Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Nurse Would Not Schedule Appointment for Intact Child

I had just finished posting the story of a doctor who insisted on forcibly retracting the foreskin of a baby boy.

I just browsed my Facebook news feed again, and it looks like a nurse has refused to schedule an appointment for a child unless it's his circumcision.


According to SavingOurSons on Facebook, his occured at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, CA.

My presumptions seem to be true; the modus operandi in American medicine seems to be to make sure a  male child is circumcised above all else.

What is the order of operation when a female infant has UTI?

WHY IS THIS NOT THE SAME IN MALE INFANTS?

What happens in European, Australian, Asian countries when a case of UTI presents itself?

I ask again; what are they teaching at American medical schools?

Recently, I've seen this meme showing up on the internet everywhere:


I'm sorry, but it seems that these days, you're better off doing a Google search than consulting the guy with the M.D.

At least in the U.S.A.

This cup is right; don't confuse them.

What an embarrassment.

SavingOurSons has a good resource page on UTI here.

Related Post:
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

Monday, November 30, 2015

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child


American doctors seem to have this obsession with baby penises.

Almost as soon as a male child is born, the first question on most American doctors' minds for his parents is, "Are you going to have him circumcised?"

Some doctors take it a step further and ask "When, are you having him circumcised," as if the elective, non-medical surgery were already a given.

Whether they have some obsession with baby penis, or they want to make sure they can cash in on a freebie, or maybe they just don't know any better, I can't tell.

What can be certain is that American doctors seem to have this compulsion to see and touch a baby's penis.

What in the world are they teaching American doctors in medical school?

I just saw this story on Facebook and couldn't help posting it:


THIS HAPPENED LAST NIGHT AT North Oaks Health System Hospital in Hammond, Louisiana ... [A parent whose name was omitted for privacy] writes, "I just went with a friend to the hospital because her son is 4 months old and running a 103.8 °f fever. Immediately when Dr. Krieg walked in, he went for the diaper, saying a UTI was the most likely cause. He undid the diaper and we figured to check for a rash or swelling, and when he reached for the child penis, the mother grabbed his hands and stopped him, telling him not to touch him there.
"We told him that based on the baby's breathing we thought it was RSV. He kept telling us that he HAD to retract the baby's penis to look and see if anything was infected. My friend and I both lost it on him, telling him it was completely unnecessary for him to ever touch his penis, much less attempt retraction. My friend grabbed the doctor's hands and removed him. He looked shocked, moved on and left the room. 

"He came back and tried to assure us that it was okay and that the internet is full of lies (do tell, Dr.), and I proceeded to tell him that she and I both have older boys and know for a fact it is never necessary. He then tried to tell us if it was not RSV, the flu, or some other infection in his blood work, that he would need to do a catheter. I politely stepped in and told him that this was not true, they have baggies for small children to avoid catheters. His response was that once again there is misinformation on the internet (some rebuttal...). So I proceeded to inform him that my child's doctor was the one who told me of the baggies. And he said "but they get contaminated very easily". We both stated that we chose that route, and if he could not do so that we would go to another hospital. He said he would send someone in to do the swab if we were adamant about testing for RSV, then he left the room.

"The nurse came in after we refused to do the catheter, and she did a nasal swab and they also did x-rays to check for pneumonia. The baby's breaths were very shallow and very quick. The test took 30 mins to run. Dr. Krieg was gone about 45 mins. He came in and apologized for not believing us. He said he didn't think it could be RSV because the baby was not wheezing. He had a totally different attitude. I am 21 with 5 college credits in basic subjects, she is 23 with a high school education and we knew more about it all than he did. Never ever let doctors bully you. Push for what you believe. Instincts go really far.

"The baby has RSV but the fever finally went down so they sent us home. This morning the baby has no fever and is acting more playful after breathing treatments. My friend follows up with the pediatrician tomorrow."

And the thing is, this wouldn't be the first time I've heard of this happening.

