“I think that’s an example of, as you’ve put it yourself, beginning by assuming to be true a priori that which you’re trying to prove.”
I’m afraid denial and feigning dissimulation will not erase your recorded past, Jake, sorry…
” what do you mean by “make it a point to legitimize the deliberate destruction’? For example, if a scientist researches whether circumcision affects a given disease, is he “making it a point to legitimize deliberate destruction”?”
If he writes failed study after failed study until he gets one with the positive results he’s looking for, as opposed to investigating other more effective, less invasive modes of prevention, yeah, I’d say he’s on a mission. Scientists should be seeking to prevent disease, not devalue the human body.
“Or does he have to do something else? If so, what? (And if you could explain in non-inflammatory terms, that would be greatly appreciated.)”
So glad you asked! Each researcher has their own different reasons for wanting to produce “research” with positive results for circumcision, but I’ve narrowed it down to four major reasons.:
1, cultural bias; an author may be part of a culture where circumcision is the norm. He may be circumcised himself, or she may have allowed her male children to be circumcised, or s/he may be married to a circumcised spouse. There is a determination to justify what has happened to one’s self, what happened to a partner, or what s/he may have allowed to his/her children.
2. Religious bias; this one’s easy. It is no secret that circumcision is important to Islam, some African tribal cultures, and it is central to Judaism. In fact, Jews cling tenaciously to the practice, and mark in their history times when governments in the countries in which they lived tried to ban it. Especially in the recent past, circumcision has been heavily scrutinized, as you see it happening here, and “religious freedom” and “parental choice” are no longer valid alibis for the circumcision of children. For this reason, even the most devout rabbis cite “research” of the so-called “benefits” of circumcision. Pseudo-medical reason is necessary because Jews can no longer claim religious immunity. It is no surprise, then, that a disproportionate number of “researchers” and authors of “studies” that “prove” circumcision is “medically beneficial” happen to be Jewish. Throughout the history of circumcision as “medicine,” a number of Jewish “researchers” have tried to associate circumcision with the prevention of some horrific disease. Abraham Wolbarst was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that circumcision rendered males immune to penile cancer, for example. In response to the fact that many physicians were speaking out against circumcision, and the fact that insurance companies started dropping coverage for circumcision, Aaron J. Fink started heavily promoting the idea that circumcision prevents HIV transmission, which he admits even at the time, that he had no proof for. (Note: There still is no proof.) Other Jewish scientists, such as Daniel Halperin took this idea and ran with it. Edgar Schoen has tried to sell the idea that countries should adopt “mass circumcision” for all boys in many countries, but he was rejected wherever he went. He has tried to use his influence to sway the AAP, and is responsible for their currently wishy-washy stance (the AAP took a firmer stance against the practice, but they changed their tune as soon as Schoen became chair of the AAP Circumcision Taskforce.) Operation Abraham from Israel is busy trying to promote circumcision as HIV prevention in Africa, and they’ve gone to other countries, such as the USA and countries in South America to do this. Tsemeret Fuerst heads the PrePex company which currently hopes to circumcise 20 million Africans in the so-called name of HIV prevention. Pure coincidence? A genuine interest in disease prevention? Or strategic insulation of a practice historically controversial for Jews? Readers need to read up on the history and decide for themselves.
Readers should note: Circumcision is very important to all Jews, even Jews that call themselves “non-practicing,” “agnostic” and/or “atheist.” Jewish anthropologist Leonard Glick notes in his book Marked in Your Flesh how even “atheist” Jews will circumcise their children just to please the family and social circles in which they live. The conviction to defend circumcision runs deep, even for Jews who say they are non-practicing.
3. Finance: the most obvious one. Of course, if circumcision is your livelihood, you don’t want to report negative findings. You want nothing but positive findings, and have financial incentive to not publishing negative findings, if not outright deny them. Circumcision is a money maker; doctors can charge from 100 US dollars to 300, but figures of 400 to 500 are not unheard of. It’s a relatively simple procedure that does only take a few minutes, and doctors can do a few at a time. In America alone, 1.3 million boys are circumcised annually. At a dollar a head, that’s already 1.3 million dollars. Now multiply that by 100, and that figure grows exponentially. 300 or 500, and that’s even more.
