Swedish Doctors Refuse to Circumcise

A survey recently conducted by the Swedish Pediatric Surgeons Association (Svensk Barnkirurgisk Förening) reports that almost 70% of pediatric surgeons do not want to perform male circumcision. Gunnar Göthberg, chairman of the association, regards female and male genital mutilation as equal violations, and views the surgical procedure as an assault upon a minor baby or child because it is done without medical need or his consent.

Dagens Nyheter (a newspaper in Sweden) reports that over half - 12 of 21 - local municipalities also refuse to perform male circumcision for non-medical reasons. There are approximately 3,000 circumcision surgeries that take place in Sweden each year (a relatively small number compared to the CDC reported 3,000,000 performed in the United States each year). Of these, approximately 2,000 are performed by individuals who are practicing without a medical license and are not physicians - adding to the circumcision risks and complications for the child at the end of the knife. [Often, U.S. circumcision surgery is also not performed by a surgeon, but by an intern/student to obtain the 'practice.']

Although circumcision of minor aged boys for non-medical reasons is permitted in Sweden, it is due in large part to the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) decision that a prohibition against genital cutting would be an illegal limitation on religious freedom. We'd have to argue that by allowing genital cutting to take place upon the bodies of minors, it places an immediate limitation on this child's religious freedom (among other things). Adults have the ability to partake in a faith of their choosing - but the right to practice my chosen religion ends where your body, and your rights, begin.

Critics of Sweden's current stance on genital cutting, point out that non-medically necessary circumcision is in violation of the United Nation's Declaration of the Rights of the Child.





Related Reading:

Faith Considerations on Circumcision (Islam, Judaism, Christianity)

Male Circumcision in the USA: A Human Rights Primer

Finland Parents and Circumciser Charged with Assault and Battery

Religious Reasons for Circumcision Could Breech Human Rights

~~~~

10 Reasons to go Diaper Free

Top 10 Reasons to Go Diaper Free
by Lisa Bobrow
Much has already been written about the advantages of not using diapers. If you have not yet heard about Elimination Communication, you may be crinkling up your nose right now, assuming that not using diapers means that parents get soiled, or that the whole house becomes a toilet. I assure you, this is not so. If it were, I highly doubt so many people would adopt this method of toilet learning. Here are the top 10 reasons I chose NOT to use diapers: *Reason #1: Diapers are Not Necessary If you are like me, you don't want your life cluttered up by piles and piles of unnecessary STUFF! Furthermore, you don't want to waste time doing "Stuff" that can easily be avoided with a more efficient system. Add diapers to your list of "Stuff"! The whole concept of diaper use is based on the idea that babies naturally pee and poo at random, with no awareness that they are doing so. This concept is completely false! In fact, babies have awareness and even some control over their elimination functions from birth. They will only lose this awareness if they are taught to use their diapers as a toilet. *Reason #2: Diapers are Not Comfortable Can you imagine walking around with a big, bulky, and often urine-soaked bundle between your legs all day long? Not to mention at night! Diapers are marketed to seem comfortable and clean. They are supposed to "stretch with your baby", and to never leak. On the surface it sounds clean, but what does it really imply? Absorbent disposable diapers are designed to hold a lot of pee, and to hold it right next to your baby's skin. Does that sound comfortable to you? People have frequently commented on how well my baby walks since he was 10 months old. I'm sure that not wearing diapers, as well as being carried in his sling as a tiny baby, has contributed to his agility. Not only does he not have the bulk to have to manoever around, but he has a very good sense of his own body. He has not had to disassociate himself from his body to be able to deal with the unpleasantness of "wearing" his bodily waste. *Reason #3: Your Baby is Happier Without A Diaper Your baby does not want to sit around in her own waste. Your baby does not want to lose touch with her body and bodily functions. Your baby DOES want to communicate with you, and she will, as long as you keep listening. *Reason #4: Communicating with Your Baby is FUN! It's so rewarding to meet your baby's needs. There is such a sense of achievement for a parent when they have understood and responded to the needs of a pre-verbal child. For the parent, it can seem almost like magic! For the baby, it means the world is safe and full of love. I will never forget when my baby was just 2 months old and I took him to the sink for pees. There is a big mirror there, and when he was finished I would often see his face light up with the biggest smile! *Reason #5: Your Baby Wants to Communicate with You While it does seem like magic sometimes, your baby actually EXPECTS to be able to communicate effectively with you. She signals when she is hungry so that you can feed her. She tells you when she wants to be held, rocked, carried, so that you can meet these needs too. Listening and responding to your baby's elimination cues is another way to strengthen the parent-infant bond. *Reason #6: Your Planet Wants You to Communicate with Your Baby Diapers are quite possibly right up there with car emissions as a leading cause of environmental destruction. Disposable diapers, of which children can go through up to 9000 before they are toilet trained, are cluttering up landfills at a disturbing rate. Cloth diapers, once embraced as the environmentally-friendly choice, are now thought to be at least as environmentally damaging as disposables because of the amount of water and energy that is needed to wash them. Helping your baby to eliminate into a toilet, sink, potty, or any other proper receptacle is the truly environmental choice. *Reason #7: Not Using Diapers Saves Money As well as saving trees, not using diapers can save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Even if you use diapers as a backup in case of "misses", you can reduce your diaper use, and thus the expense of diapers, significantly. How do you think mothers in less affluent areas of the globe afford diapers? They don't! The main reason these women don't use diapers, though, is that themselves and their cultures grasp Reason #1: Diapers are Not Necessary. *Reason #8: Not Using Diapers Saves Time Some people reject the idea of diaper-freedom because they believe that a baby not wearing a diaper needs to be constantly monitored for pees and poos. They have still not grasped the truth that babies do indeed KNOW when they have to go and WILL tell you. The time it takes to notice that your baby's diaper needs to be changed, find a suitable changing surface, undress your baby, clean your baby, put on a new diaper and re-dress your baby can add up to quite a bit of time! This is especially true if your baby does not enjoy diaper changes, like many babies do not, and if you are out of the house. It can be really hard to find a changing table! Cloth diapers then need to be rinsed and washed, which takes time. Disposable diapers need to be purchased at the store, with wages that were bought with time, and then carried home. When my baby signals that he needs to go, I simply take him to any proper receptacle, pull down his pants, pee him, and that's it! All in all it usually takes less than 1 minute. I find this method much more convenient than regular diaper use. *Reason #9: Diaper-Freedom is Healthy Not relying on diapers helps you to avoid the many problems that come with diaper use. These include physical problems like diaper rash, urinary tract infections and digestive problems, as well as the psychological trauma of diaper changes and conventional toilet training. *Reason #10: Diaper-Freedom is Enjoyable! I love not having to worry about diapers! I don't have to buy them, wash them, or remember to take them with me. I know that my baby is ALWAYS clean and dry. I love the fact that I am able to meet another of my baby's needs. My husband also 'pees' our baby as successfully as I do. I'm glad that he can meet this important need for our baby. My mother and even a former roommate of mine have also 'peed' my baby and found it a very enjoyable experience. To learn more about the How-To aspect of not using diapers, please read Laurie Boucke's synopsis of the method.