Time and time again, I read these stories on Facebook and other mediums, of parents taking their children to the doctor, and the first thing doctors want to do is check their penises, and furthermore, if the children aren't circumcised, to forcibly retract the foreskin for this or that nonsense reason.

These stories are so well known that intactivist organizations have had to issue warnings to parents. (DOC for example.)

Sadly, some doctors do succeed in hornswoggling parents into letting them forcibly retract their child's penis which inevitably results in injury and often circumcision itself.

And then, like clockwork, almost as if it were a canned response, the doctors tell parents "You see, this is why you should have circumcised him earlier."

What is wrong with American doctors?

What are they learning in American medical school?

It's almost as if they've been geared toward destroying natural male anatomy wherever possible.

The first order of operation seems to be to make sure that a male child is circumcised. Not being circumcised is being viewed as a medical condition outright.

Next is to make sure that, if the child is not circumcised, ensure he is by causing the problems a foreskin is said to have, by forcibly retracting the child's foreskin, saying it's a "problem" if he can't be, or outright injuring the child so as to necessitate surgical intervention.

Above all other symptoms and problems, not being circumcised is to be addressed first.

Is this what American doctors learn in med school?

There is something wrong with American medical curricula if this is what doctors are being taught.

The doctor indicts the internet for "lies and misinformation," but it is quite common knowledge that a child's foreskin should not be forcibly retracted, that the age of retraction varies from child to child, that the median age for foreskin retraction is approximately 10 years of age, and that not retracting is not a problem in a child before or even after the age of puberty.

Just what are American doctors being taught in American medical schools?

Why do stories like these keep happening?

Long-term visitors to the United States ought to be warned that doctors in America are often inadvertently, or quite deliberately misinformed about anatomically correct male genital anatomy, and that taking their child to an American-trained doctor could be hazardous to their child's health.

American doctors and American medical curriculum ought to be exposed for the misinformation they dispense.

Relevant Links:
https://www.facebook.com/mynorthoaks/timeline

http://www.northoaks.org/

http://www.healthgrades.com/provider/john-krieg-yshfd

Relevant Post:

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

Thursday, November 26, 2015

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OTTAWA: Teach Children "Consent" and "Bodily Autonomy"

So I'm scrolling through my Facebook news feed and I run across this poster put out by Planned Parenthood Ottawa, and I thought it was rather cute:


Or rather, I thought it was rather hypocritical considering what other Planned Parenthood chapters have done without contest or mitigation.

It was posted by a Facebook page/group called "Trustable Sluts" (Original post here. Last accessed Thursday, Thanksgiving Day 2015.) with the following caption:

"Children, just like everyone else, have the right to set boundaries about who can touch them and how."

This is so funny.

I mean, this is precisely what we, as intactivists, have been saying all along.

I replied on their post with this:

"Hey Planned Parenthood Ottawa. You know how you can teach parents about respecting a child's consent and bodily autonomy? Tell them to forgo male infant circumcision. Otherwise this graphic is pure lip service. Wait for the "that's different" arguments. You can't teach children "consent and bodily autonomy" when the first thing you do to them once they're born is strap them down and cut off part of their most private, intimate part of their bodies."

Our whole point is that children should be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies, their own boundaries, and that their wishes should be respected.

Tying a child down and forcibly cutting off a normal, healthy part of his body teaches him from day one that his body is not his own, that it is for others to do with as they please, and that they should sacrifice themselves for the need and satisfaction of others.

Let's see how long before this gets deleted, and I'm expecting it.

Lord forbid someone slap people with with their own hypocrisy.

Related Posts:
INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

 PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

Monday, November 16, 2015

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Child Forcibly Circumcised, Diagnosed With Leukemia


I am not going to recapitulate the entire Florida Circumcision Saga. Readers who are interested can read past posts which are posted below.

In short, a mother had been fighting to keep the father of her son from circumcising him, and she lost that battle when a judge ordered her to sign the consent forms under duress for the circumcision of the 4-year-old.