And that’s just the procedure; circumcision entails procedure-specific equipment and utensils. The clamps used aren’t free, for example. The circ*mstraint board to which they tie the child for the operation also costs money. In Africa, where “mass circumcision” campaigns are being carried out, there is the necessity for “circumcision packs” that manufacturers prepare and sell. Some manufacturers of circumcision equipment are vying for a piece of the HIV fund pie. David Tomlinson wants to sell his AccuCirc device there for example. (He happens to be the “chief expert on circumcision,” at the World Health Organization. Go figure…) PrePex is hoping to sell 20 million devices at around 20 to 30 US dollars each. Malaysian manufacturers were trying to market the TaraKlamp in Kwazulu Natal. Will these companies be interested in negative figures for circumcision? Can they be trusted in fully informing the African men they’re trying to circumcise?
4. And finally, a bias sicker than the rest; circumfetishism. There are those on the Internet who have a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. Some call them circumfetishists. They gather in groups to discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap erotic fiction and trade videotapes of actual circumcisions, and justify circumcision and their enthusiasm for it by wrapping it in pseudo-scientific jargon. Gilgal Society is one such group, based in the UK.
Other circumfetish groups exist, such as Circlist, Acorn Society, and the Cutting Club, and they openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masoch*stic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members. Furthermore, there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys’ penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy’s future sexual life.
(The paragraph above is an excerpt from “In Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice,” Denniston GC, Hodges FM and Milos MF eds., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, New York; 425-454)
Very recently, head of Gilgal Society Vernon Quaintance was caught with graphic footage of child abuse. People in the know can only imagine what was on those tapes.
Vernon Quaintance is only the beginning. It ought to concern people that many prominent “circumcision experts” are members of, or closely associated with Gilgal Society, and/or other circumfetish groups. Some circumcision “experts” would like their audience to believe that they are “objective,” “impartial,” and/or “dispassionate” authorities on the matter of circumcision, when, in fact, they are passionate circumcision enthusiasts, quite a few who are members of circumfetish groups, such as mentioned above.
Jake Waskett can be included as a member of CircList, and as someone who closely corresponds (corresponded?) with Vernon Quaintance. Some conversations between them are available on record.
Jake closely associates with Australian circumcision enthusiast Brian Morris, who, up until recently, used to publish pamphlets where his name appeared along side the Gilgal Society logo. Brian Morris has since tried to scrub clean any association he had with Gilgal Society.
The peculiar thing about the pamphlets Brian Morris used to put out is that the names of many prominent circumcision “researchers” and people who claim to be “experts” on circumcision appear on them.
Bertran Auvert, Robert Bailey, and Daniel Halperin appear as authors. These are some of the prominent men who are flooding the medical literature with “studies” that say circumcision “reduces HIV transmission,” as well as other diseases.
Thomas Wiswell, author of debunked circumcision/UTI “research” that has been long dismissed by authorities such as the AAP, appears as an author on one of the Morris/Gilgal pamphlets.
So does Edgar Schoen.
So does Jake Waskett.
To see the pamphlets that Brian Morris used to distribute up until today, go here:
http://circleaks.org/images/e/e5/Gilgal_For_Women_leaflet.pdf
http://circleaks.org/images/c/c8/Gilgal_Parents-Guide.pdf
“Bias” or pure “coincidence?”
Conspiracy in theory? Or conspiracy in fact?
Am I crazy for concluding that all of these “researchers” are in this together?
I’ll let the readers decide.
“I find it very amusing that you’re trying to tell me what I think. (Or perhaps you’re about to tell me that I don’t find it amusing. I wait with interest to find out what I think!)”
What I find amusing is how you’re trying to pretend to be dissimulated; like people don’t actually know what you think!