Schooled (Film Trailer): Exploring the Purpose of Unschooling

WORLD BREASTFEEDING WEEK: AUG 1-7 2009

WBW Theme for 2009
Breastfeeding: A Vital Emergency Response
Are you ready?

OBJECTIVES OF WORLD BREASTFEEDING WEEK 2009

• To draw attention to the vital role that breastfeeding plays in emergencies worldwide.
  
• To stress the need for active protection and support of breastfeeding before and during emergencies.
  
• To inform mothers, breastfeeding advocates, communities, health professionals, governments, aid agencies, donors, and the media on how they can actively support breastfeeding before and during an emergency.
  
• To mobilise action and nurture networking and collaboration between those with breastfeeding skills and those involved in emergency response.

RATIONALE

• Children are the most vulnerable in emergencies – child mortality can soar from 2 to 70 times higher than average due to diarrhoea, respiratory illness and malnutrition.
• Breastfeeding is a life saving intervention and protection is greatest for the youngest infants. Even in non-emergency settings, non-breastfed babies under 2 months of age are six times more likely to die.
• Emergencies can happen anywhere in the world. Emergencies destroy what is ‘normal,’ leaving caregivers struggling to cope and infants vulnerable to disease and death.
• During emergencies, mothers need active support to continue or re-establish breastfeeding.
• Emergency preparedness is vital. Supporting breastfeeding in non-emergency settings will strengthen mothers’ capacity to cope in an emergency.

OFFICIAL WORLD BREASTFEEDING SITE

BREASTFEEDING IS BEAUTIFUL SITE

Marie-Maude Grenier feeding her baby.

Daily sex helps to reduce sperm DNA damage and improve fertility

Provided by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology


Daily sex (or ejaculating daily) for seven days improves men’s sperm quality by reducing the amount of DNA damage, according to an Australian study presented today (Tuesday) to the 25th annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Amsterdam.

Until now there has been no evidence-based consensus amongst fertility specialists as to whether or not men should refrain from sex for a few days before attempting to conceive with their partner, either spontaneously or via assisted reproduction.

Dr David Greening, an obstetrician and gynaecologist with sub specialist training in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Sydney IVF, Wollongong, Australia, said: “All that we knew was that intercourse on the day of ovulation offered the highest chance of pregnancy, but we did not know what was the best advice for the period leading up to ovulation or egg retrieval for IVF.

“I thought that frequent ejaculation might be a physiological mechanism to improve sperm DNA damage, while maintaining semen levels within the normal, fertile range.”

To investigate this hypothesis, Dr Greening studied 118 men who had higher than normal sperm DNA damage as indicated by a DNA Fragmentation Index (DFI). Men who had a more than 15% of their sperm (DFI >15%) damaged were eligible for the trial. At Sydney IVF, sperm DNA damage is defined as less than 15% DFI for excellent quality sperm, 15-24% DFI for good, 25-29% DFI for fair and more than 29% DFI for poor quality; but other laboratories can have slightly different ranges.

The men were instructed to ejaculate daily for seven days, and no other treatment or lifestyle changes were suggested. Before they started, levels of DNA damage ranged between 15% and 98% DFI, with an average 34% DFI when measured after three days’ abstinence. When the men’s sperm was re-assessed on the seventh day, Dr Greening found that 96 men (81%) had an average 12% decrease in their sperm DNA damage, while 22 men (19%) and an average increase in damage of nearly 10%. The average for the whole group dropped to 26% DFI.

Dr Greening said: “Although the mean average was 26% which is in the ‘fair’ range for sperm quality, this included 18% of men whose sperm DNA damage increased as well as those whose DNA damage decreased. Amongst the men whose damage decreased, their average dropped by 12% to just under 23% DFI, which puts them in the ‘good’ range. Also, more men moved into the ‘good’ range and out of the ‘poor’ or ‘fair’ range. These changes were substantial and statistically highly significant.

“In addition, we found that although frequent ejaculation decreased semen volume and sperm concentrations, it did not compromise sperm motility and, in fact, this rose slightly but significantly.

“Further research is required to see whether the improvement in these men’s sperm quality translates into better pregnancy rates, but other, previous studies have shown the relationship between sperm DNA damage and pregnancy rates.

“The optimal number of days of ejaculation might be more or less than seven days, but a week appears manageable and favourable. It seems safe to conclude that couples with relatively normal semen parameters should have sex daily for up to a week before the ovulation date. In the context of assisted reproduction, this simple treatment may assist in improving sperm quality and ultimately achieving a pregnancy. In addition, these results may mean that men play a greater role in infertility than previously suspected, and that ejaculatory frequency is important for improving sperm quality, especially as men age and during assisted reproduction cycles.”

Dr Greening said he thought the reason why sperm quality improved with frequent ejaculation was because the sperm had a shorter exposure in the testicular ducts and epididymis to reactive oxygen species - very small molecules, high levels of which can damage cells. “The remainder of the men who had an increase in DFI might have a different explanation for their sperm DNA damage,” he concluded.

Uterine cells produce their own estrogen during pregnancy

Doctoral student Amrita Das (left), with veterinary biosciences professor Indrani Bagchi and molecular and integrative physiology professor Milan Bagchi, discovered that uterine cells synthesize estrogen during pregnancy. Credit: Photo by Diana Yates, U. of I. News Bureau

For decades, scientists assumed that the ovary alone produced steroid hormones during pregnancy. In a new study in mice, however, researchers demonstrate that once an embryo attaches to the uterine wall, the uterus itself actually synthesizes the estrogen needed to sustain the pregnancy.