The most that the mother could hope for was that doctors acknowledge that it would be unethical for them to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting child against his wishes, knowing that her "assent" was obtained by force.
One doctor has threatened to file a complaint with the State Department of Health.

It has now come to light that the child has been forcibly circumcised against his wishes, and against his mother's wishes, as his father wanted.

The child was not allowed to see his mother for six months, and only recently was allowed one single, brief hospital visit with her.

And, as if this child weren't suffering enough, he has been diagnosed with leukemia and is beginning treatments.

Intactivist Speculation
Word on Facebook is that the child was circumcised with no pre-operation lab tests performed as part of his pre-surgery clearance. The child may have not been healing well or looking well after the surgery, which prompted doctors to run the tests, and that this is how they found out that the child had leukemia.

Unfortunately, this is all pure speculation; all of this is unknown, or information that has not been made public.

If these rumors are true, then it shows negligence on the part of all who facilitated this child's needless surgery, and that they were all interested in having this child undergo needless surgery above all else.

The whole lot of them.

The father, the father's doctor friends who gave him referrals to pediatric surgeons, the father's attorneys, the judge who made it possible for the boy to be snatched from his mother, and ultimately, the doctor who performed needless surgery on the child, all of them should be held responsible for negligence and malicious/selfish intent at the expense of a child's rights and his health.

Medical and Legal Battles Ahead
The mother will be facing more legal battles ahead, in addition to her child's new battle with cancer.

Readers can support this family's needs by:

1) Giving via PayPal directly to the family: HironimusFundraiser@gmail.com

2) Giving a tax deductible donation to Chase's Family via Saving Our Sons: PayPal

3) Mailing a check directly to Heather's attorney with a memo that it is for Heather Hironimus:

Law Offices of Brian M. Moskowitz
Memo: Heather Hironimus
Boca Raton Divorce Lawyer
2295 NW Corporate Blvd, Suite 117
Boca Raton, FL 33431

4) Taking part in the Fight4CRH fundraisers.

Update (11/16/2015)
Intact America has posted the following statement on their Facebook page, and I felt it needed to be repeated here:

The collective heart of the intactivist movement is breaking for Chase Hironimus, barely five years old. First, he was ripped from his mother’s arms by a father and a court system that judged her to be an unfit parent for daring to protect her son from medically unnecessary circumcision. Then, he was handed over to a father obsessed with the desire to mutilate his genitals. In turn, Chase’s father delivered him to doctors eager to violate his rights and his body by carrying out that mutilation for a fee. Only when Chase’s circumcision wound did not heal did those doctors begin to worry about the child’s well-being, conducting tests which led to the discovery that Chase has leukemia

Our country, the United States of America, has passed laws prohibiting any genital cutting of girl children. But our courts, hospitals, and medical professionals (who have taken an oath to “do no harm”) assiduously promote the amputation of normal, sensitive body parts from innocent boys whose “consent” is a fantasy made possible because of the ease with which children are overpowered. 

We are sickened almost beyond words at the genital mutilation and serious illness of this innocent child. But we also know that both Chase and his mother Heather are in intense need of support. Please send your cards filled with love and best wishes to Chase Hironimus, c/o Brian Moskowitz, 2295 Corporate Blvd NW, Ste 117, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

Mr. Moskowitz, Heather’s attorney, will see that the cards are delivered to Heather and Chase.
Please share this post widely.
What a sad, sad day it is in this country...

Past Posts:
FLORIDA UPDATE: Father Intent on Circumcising 4-yo Son Seeks to Legally Paralyze Mother
FLORIDA: What Happened Today As Per Intact America
FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Insult to Injury
FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: It's Not Over Yet
FLORIDA BULLETIN: Circumcision Scheduled for 4-yo - Anonymous User Discloses Details
FLORIDA: Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital Complicit in Medical Fraud, Child Abuse?
 FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Mother May Get Monitored Visits With Her Son

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

TUNISIA: 6yo Loses His Penis to Circumcision



A child of 6 loses his entire penis to circumcision.