You’re on record, sir, explain yourself.
Or not, you can keep denying what we know about you, it’s your choice…
“Yes, those arguing for circumcision in the past have cited evidence in support of their position.”
More accurately, they tried to garner support for their pre-determined position by writing “research” that others would see through in the future. They were looking to push an agenda, not find any new knowledge or information about the human body. Often “researchers” have ulterior motives that aren’t declared on their “research.”
“Similarly, those arguing against have likewise cited evidence in support of their arguments.”
Those arguing against spend most of their time trying to undo the lies that circumcision “researchers” have spun. Remember, it is circumcision advocates who have an action to defend.
“Some of the evidence cited in the distant past was extremely poor, by modern standards.”
Sooner or later, “evidence” is going to be futile.
There would never be enough “evidence” or “medical benefits” for health organizations to endorse female genital cutting; human rights and ethics would take precedence.
Thanks to the discussions like these which are finally happening, the same will be true of male circumcision.
“I find it interesting that you make this accusation only against your opponents.”
It shouldn’t be too surprising; remember, those against circumcision are defending a non-action. History shows it is circumcision advocates who have an axe to grind.
“In reality, I think it’s always possible that anyone will lie…”
But circumcision advocates have way more incentive; there is a lot more at stake for them. Coming to terms that one has been mutilated or has allowed his/her children to be mutilated, revising “thousands of years of tradition,” losing an easy, hefty stipend, facing lawsuits etc.
What is at stake for us? Do we have some sort of ritual where we sow on a foreskin onto a baby? What “tradition” do we make out of an unconscious non-action? (We don’t celebrate allowing a child to keep his/her eyelids, ears, nose, labia, those are just normal parts of the human body…) What money do those who advocate leaving healthy organs alone have to lose? What lawsuits do doctors have to face for not reaping profit from not performing surgery on a healthy patient?
Who has more of an incentive to lie?
I leave readers with this question.
“…but it’s unlikely, and the potential consequences are serious, which generally keeps people honest.”
At least in theory.
Potential consequences are serious for those who get CAUGHT. And even then, history is full of examples where people use loopholes people can use to evade responsibility. Yitzchok Fischer is still at large, even though he killed a baby by infecting his circumcision wound with herpes via oral suction, and it’s been reported he has killed a few more babies, and hospitalized others. The Jewish community will not allow the city of New York to issue a warning against the practice of traditional oral suction lest they claim “anti-Semitism.”
It would be nice if people faced consequences for their actions; then maybe people would be more honest.
Most unfortunately, that’s just not the way the world works…
“I’d agree to a certain extent, but there is a difference between “pointing out a conflict of interest” and “making a personal attack”.”
There is. And you can’t pout “personal attack” every time people point out yours.
“You seem to think, judging by your actions here and elsewhere, that you can make whatever attacks you like as long as you call them “conflicts of interest”.”
And you seem to think you can evade having to declare your conflicts of interest by claiming “personal attacks.”
“Claiming that someone is biased and refusing to back that up with evidence is a classic example of a personal attack.”
Actually, wherever possible, I provide links to my claims. It is not my fault you disregard records of your own past as evidence.
Answer the questions posed to you about yourself instead of running in a cave screaming “personal attack.”
Who are you, Jake Waskett?
What are your credentials?
Where did you go to school?
With what authority do you feel you can make medical value judgements?
With what authority do you take a position against the medical organizations in the West?
Why should anyone take your word over Brian Earp? Boyle and Hill? Sorrels? Van Howe and Storms?
Are you an epidemiologist? A pediatrician? A surgeon? A urologist? Surely you must at least have SOME kind of medical degree?
What is it?
What is your affiliation with Brian Morris of the University of Sidney?
What correspondence do you have with him?
What is Gilgal Society?
Who is Vernon Quaintance?
What is your affiliation with him?
What is CircList?
Tell us about your affiliation, or non-affiliation with CircList and Gilgal Society.