This is the first time that the uterus has been identified as an endocrine organ, said University of Illinois veterinary biosciences professor Indrani Bagchi, who led the study with doctoral student Amrita Das. Their findings appear this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"It's the local estrogen that's critical in maintaining the growth of blood vessels within the uterus," Das said. After an embryo implants, the researchers found, this locally produced estrogen acts in concert with progesterone secreted from the ovaries to spur the differentiation of uterine stromal cells, a process called decidualization, and promotes the growth of blood vessels that support the development of the embryo.

The researchers discovered that during decidualization, mouse uterine stromal cells increase their expression of P450 aromatase, a key enzyme that acts with other enzymes to convert androgens to estrogen.

Even in pregnant mice that have had their ovaries removed, the production of uterine estrogen is able to support the growth and differentiation of the tissue and blood vessels needed to sustain the pregnancy.

Progesterone supplementation is required, however, indicating that local estrogen alone is not sufficient to maintain pregnancy.

Blocking the activity of the aromatase with an inhibitor also blocked decidualization, the researchers found, another indication that a successful pregnancy relies on estrogen production in uterine cells.

There are advantages to producing the appropriate amount of estrogen right where it is needed, rather than relying on the ovaries, Bagchi said.

"During pregnancy, the ovaries would need to secrete a high level of estrogen to ensure that the right amount of estrogen is present in the uterus to support decidualization," she said. "You can imagine that if the estrogen level goes high systemically, it could have a deleterious effect on pregnancy itself by antagonizing the progesterone action."

The findings may also be helpful to the study of endometriosis, said molecular and integrative physiology professor Milan Bagchi, an author on the study. This disorder involves the growth of endometrial tissue, which is normally shed during menstruation, at sites outside the uterus, such as the peritoneal cavity and ovaries, producing painful lesions.

Endometriosis is spurred, in part, by unusually high levels of estrogen secreted from endometrial tissue growing at these extrauterine sites, he said.

Except during pregnancy, "a normal cycling uterus does not make estrogen," he said. High estrogen levels block the activity of progesterone and can cause the
non-cancerous growth of tissue seen in endometriosis.

Source: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The Meat of AP (Attachment Parenting)

By Rita Brhel

I first came to Attachment Parenting like most parents do – because it felt wrong to let my baby cry herself to sleep and it felt good to hold her all the time. And I came to Attachment Parenting International, because gosh, there are a whole lot of people in the world who feel compelled to criticize the way I raise my children.

It was through my membership to API, plus a whole bookcase full of parenting books and neuropsychology texts, that I learned exactly what Attachment Parenting is: that it isn’t just a feel-good approach to parenting. It is a set of eight parenting principles proven by science to raise our children to be well-adjusted, emotionally healthy members of society who are able to establish and maintain secure attachments with other adults and their future children. (Read Attached at the Heart by Barbara Nicholson and Lysa Parker to learn more about what the research says.)

We hear a lot about these attachments? What exactly are they, and why are they so important? Attachment is the emotional bond between two people in a relationship – in this case, between the parent and child. A relationship can either be healthy and stable, producing a secure attachment; or it can be stifling, violent, or otherwise dysfunctional, which indicates an insecure attachment. Relationships are absolutely vital to our individual happiness in life – they determine our success in school, our careers, our friendships, and our marriages – and our ability to attach to other people in a healthy way and maintain that attachment over the long term is absolutely vital to our relationships.

Humans are social creatures, and our ability to connect with others is what our lives are really about. We must know how to navigate our relationships in order to feel fulfilled in our lives. That’s why people who are unable to establish and maintain attachments fall victim to depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions, dysfunctional relationships, and other unhealthy behaviors in an attempt to avoid despair and loneliness as they seek happiness that they can’t find without first repairing their ability to form healthy attachments to others.

That’s the real meat of Attachment Parenting. AP parents don’t opt for a natural birth because they want to martyr for their child. They don’t breastfeed their babies simply as a way to transfer the health-boosting qualities of breastmilk. They don’t wear their babies in slings and wraps to make a fashion statement. AP parents don’t cosleep with their children because they’re afraid of bedtime battles. And they don’t decide not to spank or use timeouts as a way to get around having to discipline at all. On the contrary, we do all these practices and more because they are instrumental in guiding a child’s healthy emotional development (not to mention, their physical and cognitive development as well). We want our children to be happy, to be joyful, to be content. Wow! What a gift a parent can give to her child – the secret to true happiness.

But it doesn’t come without work, and as we know, it doesn’t come without criticism. We are salmon swimming upstream against the current of a parenting culture that advocates early independence, emotional detachment, and discipline through punishments. It isn’t that our culture doesn’t want our children to be happy but that it defines happiness in a different way: independence. The sad thing is, it is this striving for early independence – and consequently, rejection of emotional attachments – that leads so many people to live unfulfilled lives. AP allows parents to change the way they measure their child’s happiness – away from the culture’s standards and toward a sense of self worth that begins within the individual and the quality of his relationships – and gives parents the tools they need to be able to raise children into loving, empathic, compassionate, and nurturing adults who truly experience joy in their lives.

So, yeah, practicing AP does feel good but there’s a whole lot more substance to it. I enjoy cuddling with my children, but beyond that, I know that touch is crucial for babies and children to feel emotionally connected with their parents, and that connectedness – that is what I’m going for.


Related Reading from Brhel:

1. Nuzzle closer dear…
2. Parenting Courage
3. The Transformation of a High-Needs Child

African HIV & Circumcision Study Ends Early - Too many women becoming infected

It is unbelievable that we believe it is okay to go run our 'studies' on African men/women by selectively cutting/not cutting their genitals, and then watching to see who gets/does not get sexually transmitted diseases... all the while we KNOW that condoms (not circumcision) protect against HIV. We KNOW that the prepuce organ protects against viral and bacterial invasion. We KNOW that one of its primary functions is protection and that when we cut it off, we see disease/illness/infection increase. We have decades upon decades of research demonstrating this. Yet we still sit back and stubbornly ignore the opportunities to put our money/time/resources into proper (accurate, reliable) HIV/condom education and acquisition. Instead, we just keep cutting up penises...Obsessed with this cutting, even when all evidence shows we are doing more harm than good. What is our problem??