In countries outside of the United States, Muslims tend to circumcise their male children at much later ages. (Approx. 98% of Tunisia's population is Muslim)

The surgery was performed in a hospital setting by a licensed professional handling the latest technology.

The child was left for a week in excruciating pain as he suffered necrotic deterioration without any help for what was done.

A functional dildo attached subcutaneously is being considered as a replacement.

The main concerns seem to be that he be able to urinate standing up and that his future partners might "feel something."

Nevermind the child.

And let's forget about the fact that they're trying to repair a botch for a surgery that was never needed in the first place.

Read the article in French here.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


Yet another circumcision botch has surfaced on Facebook, this time in Arlington, Texas.

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens


More details have emerged surrounding the circumcision death case in Ontario, and there are a lot of red flags that are going up for me.

I'm going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from a Toronto Star news article, commenting as I go along.

"One Toronto pediatrician was cautioned in writing and another told to get informed consent from parents after 22-day-old Ryan Heydari bled to death following a circumcision in 2013."

First red flag; one would think that informed consent was obtained from the child's parents before performing surgery. Am I missing something here?

"Details about the complaints against the two physicians made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, including their identities, would have been kept secret had Ryan’s parents not sought a review by an appeals panel. That is a level of secrecy that critics say must change, even as the college is promising to improve transparency."

Second red flag; what is the reason that parents have to seek a review by an appeals panel to get details surrounding their own child's death?

How many other cases are being kept secret because parents didn't think to do what these parents have?

"Earlier this month, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upheld the decision made by the college’s inquiries, complaints and reports committee to “advise” Dr. Sheldon Wise, who performed the operation on Ryan following a referral by a family doctor, to document his consent procedure — including discussion of potential risks and complications around circumcision."

Why is he being asked to document the consent procedure after the fact?

Is there no obligation to document the child's diagnosis first?

Why aren't doctors required to have a diagnosis for medical indication for surgery?

"Death following circumcision is rare, a three-member panel of the board noted."

This worthless note is not helpful here.

A child has died.

Duly noting it doesn't help the child or his parents.
"The panel also found the committee’s order to be reasonable, that Dr. Jordan Carr, the North York General hospital pediatrician who saw Ryan after he started bleeding, should be cautioned in writing for “his failure to recognize the seriousness of the patient’s condition and to treat compensated shock.” Carr was also ordered by the committee to write a 2- to 4-page report on the possible complications of circumcision and on how to recognize and treat compensated shock"

This is rich.

They try to downplay this child's death, but somehow, the doctor who saw him should have "recognized the seriousness of the patient's condition."

So much weight on the doctor who had nothing to do with the child's surgery, nor with convincing his parents to have it done seems unfair to me.

Shouldn't the burden of having to outline the possible complications of circumcision be on the doctor who pushed it on the parents in the first place?

The message that "death following circumcision is rare," but that physicians ought to "recognize the seriousness of a circumcised child's condition" is a confusing one.

Scolding this doctor seems like backwards logic to me.

There was nothing wrong with the child.

A healthy child underwent elective, non-medical surgery because a doctor pushed it on reluctant parents.

Before a doctor suggest surgery, shouldn't there be a diagnosis of a medical condition for which surgical intervention is necessary?

It seems to be that medical necessity needs to be establish first.

Before eliciting consent from parents.

Before presenting them with the risks and complications.

Before advising a doctor to "recognize the seriousness" of a child's condition following surgery.

The first fault in the series of events is the doctor who convinced the parents that the child should undergo circumcision.

So why so much weight on the physician who saw him second?

And why should he be expected to believe the situation was "serious," when he has been most likely taught to believe that circumcision is "simple, fast, and risk-free?"