Who is Dr. Zarifah?
Tell us, Jake Waskett.
Answer these questions, and then tell us why they should not be considered “conflict of interest,” but a “personal attack.”
I’ll repeat what WikiPedia has to say on “Ad hominem” (AKA: personal attack):
Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an “authority” needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.
Don’t hide your answers, Jake Waskett. Concealment of them is a problem.
“but, as you freely admit, you’re passionately opposed to what you view as genital mutilation, so the personal attacks you make in pursuit of truth and respect are awfully convenient for your cause…”
They are not “personal attacks” if they are TRUE, Jake.
Now, answer the questions posed to you.
Watch you evade and not answer a one.
Coward.
“…believe what you choose, Joseph. I’m sure you will anyway.”
Answer, Jake.
Type in the reply box that you don’t know what I’m talking about.
Do it.
Intactivists are recording your every step. You know that right?
Your words are on record.
“the goal should be to make our biases unimportant.”
The goal should be to declare our biases so that people can verify the objectivity of their sources.
“‘A bias will also cause one to apply faulty logic, skewed mathematics and misrepresent evidence, if even present it at all’ — really? It “will” cause one to do so? That’s an extraordinary claim to make.”
It shouldn’t be too surprising…
But then again, a skunk can’t smell its own stink…
Or maybe it does but will continue to deny it anyway…
“I’m not sure if that’s true, but what of others, Joseph.”
Worry about yourself first.
“What about people who only present circumcision in a negative light. Do people need to know about that, too?”
Yes, others need to know about people who only present circumcision in a negative light, and why.
The difference here is, said people don’t actually deny their interests, like you do.
“I’d suggest that you’re asking the wrong questions. You’re essentially asking which position is morally superior (in your extremely one-sided framing of the issue), but that’s not the same question as who is biased.”
No, I think the questions I asked were quite clear, and they do not need to be re-interpreted.
Circumcision was not discovered yesterday; it has history and people have fought to defend and preserve it. It is a money maker. It is the object of some people’s sexual fantasies.
While having a foreskin is a non-action, circumcision is a forced phenomenon.
The question I pose remains; readers need to study up on the history of circumcision.
Who has an incentive to lie?
Who has more to lose from the discrediting of circumcision?
Who has more to gain from making it indispensable?
“People can be biased in favour of what is “good” just as easily as they can be biased in favour of what is “bad”. For example, try asking a person a scientific question in such a way that there is an implication that a particular answer will save the life of a child. Most people will be biased towards giving that answer. That’s a morally good bias, but it’s still a bias.”
Yes, and people should know about them either way. And, as I’ve said, I’ve no problem letting people know what mine are; it’s concealing them that is a problem.
I find your above paragraph very interesting, as circumcision, particularly infant circumcision, is often presented by your colleague Brian Morris, as something that “saves lives.” I guess he’s trying to make the above theory work in his favor?
Actually, now that I think of it, the tactic of using the fear of death has been used since the dawn of the age of “circumcision research,” hasn’t it. It was used then, and it’s being used now.
It’s really easy to try and manipulate people by assuming what their biases are, and make them behave in a way that conforms to yours.
If you want to make people do something, find a way to make them believe that not doing it is going to kill someone…
But if a person is smart enough, they’ll realize that they’re becoming victims of a logical fallacy; presenting an “either-or” question is nothing more than bifurcation.
Circumcision isn’t the only way to prevent disease (if it indeed can be proven that it can…)
“‘If it can be proven to me scientifically, that circumcision indeed may have a “benefit,” I will accept; I have no choice.’ — I doubt that you’ll ever acknowledge the proof.”
Who is “assuming” who’s thoughts now?
When and if “researchers” can demonstrably prove that the foreskin soaks up HIV, and removing it “repels” it, I will stop doubting the “research” in Africa.
I will continue arguing that circumcision needs to be a grown man’s decision, that “researchers” need to use the data they discover to find alternatives to genital cutting, but I will stop doubting.