BTW - what 'previous research' suggested women could be protected from HIV if their partner was circumcised? Purely ridiculous insanity.

Published: 2009/07/16

HIV circumcision study ends early

Circumcising men who already have HIV does not protect their female partners from the virus, a study in Uganda has found.

The research, from the Lancet, has shown no benefit in men who already had the virus and was stopped early because of the continued risk to women.

Experts say HIV-positive men should still be offered circumcision, but also warned to use condoms.

The US researchers, from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, say not offering the procedure to men with HIV would stigmatize them.

Other experts say it could become a "sign" of whether a man was HIV positive or not.

Healing

Previous research had suggested women could be protected from HIV if their partner was circumcised.

In this study, 922 uncircumcised, HIV-infected, asymptomatic men aged 15-49 years with HIV were enrolled in the Rakai district of Uganda.

Men were then selected to have immediate circumcision (474 men) or to be given circumcision after two years (448 men).

Almost 170 uninfected female partners of the men were also enrolled, and followed up at six, 12, and 24 months.

However, the trial was ended early because of what the researchers called the "futility" of carrying on, and the second group were not circumcised.

Only 92 couples in the immediate circumcision group and 67 in the control group were included in the final analysis.

It was found that a higher proportion of women were infected with HIV in the intervention group (18%) versus the control group (12%).

The researchers suggest the higher transmission rate could have been due to couples resuming their sex lives before the circumcision would have properly healed.

Abstinence

Writing in the Lancet, the team led by Dr Maria Wawer said: "Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed."

They said it was not sensible to recommend men with HIV should not be circumcised, or that there should be any down-scaling of circumcision programmes, because of the overall benefits to both uninfected men and to women.

But they added: "It's inevitable that men who are infected with HIV will also require to be circumcised, partly to avoid stigmatisation.

"The findings suggest that strict adherence to sexual abstinence during wound healing, and continuous condom use thereafter must be strongly promoted when HIV-infected men receive circumcision."

They suggest a solution would be to circumcise as early as possible.

"Circumcising infants and young boys before their sexual debut would mitigate the challenge of male circumcision in HIV-infected men.

"However, this strategy would require careful consideration of issues relating to parental consent and the minor's consent."

In an editorial in the journal, a team from the University of Washington in Seattle, led by Dr Jared Baeten said the findings should not "hinder" the use of circumcision in HIV prevention programmes.

Victoria Sheard of the UK's Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "Circumcision is most often used as an HIV prevention tool in the developing world, where it can be difficult to get hold of condoms. However, it shouldn't be seen as a stand-alone strategy. Women are disproportionately affected by HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, and - as this study shows - will still be at risk whether their partners are circumcised or not. The best way to guard against HIV is by always using a condom, so more work is needed to ensure adequate protection is available for those who need it the most."

Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes

CNSNews.com

Thursday, July 16, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

There is a knock at the front door. Peeking through the window, a mother sees a man and a woman, both in uniform. They are agents of health-care reform.

“Excuse me, ma’am,” says the man. “Our records show that your eleven-year-old daughter has not been immunized for genital warts.”

“And your four-year-old still needs the chicken-pox vaccine,” says the woman.

“He will not be allowed to start kindergarten unless he gets that shot, you know,” says the man—smiling from ear to ear.

“So, can we please come in?” asks the woman. “We have the vaccines right here,” she says, lifting up a black medical bag. “We can give your kids the shots right now.”

“We are from the government,” says the man, “and we’re here to help.”

Is this a scene from the over-heated imagination of an addlepated conspiracy theorist? Or is it something akin to what is actually envisioned by the health-care reform bill approved this week by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee.

The committee’s official summary of the bill says: “Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage. Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based interventions. States may use funds to implement interventions that are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits.”

Home visits? What exactly is the state going to do when it sends people to “implement interventions” in private homes designed “to improve immunization coverage of children”?

The draft of the bill posted on the committee Web site provides more details.

Title III of the bill is entitled, “Improving the Health of the American People.” It includes four subtitles. They are: “Subtitle A: Modernizing Disease Prevention of Public Health Systems,” “Subtitle B: Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services,” “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities,” and “Subtitle D: Support for Prevention and Public Health Information.”

The program authorizing home “interventions” to promote immunizations falls under “Subtitle C: Creating Healthier Communities.” This subtitle directs the secretary of health and human services to “establish a demonstration program to award grants to states to improve the provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based interventions for high-risk populations.”

The bill lists eight specific ways that states may use federal grant money to carry out immunization-promoting “interventions.” Method “E” calls for “home visits” which can include “provision of immunizations.”

Says the draft bill: “Funds received under a grant under this subsection shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions, including—“(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target populations of clients, patients, and consumers; (B) educating targeted populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in combination with one or more other interventions; (C) reducing out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their administration; (D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education, provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization;(E) providing for home visits that promote immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals, provision of immunizations, or other services; (F) providing reminders or recalls for immunization providers;(G) conducting assessments of, and providing feedback to, immunization providers; or (H) any combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph.”

Many vaccines routinely administered to children in the United States are utterly uncontroversial. But in recent years there have been controversies about the chicken pox vaccine and the vaccine for HPV, which causes genital warts, which can cause cervical cancer.

On March 15, 2007, Bloomberg news summarized a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which discovered that the chicken pox vaccine does not provide permanent protection against chicken pox, leaving children who have been immunized vulnerable to getting ill with the virus later in life when it can cause a more serious bout of the disease.

“Merck & Co.'s chickenpox vaccine weakens as children age, possibly leaving them vulnerable to a more serious infection as adults, a U.S.-sponsored study in California found,” reported Bloomberg. “The power of the vaccine, Varivax, the only one available in the United States against chickenpox, starts to fade after five years, according to the study in today's New England Journal of Medicine. The results suggest that children should get a second dose, which advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended in June.”

Bloomberg quoted the study as saying, "Waning immunity is of particular public health interest because it may result in increased susceptibility later in life, when the risk of severe complications may be greater than that in childhood.”