 "Wise told the complaints committee he routinely performs circumcisions, and the committee expressed no concerns about his technique or equipment, according to the HPARB decision. But it did feel that he should be obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation."

This part really disturbs me.

A child has died, but  the fact that the doctor circumcised him performs this elective, non-medical procedure routinely seemingly voids any cause for concern.

More important than establishing a medical diagnosis for a condition that necessitates surgery is obtaining and documenting informed consent before doing the operation, is this group's decision.

This seems strange to me; it would seem to me that consent from the parents was obtained., albeit reluctantly.

But what's really disturbing is the fact that a child has died as a result of a needless, non-medical procedure, but that the group is more concerned that the doctor is able to absolve himself by pushing the burden of responsibility on the parents.

Am I misunderstanding something here?
"In Carr’s case, the committee found that he assessed Ryan in a timely manner, but 'overall, the committee was concerned by the lack of urgency and aggressiveness in (Carr’s) approach in this case, and his failure to recognize pending hypovolemic shock.'"

 Again, rather this is paradoxical. In one instance, the committee must establish that "death following circumcision is rare," but then they want to chastise this doctor for "lack of urgency and aggressiveness" in the next.
"None of this information can be found on profiles for Wise and Carr in the College of Physicians and Surgeons’ online registry, as the complaints against the doctors were made before the college changed its policies as to what information it releases to the public."
 So what else could they be hiding?
"'I think most people would agree that where there was a death of a 22-day old baby, there should be public disclosure where there was criticism found with relation to care,' said medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte, who is pushing for the college to release information about all complaints against doctors, including their identities and the disposition in each case."

No, some fight to hide this information at all costs, and for good reason too.

What doctor is eager to face a malpractice lawsuit?
"College spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said the penalty formerly known as a “written caution” no longer exists; only an oral caution, made by a panel of the complaints committee to the doctor. Since this year, this caution is included on the doctor’s profile in the college’s online registry."

Am I reading this correctly?

This physician's "advice," and his execution of this elective, non-medical procedure on a healthy, non-consenting minor has lead to his death, and all he gets away with is "caution," not written but oral?

"But the committee can also choose to issue advice or recommendations to the physician, or request that the doctor work with the college on developing an educational plan. “Both outcomes are considered of low risk to the public, and therefore they are not included on the physician’s profile on the public register,” Clarke said."

Both outcomes are merely a slap on the wrist, and don't take into account the gravity of the situation.



Let me repeat, a child has died as a result of this doctor's "advice" to have elective, non-medical surgery performed on him, and all he gets is "caution."

The parent's testimony is heartbreaking:
“We had Ryan circumcised for health reasons, based on the advice of our family doctor. We were initially very much against having Ryan circumcised, as we felt that Mother Nature had created us the way she had intended us to be...

Our family doctor convinced us though of the health benefits of this procedure, but we had no idea that the loss of Ryan’s life was one of the risks. The loss of Ryan, our only child, has made us realize that we cannot possess anything, even our hopes and dreams. We hope that this never happens to any baby, but losing your child is the only way to find out what effect this can have on your life.”

Before suggesting surgery, a doctor needs to establish medical necessity.

Then he needs to obtain informed consent from his patient, if not the patient's guardians.

The patient and patient's guardians ought to know all the risks and complications of the procedure.

Male infant circumcision carries risks.

These risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

In Closing
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud, not to mention abuse and the violation of basic human rights.

CORRECTION (10/28/2015): I have just learned that the physician who convinced this couple to have their child circumcised and the physician who actually carried out the procedure are in fact two different people. I still think the doctor who convinced the couple should also be held responsible. Medical boards ought to begin to issue warnings to doctors not to advise parents to have their children circumcised unless there is diagnosis which indicates clear medical necessity for surgical intervention.

Related Post:
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

Relevant Link:

Monday, October 26, 2015

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise


I'm just going to cut and paste relevant excerpts from the National Post article:

"...they did not even want the newborn circumcised — a view in line with longstanding recommendations from the Canadian Pediatric Society — but were persuaded to do so by a family physician."

