposed HIV preventative circumcision, he also feels the need to note the fact
that circumcision is an ancient tradition, as if that alone was enough to
warrant it. Slavery and the subjugation of women are also quite old. What is his
point?
And why does he compare four distinctly different Asian countries? Why doesn't
he mention Japan, where infant genital mutilation isn't practiced and their HIV
rates are lower than any of the countries he mentions? Convenience if you asked
me.
He mentions everything from syphilis, herpes and UTIs. Does he not know that
recent studies in Israel showed that UTIs were actually more prevalent in
circumcised boys?
http://www.icgi.org/2009/04/circumci...in-infant-uti/
Am I to understand that circumcised men get NONE of these diseases? Why doesn't
Mr. Renton mention the fact that the diseases he mentions are prevalent in the
US where most men are already circumcised?
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/20...all-.html#more
WHY does he mention a study from 1955 regarding cervical cancer but doesn't
bother to mention the fact that there is now gardasil, an actual vaccine againts
HPV?
And precisely what cells do viruses targets? Is he refering to the Langerhans
cells which actually BLOCK HIV???
http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/
None of what he mentions about mucous membranes and keratinization has ever been
proven. That a keratinized glans "blocks" HIV has only been speculated.
And I'm supposed to take his word for it about his "friend?" How about the rest
of the UK? Is everyone "bursting in a geyser of blood" there?
The randomized trials in Africa show that circumcision FAILS. The studies are
flawed, but even if we said they weren't for the sake of argument, 40% of the
circumcised men in the studies still got HIV. In other words, circumcision is
like a condom that fails 40% of the time. 60% is a very poor showing for any
immunity. No drug can ever clame to be an immunization or prevetative against a
disease if it only provides a 60% protection. And furthermore, the 60%
protection rate would only apply for the time frame in which the trials
tookplace. Circumcision doesn't work like a vaccine, making the body immune to
the HIV virus.
Alex Renton presents Dr. Halperin as if he has no conflict of interest; Dr.
Halperin is Jewish, and would have to have circumcised his son because of
religious convictions anyway.
The biggest flaw in the African "studies" is that biased, self-serving
researchers were not looking for a better HIV prevention method; that
circumcision prevented HIV was a forgone conclusion.
Even IF, these studies held any water, even IF the studies indicate that
circumcision reduces the chances of getting HIV, how are they relevant in
infants who are not even sexually active?
And finally, Mr. Renton trivializes the circumcision procedure. Circumcision is
the removal of the prepuce; a substantial piece of flesh that can be as big as
3x5 inches in an adult male. The prepuce has over 20,000 specialized nerve
endings that are removed during circumcision. It also removes mucous membrane,
leaving a man with an exposed glans that hardens and keratinizes over time,
necessitating lubrication for sexual activities and reducing his sexual
sensation for the rest of his life. Circumcision permanently alters the state of
the normal, healthy penis. It is a shame that he advocates and has been involve
in facilitating the circumcision of non-consenting individuals. The Observer
should be ashamed that it has allowed the promotion of the violation of basic
human rights.
Isn't a trusted news source supposed to check the information it dispenses?
Since when does The Observer allow creative writers to have a personal blog?
I must reiterate how simply incredible it is that such an article was allowed to
be published.
I sincerely hope that somebody is reading these articles and that they have
better judgement in the future.
To: letters@observer.co.uk
How is it that this even passes as an article? Nevermind the flawed "studies"
with which he tries to legitimize circumcision in Africa to prevent HIV. Does he
not know that recent studies in Israel, of all places, showed that circumcision
actually INCREASES UTIs? Does he not know that girls have a higher propensity
for UTIs than boys, whether they've been circumcised or not? Does he not know
that UTIs are an easily treatable condition?
Does he not know about gardasil, an actual vaccine that prevents HPV? Does he
not know that HIV rates are higher in America, where most males are circumcised,
than in the UK, where most males are not? He compares four distinct countries in
Asia, but conveniently decides to leave out Japan, where HIV rates are low
despite the fact that circumcision isn't practiced there.