In March of this year, the Washington Post reported about the controversy sparked when the Merck pharmaceutical company campaigned to have states mandate that school girls receive Gardasil, its vaccine against HPV.

“Merck also began an ambitious marketing campaign and lobbying push to persuade states to add the vaccine to the list of those required for children to attend school,” reported the Post. “But the company eventually abandoned the strategy in the face of an intense backlash from critics who argued that the decision should be left to parents. Although many states considered such mandates, so far only Virginia and the District have imposed one, and [a Merck official] said the company has no plans to pursue that strategy again."

The Post's report noted that at least some experts questioned the wisdom of promoting use of the vaccine when its long term impact is still unknown.

“Federal health officials, Merck and others say they are confident that the vaccine is safe," reported the Post. "But some experts said they are concerned that there is insufficient evidence about how long Gardasil's protection will last, whether serious side effects will emerge and whether the relatively modest benefits for boys are worth even the small risks associated with any vaccine."

The Sexual Effects of Circumcision

via The National Organization of Circumcision Information Research Centers of Colorado

New study shows circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
Press Release, Full Study (PDF).

George C. Denniston, M.D., MPH, commented, "This new study provided further evidence of the permanent and irreversible lifelong injury of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision and raises grave ethical questions regarding the continued performance of child circumcision. We call upon the American Academy of Pediatrics to defend children from this practice."

This chart shows the difference in sensitivity between a circumcised penis and an intact (uncircumcised) one. The most sensitive parts of the intact penis are missing from the circumcised penis. Visit Circumstitions for more information about this new study.

Penile Sensitivity: Intact vs Circumcised

A change to how the penis works

Circumcision removes one-third to one-half of the penile skin system. This drastically alters the normal functioning of the penis and causes problems for both men and their partners. Male circumcision reduces pleasure for men and increases vaginal friction and discomfort for women.

The skin of the penis is not attached to the erectile bodies inside the shaft; it is only connected to the underlying structures at either end of the penis: at the pelvis and at the base of the glans. This means that the longer skin of an intact (uncircumcised) penis can freely move back and forth along the penile shaft during intercourse. The skin of a circumcised penis lacks the required length, and is usually stretched taught when the penis is erect. This radically alters the normal function of the penile skin system.

The 'gliding action' allowed by the foreskin's length is the hallmark mechanical feature of the natural human penis. The non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of its own sheath of skin facilitates smooth, comfortable, and pleasurable intercourse for both partners. The gliding action stimulates the penis and provides a lubricating effect for intercourse.

Circumcision destroys this by removing so much skin that the remaining skin on the erect penis is stretched tight and no longer mobile. Circumcised men don't experience the wonderful sensation of the highly erogenous foreskin rolling back and forth across the glans, and the man's partner loses out on the natural lubricating effect the foreskin provides.

See the anatomy page at cirp.org for diagrams of how the foreskin works during intercourse.

Lost / Found Informational cards at Etsy for education and awareness raising.

A change to how intercourse works

During intercourse with an intact penis, the vaginal walls grip the outer penile skin, and the penis slides back and forth inside its own skin. This causes very little friction against the vaginal walls. This motion is smooth and effortless and creates a very pleasurable sensation for both the man and the woman. Women who have had intercourse with an intact man describe a sensation of being perfectly and seamlessly connected to their partner.

During intercourse with a circumcised penis, the skin on the penile shaft rubs back and forth against the vaginal walls, and this is often the cause of sexual discomfort for women. Many women whose partners are circumcised need artificial lubrication to reduce friction and discomfort, but for women who have intact partners, artificial lubrication is unnecessary. Because few women in America have experienced intercourse with a natural penis, most don't understand that circumcision is a major cause of uncomfortable vaginal friction.

Studies have shown that women who have intact partners have greater levels of sexual satisfaction than women who have circumcised partners. They also have greater success reaching orgasm through intercourse. A recent survey showed that of American women who had experienced both kinds of intercourse, 89% preferred intercourse with an intact penis. These women also reported improved success at achieving orgasm through intercourse with an intact penis. Also see what Dr. Dean Edell had to say on this subject.

See Also: Intact or Circumcised: A Significant Difference in the Adult Penis

Loss of erogenous tissue and sensation

Men also experience many detrimental physical and sexual changes because of circumcision. The most serious change for men is a significant reduction in sexual pleasure. The foreskin, which is removed during circumcision, contains many thousands of erogenous nerve endings. Approximately half of a man's capacity for pleasure is cut away by circumcision. These nerves are cut away by both infant and adult circumcision.

Men who were circumcised at birth are never able to experience the sensations these nerves provide, and so don't know that they are only feeling about half of the pleasure that an intact penis provides. Some circumcised men claim that they have all the sensation they could want, but that is like a color-blind man convincing himself that there is no such thing as color vision and that he can see perfectly with his eyes just as they are.

Men circumcised as adults are able to describe the reduction in pleasure caused by circumcision.
The intact penis provides a wide range of pleasurable sensations, and intact men describe two very different and complimentary sensations in the penis. First, they describe a sharp and intense sensation from the glans. For the intact man, the glans is best stimulated indirectly through the rolling or gliding of the foreskin over the glans. Second, they describe a different, but extremely pleasurable sensation from the foreskin itself. The combination of these complimentary sensations is exquisite. Circumcised men normally only have the glans remaining, and therefore never experience the very pleasurable sensations provided by the foreskin.

Genital cutting robs humans of a complete sexual experience. Men, women, and intersex individuals ALL deserve to enjoy sex as nature intended. Vinyl stickers/cards available at Etsy for awareness raising and education.

A change to a man's sexual response

Physiologically, a man's brain expects stimulation from both the foreskin and the glans to achieve a healthy sexual response. Circumcised men lack the nerve inputs from the foreskin, and additionally, the stimulation from the glans is unnatural, because the glans of the circumcised penis is exposed and therefore stimulated directly (the glans of an intact man is stimulated indirectly). These physical and sensory changes caused by circumcision often result in problems with the male sexual response. Studies show that circumcised men have a much higher likelihood of experiencing problems such as premature ejaculation and delayed ejaculation.

While circumcision is often responsible for vaginal discomfort and male sexual response problems, such as premature ejaculation, few people realize this because circumcision is so common in America. These kinds of sexual problems are much less common in areas where circumcision is rare, such as Europe and Asia.