"...the case only became public because the couple appealed the original Ontario College of Physician and Surgeons rulings, which were rendered in secret."

So how many more deaths haven't been made public?

"The pediatric society said in a recent report that death from bleeding caused by circumcision is 'extremely rare,' though it’s not completely unheard of. A five-week-old B.C. baby bled to death after being circumcised in 2003."

And another one was in the ER in Arizona just this month.


"She and husband John Heydari, who immigrated from Iran about 12 years ago, opposed having him circumcised, convinced that 'mother nature created us the way she intended us to be.'

But their family physician persuaded them it was a good idea for medical reasons, despite contrary advice from pediatric specialists."

Their failure to ignore their first impulse resulted in tragedy.

And what does this doctor get?

Why are doctors allowed to get away with soliciting elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors like this?

"The pediatric society has long held that its risks – including pain to a small baby, bleeding and the chance of disfigurement of the penis – outweigh its benefits."

Opposite the AAP.

And yet, just like them, they simply fold their hands, whistle and look the other way...

"The group revisited the issue with a report just last month that addressed growing evidence circumcision helps prevent sexually transmitted disease, acting almost like a vaccine in countries with high rates of HIV."

"Almost" being the key word here.

Even the WHO says that circumcised men and their partners must be urged to continue to wear condoms.

This means circumcision FAILS to prevent anything and we're back at square one; men have to wear condoms either way for any real protection form STDs.

Let's be clear here; a healthy child has just died, but we need to rest assured that promiscuous men in Africa MIGHT be getting *possible* benefits from circumcision that are better obtained by wearing a condom.

Final Words
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks of circumcision include infection, hemorrhage, partial or full ablation and even death.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

How many times do I have to say this?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are parents being adequately informed about this risk?

Had this couple known about this risk, would they have still changed their minds?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are you listening AAP?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Circumcision has claimed yet another child.

His blood is on the hands of the AAP and any other medical organization that dares parrot them.
Related Article:

Related Posts:

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

Thursday, October 22, 2015

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

I can't keep writing long drawn out posts for these...

What I'm gonna do from now on with circumcision mishaps is just write quick blurbs about them unless they warrant longer commentary.

When necessary I'll consolidate.

There's just so many being reported at a time and I just don't have the time to write a post for each and everyone.

Let's see we have a child admitted to the ER in Arizona because he wouldn't stop bleeding...


...and an infection in Illinois the mother wants to sue for.


This last one was actually cropped from the original because it's too graphic to post. If you really want to see it, click here at your own risk. CAUTION: GRAPHIC

You won't find these in the news, because they rarely, if ever, make it.

Instead you'll read about them on Facebook, where they'll surface for a bit while a parent is actually reacting the way they should at every circumcision, and then you never hear about them again. (Perhaps doctors get them to settle and keep quiet about it? Who knows...)

The AAP and friends repeat a 0.2% risk in circumcision complications and they really don't get into what they are.

Is that number accurate?

Has the AAP actually looked into it, or are they just pulling it out of thin air so as to minimize the risk to cover their circumcising members' rear ends?

Circumcision has risks.

They include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Here are yet two more botch cases that have surfaced on the internet.

Is the AAP counting?

Because we are.

Shit floats, and the AAP is going to look very bad if real numbers don't reflect their 0.2% figure.

But even so, what does 0.2% of 1.3 million newborn infants look like?

Unless my math skills completely suck, and someone correct me here, that's approximately 2600 babies that will suffer some sort of mishap.

Really? That's an acceptable risk for an elective, non-medical procedure?

Sunday, October 18, 2015

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: A Casual Report of a Circumcision Death Makes the News


The body of a 9-week old was found, and the news report only briefly mentions that the medical examiners found that he died from a kidney infection that resulted from a botched circumcision.

Death is a risk from circumcision.