Alex Renton is an outright liar. How exactly can he tell a child what he doesn't
remember? Circumcision hurts, especially once the anaesthesia wears off. How
exactly does he know that President Obama is circumcised? And what does it
matter to a boy in Africa who will be at risk if he has unprotected sex whether
he is circumcised or not? I'm supposed to take his word for it about his
"friend?" How about the rest of the UK? Is everyone "bursting in a geyser of
blood" there?
It appears Mr. Renton is trying to legitimize circumcision for himself as well
as for his audience. Even though this article was supposed to be about supposed
HIV preventative circumcision, he also feels the need to note the fact that
circumcision is an ancient tradition, as if that alone was enough to warrant it.
Slavery and the subjugation of women are also quite old. What is his point?
Alex Renton presents Dr. Halperin as if he has no conflict of interest; Dr.
Halperin is Jewish, and would have to have circumcised his son because of
religious convictions anyway. The biggest flaw in the African "studies" is that
biased, self-serving researchers were not looking for a better HIV prevention
method; they were looking to legitimize circumcision.
The randomized trials in Africa show that circumcision FAILS. The studies are
flawed, but even if we said they weren't for the sake of argument, 40% of the
circumcised men in the studies still got HIV. In other words, circumcision is
like a condom that fails 40% of the time.
60% is a very poor showing for any immunity. No drug can ever clame to be an
immunization or prevetative against a disease if it only provides a 60%
protection. And furthermore, the 60% protection rate would only apply for the
time frame in which the trials tookplace. Circumcision doesn't work like a
vaccine, making the body immune to the HIV virus.
Even IF the studies indicate that circumcision reduces the chances of getting
HIV, how are they relevant in infants who are not even sexually active?
And finally, Mr. Renton trivializes the circumcision procedure. Circumcision is
the removal of the prepuce. This organ that he disrespectfully calls a "slug" is
a substantial piece of flesh that can be as large as 3x5 inches in an adult
male. The prepuce has over 20,000 specialized nerve endings that are removed
during circumcision. It also removes mucous membrane, leaving a man with an
exposed glans that hardens and keratinizes over time, necessitating lubrication
for sexual activities and reducing his sexual sensation for the rest of his
life. Circumcision permanently alters the state of the normal, healthy penis. It
is a shame that he advocates and has been involve in facilitating the
circumcision of non-consenting individuals.
The Observer should be ashamed that it has allowed the promotion of the
violation of basic human rights. It should be ashamed for allowing Alex Renton
to boast the fact that he was successful in convincing his cousin to mutilate
his newborn son.
I frequently read the Guardian. This one-sided article shocked me.
I sent this letter in.
-zahn
Dear Sir,
I took a look at Alex Renton's article on HIV and circumcision. I can tell you
you should do your due diligence before publishing such bunk. At least you
should look to have opposing views expressed.
I can say as an American male who was circumcised at birth 45 years ago and now
mostly restored, circumcision robs men of sexual pleasure. Not just some of it,
almost all of it. The foreskin is the among the most nerve-laden structures in
the human body. I believe the foreskin (the prepuce) is actually a specialized
organ similar to the tongue. If you will take a look at the difference between a
circumcised penis next to an intact one, you will notice a stark difference. The
circumcised one has a callus right where the most sensitive mucosa should be.
You are condemned to a lifetime of sub-optimal pleasure during sex. Wearing a
condom is a non-starter. You might as well not bother.
The HIV results are disputed. There are plenty of opponents, and you will be
able to read some opinions on my web site
www.stopthecut.org and have a look at some photos. I am hoping that you
article has not led to any infants or children having a genital surgery forced
upon them.
What you are not including is the criticism that these researchers are taking
results from their so-called experiments in Africa and extrapolating
hypothetical results to western societies, touting it as essentially a lifetime
condom that you never take off. Well sir as a circumcised male I can tell you
this isn't so. How does HIV act in circumcised USA, the most circumcised western
country in the world? Well look at the numbers. You will see that the rates of
infection are highest right here.
The truth is that you will always find people looking for reasons to cut boy's
genitals. Those reasons change, but the recommendation is always the same: more
infant genital mutilation.
I hope that you will consider publishing a counterpoint to this article.
Sincerely,
Dr Devin Savage
stopthecut.org