A growing number of circumcised men are choosing to restore their foreskins through a gentle stretching process similar to how new skin is grown for burn victims. Men who have restored their foreskin report improved sexual response, a more natural stimulation of the glans, and improved satisfaction for their partners. Visit the National Organization of Restoring Men website at www.norm.org to learn more about what can be done to reverse the damaging effects of circumcision.

Vinyl stickers/mini cards for education and awareness raising at Etsy.

See also the 2004 article by Dr. Christine Northrup, How Male Circumcision May Be Affecting Your Love Life

I love your heart, your mind, your soul, and your whole body.

IntactHealth.org/research

*******

Keepsake Ultrasounds Banned in State of Connecticut

Midwife extraordinaire, Gloria Lemay, mentioned in her blog regarding the (below) article:

Just when I’ve completely despaired of the human race, a little ray of hope shines through. This morning I received this news post. I would like to fly to Connecticut right now and hug Gov. M. Jodi Rell for throwing the frivolous ultrasounders out of the (womb) temple. Hallelujah! I’ll be sending this item to my own Provincial Health Minister and the College of Physicians and Surgeons and urging them to do the same.

If you’re passionate about protecting babies, please do the same in your own province or state. I loved this line “Rell says she understands that desire, but doesn’t want to risk the health of the mother and child.” Nice to have this woman as our partner.

Conn. governor signs keepsake ultrasound ban

Associated Press

June 24, 2009

HARTFORD, Conn.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed a bill that bars anyone from performing ultrasounds on pregnant women unless a doctor orders them for medical or diagnostic purposes.

The new law, to take effect on July 1, is in response to a small but growing number of businesses offering commercial "keepsake" ultrasounds and in-utero videos.

Supporters of the legislation say ultrasounds for entertainment are inappropriate and potentially dangerous if done repeatedly, though no conclusive studies have proven long-term injuries to women or their fetuses.

Owners of the so-called ultrasounds boutiques say the technology is safe and offers parents a valuable service to see their baby in the womb.

Rell says she understands that desire, but doesn't want to risk the health of the mother and child.

Calling All Health Professionals: STOP RETRACTING OUR BOYS!

Children Should Sleep Near Parents Until 5

By Sian Griffiths

First published in The Sunday Times (UK)
Shared with permission

One of Britain’s leading experts on children’s mental health has advised parents to reject years of convention and allow children to sleep next to them until the age of five.

Margot Sunderland, director of education at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London, says the practice, known as cosleeping, makes children more likely to grow up as calm, healthy adults. Sunderland, scientist and author of 20 books, outlines her advice in The Science of Parenting.

She is so sure of the findings in the new book, based on 800 scientific studies, that she is calling for health visitors to be issued with fact sheets to educate parents about co-sleeping. “These studies should be widely disseminated to parents,” said Sunderland. “I am sympathetic to parenting gurus — why should they know the science? 90% of it is so new they bloody well need to know it now. There is absolutely no study saying it is good to let your child cry.”

She argues that the practice common in Britain of training children to sleep alone from a few weeks old is harmful because any separation from parents increases the flow of stress hormones such as cortisol. Her findings are based on advances in scientific understanding over the past 20 years of how children’s brains develop, and on studies using scans to analyze how they react in particular circumstances. For example, a neurological study three years ago showed that a child separated from a parent experienced similar brain activity to one in physical pain.

Sunderland also believes current practice is based on social attitudes that should be abandoned. “There is a taboo in this country about children sleeping with their parents,” she said. “What I have done in this book is present the science. Studies from around the world show that co-sleeping until the age of five is an investment for the child. They can have separation anxiety up to the age of five and beyond, which can affect them in later life. This is calmed by co-sleeping.”

Symptoms can also be physical. Sunderland quotes one study that found some 70% of women who had not been comforted when they cried as children developed digestive difficulties as adults. Sunderland’s book puts her at odds with widely read authors such as Gina Ford, whose advice is still followed by thousands.

Ford advocates establishing sleep routines for babies from a very early age in cots “away from the rest of the house” and teaching babies to sleep “without the assistance of adults”. In her book, she writes that parents need time by themselves.

Annette Mountford, chief executive of the parenting organization, Family Links, confirmed that the norm for children in Britain was to be encouraged to sleep in cots and beds, often in separate bedrooms, from an early age. “Parents simply want their space,” she said.

Sunderland says moving children to their own beds from a few weeks old, even if they cry in the night, has been shown to increase the flow of cortisol. [High cortisol levels are associated with such health hazards as high blood pressure, hypertension, high vasocongestion, headaches, belly aches, indigestion, acid reflux, decreased attachment, decreased bonding, problems with breastfeeding, failure to thrive, decreased IQ, slow development, and social distrust.]

Studies of children under five have shown that for more than 90%, cortisol rises when they go to nursery. For 75%, it falls whenever they go home.

Professor Jaak Panksepp, a neuroscientist at Washington State University, who has written a foreword to the book, said Sunderland’s arguments were “a coherent story that is consistent with neuroscience. A wise society will take it to heart.”

Sunderland argues that putting children to sleep alone is a peculiarly western phenomenon that may increase the chance of cot death, also known as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This may be because the child misses the calming effect on breathing and heart function of lying next to its mother.

“In the UK, 500 children a year die of SIDS,” Sunderland writes. “In China, where cosleeping is taken for granted [as the normal way for babies to sleep], SIDS is so rare it does not even have a name.”

Additional research on sleep sharing can be found on the Baby Sleep Resources Page. 

Also see, Sleep Training: A Review of Research.

The CoSleeping Group:
FB.com/groups/CoSleeping

*******

Homebirth Rights Rally [VIDEO]

Make an on-line slide show at www.OneTrueMedia.com

REAR-FACING CAR SEATS: Beneficial after 20lbs/1-year

Today Sponge Re-introduced

In drug stores nation-wide and for discounts see: http://www.todaysponge.com/spongeworthyclub.html

It is safe, proven, hormone-free and spontaneous - with 24-hours of protection.

Always good to have more hormone-free, reliable options for women to select from.

Christiane Northrup (Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom) on Circumcision

Excerpt from Dr. Christiane Northrup's, "Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom: Creating Physical and Emotional Health and Healing" (1994). New York: Bantam Books.

Author Christiane Northrup, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist, co-directs the innovative Women to Women health care center in Yarmouth, Maine. She edits the national health newsletter "Health Wisdom for Women" and is Assistant Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Vermont School of Medicine.

Circumcision of baby boys is another example of a painful procedure that is unnecessary. Circumcision is a perfect example of the triumph of emotion and outdated and unproven beliefs over common sense and scientific data that it is unnecessary. Dr. George Dennison sums up the circumcision issue very nicely: "To me the idea of performing 100,000 mutilating procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd."

The discussion of circumcision is a perfect example of the strength and influence of tribal programming on our thought and emotional responses. This programming is so ingrained that many people cannot even discuss the subject of circumcision without guilt, denial, or other strong emotions. I know that even addressing the subject of the baby boy's bodily integrity, choices, and pain if the procedure is done can cause a "kill the messenger" reaction. But this programming can be successfully questioned and worked through, if desired. Many Jewish couples have rethought the entire circumcision issue and have decided not to have it done to their sons.

I've seen circumcision done in the delivery room. Welcome to the world, baby boy"now to initiate you properly, we're going to cut off one of the most sensitive parts of your body with no anesthesia!' Circumcision is known to cause sleep disturbances for at least three days. I believe that it also has profound implications for male sexuality that I cannot begin to address adequately in this book. In fact, it is a form of sexual abuse. We certainly feel that way about female clitoridectomy, circumcision, and infibulation, but we justify male infant circumcision by pretending that the babies don't feel it because they are too young and it will have no consequences when they are older.

The foreskin is a highly innervated part of the body. There is no doubt that circumcision toughens' the delicate skin of the tip of the penis. Men who have been circumcised later in life and who therefore know the difference report a decrease in their sexual sensations. One of my friends who is NOT circ'd says that he wonders if rape is less common in countries in which the men are not circumcised. His experience is that having intercourse with a woman who isn't aroused and well-lubricated is as painful to him as it is for her because of the delicacy of the foreskin!

Birth, A Play

Birth is a play based on over one hundred interviews Karen Brody conducted with mothers across America who gave birth between 2000-2004. It tells the true stories of 8 women painting a portrait of how low-risk, educated women are giving birth in America today.

In the play we meet Jillian, a stay-at-home mother of four children, who always sees the humor in life, especially in her mixed-bag of birth experiences; and Beth, a 35-year-old successful, high-powered computer systems manager from New Jersey who confidently planned a cesarean.

We are introduced to Vanessa, a buyer for a major department store who never had a doubt that she wanted an epidural. We hear from Janet, a lesbian in her 40s, who despite her feminist background wanted a medicalized birth, fearing the safety of herself and the baby; and Lisa, an African-American who felt intimidated and used by her midwives and the medical system after her birth.

We get to know Sandy, who thought birth was “just one day,” but found out that having an emergency c-section on that day changed her world. We hear Natalie's intimate story of physical betrayl; and Amanda, an athletic, confident stay-at-home mother who believed her birthing mantra--”My Body Rocks”--gave her the attitude she needed to give birth naturally in the hospital.

Moving between first-person monologues, some dialogue, and the voices these women heard on the day they gave birth, Birth confronts, what City Lights Theater Company has called, "The naked truth about childbirth in America."

Getting Vertical Back!! ~Gentle Birth~

AMERICAN BABY MAGAZINE: Circumcision Lies & CDC Misquotes

This 'Health Brief' regarding circumcision, published on page 18 of the July 2009 issue of American Baby Magazine, is not only untrue, but disturbing on many levels. I will break down my response to the primary lies included in this 'brief' below.



Circumcision Statistics

The CDC (listed by American Baby as the source for this inaccurate information) has never made such statements regarding circumcision. They have, however, publicly released circumcision statistics for the past several decades and record/report that there has never been a nation-wide circumcision rate higher than the all-time high of 65% of baby boys cut at birth in the U.S. in 1980. AHRQ (The Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality) also cites the highest newborn circumcision rate at 65% in 1980. Furthermore, the rates of circumcision have steadily declined every year since 1980 as more parents research the topic ahead of time and become accurately and fully informed. By 2005, the CDC reports a nationwide circumcision rate of 56%, and even lower (31%) on the Coasts. In 2009 we are finally seeing a dip below the 50% mark - over 1/2 baby boys born today are remaining INTACT thanks to knowledgeable parents who care enough to research the topic fully before cutting their son.

As part of our medical research pertaining to the prepuce organ & genital cutting, we reviewed the past decade of CDC circumcision statistics, as well as disease/STD and UTI reports. The actual reports counter every aspect of this American Baby statement.

STDs

Unfortunately, the U.S. does still have the highest rate of circumcision of any Western nation. However, our rates (as atrocious as they are) are FAR below the quoted 79%. Rather, in 2008 about 50% of newborn boys were cut at birth. This is still much greater than ANY other developed nation -- Canada is second in line with a circumcision rate of 10% newborn boys being cut. Interestingly enough, the U.S. also has the HIGHEST rate of all STDs of any Western nation (including HIV). On the other hand, developed nations where 98-99% of boys/men remain intact, we find the lowest rates of STDs (including HIV). If circumcision 'protected' against diseases (which it certainly does not - it does JUST THE OPPOSITE)...but if it did, we would NOT see these figures to such an extreme and obvious degree.


There are no "African Studies" on circumcision and AIDS as the popular media loves to claim. There were three trials (that were not valid/reliable/repeatable or peer-reviewed in any way) conducted by a research team funded and propelled by Americans with the preliminary purpose of going into South Africa to circumcise the black adult men there. Countless medical groups from around the world have critiqued and called into question the methods used for this study. When their first "results" showed no difference between cut vs. uncut men, another small sample of African men was 'recruited' and divided ahead of time into those who tested positive vs. negative for HIV and those who were cut vs. uncut so the 'sample' could be an accurate picture of what they were hoping to show. Although this whole thing is bogus to begin with -- EVEN IF IT WEREN'T - it has NOTHING to do with the routine genital cutting of baby boys in the United States! A good article on this: http://www.mothering.com/truth-about-circumcision-and-hiv

By simply looking at the purposes/functions of the prepuce organ ('foreskin') we see that one of its primary reasons for existing is protection and to COMBAT illness/disease by naturally warding off bacteria/viruses with its own perfect concoction of antibodies. Remove it, and this most excellent source of protection is gone. When I reviewed EVERY SINGLE study done on the topic as part of my graduate study & dissertation publication, I found that it has been repeatedly demonstrated that circumcised men (in all countries) have higher rates of ALL STDs (HIV included) across the board. Intact men certainly are at a benefit as far as health is concerned.

And all this said -- why on earth are we focusing so much on cutting/not cutting genitals when it comes to STDs?! The only real protection is:
(1) to abstain from sex w/ infected partners or
(2) use condoms.
Maybe we should pour our $ and resources into condom use/education rather than trying to cut up men worldwide...

The race-related study imposed by white American men on black S.African men is reminiscent of another STD 'study' done years ago... Tuskegee, anyone?

UTIs

Women/girls have a 900x greater likelihood of getting a UTI than men/boys. Among men/boys a urinary tract infection is very rare, and when it does happen, is almost always due to an unknowledgeable adult messing with, forcibly retracting, or over-cleaning a baby boy's penis. Should we cut off the prepuce organ of all girls at birth? Obviously they would 'benefit' more than the boys...No, of course not. Because UTIs are minor and EASILY and quickly treated with antibiotics. UTIs among boys (especially in the first year of life) are even easier to PREVENT by following a simple rule of thumb:

INTACT = DON'T RETRACT! ONLY CLEAN WHAT IS SEEN!

Further More...

There are many reasons that NOT ONE Medical Organization in the entire WORLD (including the CDC) recommends circumcision. This tells us something and should have been reflected in American Baby's quip.

When we started removing the prepuce organ in a U.S. rampage at the end of WWII, we KNEW what it would do to men's sexuality - their sexual sensation, their sexual experience - and that of their partner. Our primary goal was to REDUCE sexual fulfillment among men by removing the ONE organ MOST responsible. We hoped (at least Kellogg and Graham hoped and preached) that it would curtail masturbation among boys and reduce promiscuity among men. Our soldiers would be "healthier" in future wars - more able to focus on the war at hand - rather than picking up women (and thereby diseases) around the world. Of course, it never did work to diminish masturbation, promiscuity, disease - or blindness for that matter! But it DID reduce a nation of men's natural sexuality & experience.

Why is it that American Baby not only presents an inaccurate picture of circumcision (with an outright statistics lie) but also neglects to present an entire mountain of empirical research and information on the history of circumcision in the United States, as well as the real-life risks and consequences of the surgery? How about mentioning the rate that baby boys die, lose their penis, hemorrhage, go into pain-induced shock, coma, have seizures, heart-failure, trouble breastfeeding, bonding failure, poor attachments, increased colic for months following the assault, infections from the wound, sexual dysfunction and implications later in life, among countless other side effects.

If parents are really to make an informed decision, why not mention the fact that circumcision also hurts a boy's future partner - why not talk about how male circumcision impacts women? [Graphic, but informative site on this topic: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com]

And none of this gets at the heart of the human rights violation of circumcision. In the end, a man's body is HIS body. If he wants to cut up his nether regions when he is old enough to say "CUT ME," then so be it. But at birth, a crucial time of primal attachment, bonding, hormone rushes, trust/distrust formation, heightened sensitivity - especially to pain, along with countless other things - it is NOT the time to play hack-saw with a boy's most sensitive organ. It is not anyone's right to remove 1/3-1/2 the penis surface, the most erogenous area, the ridged band, 20,000+nerve endings, mucus membranes, sebaceous glands, and more - forever impacting this man's future life/health/sexuality along with that of his partner, without his knowledge and full informed consent. It is a complete violation of human rights and genital integrity. Let us work toward the passing of the MGM Bill to protect the 40%+ newborn boys still cut at birth.

If American Baby really wishes to present an accurate (and full) picture of circumcision in the U.S. -- to actually empower parents in their decision with factual information, rather than to persuade the unknowing with rabidly pro-cutting false propaganda -- they will print a rebuttal and future retractions to this media atrocity.

I encourage you, Reader, to write to American Baby so that this does not go unnoticed or uncorrected.

Email:
ABLetters@americanbaby.com

Mail:
Judith Nolte, Editor-in-Chief
American Baby Magazine... Read More
c/o Meredith Corp.
375 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017



For additional information on intact care, the prepuce (foreskin) and circumcision, see books, articles and sites at: Are You Fully Informed? 




UPDATE:

After receiving many letters from parents, physicians, researchers, and even CDC members, "American Baby" stated that they based their little write-up on this one particular article abstract:

Prevalence of Circumcision and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Infection in Men in the United States: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004.

It is obvious that the editor was searching for anything they could skew enough to misrepresent circumcision statistics today.

In 2008, I read a similar publication on this study (printed in a different medical journal).

This study does not present anything new -- yes, a lot of men were circumcised between the 1940s-1970s and it (thankfully) started to decrease in the 1980s. We already know this. The rate of men cut at birth decreased as the 1980s progressed (greatly due to parents who started learning of the horrors of circumcision and began speaking out in the late 1970s).

The fact that this small sample of adult men surveyed revealed a 79% circumcised rate (among those men returning the survey) does not change or impact the rate of newborns circumcised in any given year in the United States. According to the CDC, this rate has never been higher than 65% and today is down to 50%. This small sample survey study is also not a reliable representation of all U.S. males currently alive today.

Was this "American Baby" piece really written by someone who does not understand survey research and the way statistics are presented?

Making a blanket statement about the CDC's research and presenting the numbers as such is an outright lie.

Why "American Baby" ignores the 2nd part of the study that shows NO correlation between infection and circumcision is also cause for question.

The final line in the study's abstract repeats what ALL the other medical studies on circumcision and STDs have shown: "Circumcision was not associated with HSV-2 infection."

I had the opportunity to study this topic extensively while in graduate school, looked at every disease of the prepuce organ (in women and men), and know the circumcision research inside and out. "American Baby" is presenting mis-truths and outright lies and needs to print a correction and apology to all American parents and the CDC who they are misrepresenting.