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact rate of deaths caused by circumcision because people have incentive to hide the fact.

At 1.3 million infant circumcisions a year, circumcision is a money-maker for pediatricians and OB/GYNs, so trade organizations such as the AAP and ACOG have incentive to hide or downplay deaths due to circumcision.

Doctors have been known to deliberately misattribute the death of a child caused by circumcision to secondary causes, such as "bleeding," "hemorrhage" or "septic shock," so when a child dies as a direct result of circumcision, it is rarely reported as such. Parents are usually complicit with the doctor because they feel just as guilty for agreeing to have the procedure done.

Circumcision is an important ritual for Jews and Muslims, and religious communities have been known to be complicit in hiding culprits whenever deaths due to circumcision arise.

Whether it be avoiding lawsuits, or protecting a sacred ritual, there is great incentive to hide or downplay deaths caused by circumcision, so it is difficult to know exactly how many newborns succumb to death caused by circumcision.

Here, we witness a rare instance in which a death caused by circumcision actually makes the news.

Notice how nonchalant and casual the reporting of this fact is.

Readers will gloss over this fact as if it were no big deal.

Circumcision has risks.

They include infection, partial or full ablation and even death.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, this risk is unconscionable.

Is the AAP counting?

Because we are.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are American doctors properly warning parents of this risk?

Relevant Link:

Thursday, October 15, 2015

OREGON: Couple Face Prison for Denying Their Child Medical Care


An Oregon couple refused to look for medical help for their child citing their religious faith in prayer over doctors. Their child died, and now they face prison.

I want readers to note how "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" couldn't save this couple.

This is yet another example of how "freedom of religion" and parental prerogative are not absolute.

Related Link:

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

ARKANSAS: Another Baby in the ER After Circumcision



I don't have time for a long, drawn-out post today, so I'm making this brief.

Another newborn was in the ER due to hemorrhaging after his circumcision in Arkansas.

The AAP lists the percentage of risks and complications of male infant circumcision at 0.2%, though I don't believe them because they've got incentive to downplay that number; at 1.2 million male newborns circumcised a year, a great number of AAP members still reap profit from performing this elective, non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting minors. Given this reality, the AAP can't verily release data that disenfranchise their members.

The risks and complications of circumcision include infection (MRSA, herpes, etc.), hemorrhage, partial or full ablation and even death.

At 0.2%, that sounds like a small, negligible number, but apply it to the 1.2 million babies circumcised a year; because this surgery is completely elective and non-medical, the risk for it should be 0.

Here is another child admitted to the ER due to hemorrhaging. Is the AAP counting?


Thursday, October 1, 2015

INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend


Some controversial videos have been released, and now Planned Parenthood is in the hot seat. The videos depict Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's medical director, casually discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs to researchers for profit, and how abortion procedures could be performed in a way that the organs remain intact, and now pro-life groups are lobbying to cut their federal funds.

It's hard for me to agree one way or another whether Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding or not. On the one hand, I feel that there are a lot of good health services they provide which benefit both men and women. I don't have a problem with providing couples with contraception and detecting services for life-threatening diseases like breast cancer. On the other, I'm going to declare a conflict of interest right here and say that generally, I am pro-life.

I know that sometimes abortion is inevitable, so I don't think there should be a complete ban on it, but generally, I oppose abortion, as I do view it as taking a life. On the whole, I oppose the killing of a child that may as well survive outside its mother's body, let alone selling its body parts off to research facilities; that just creates demands for more abortions, and creates incentive in organizations like Planned Parenthood to gear parents towards abortion. Instead, I am fully supportive of providing education in sex and contraception.

I wouldn't say that Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding based on my views on abortion and the contents of the released videos alone; as an intactivist, there is another reason why I would agree that Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

Women's Health at the Expense of Boys and Men
My own personal disdain for Planned Parenthood began with the release of a video they made targeting teens, in which they inadvertently, or perhaps quite deliberately, it's hard to tell, try to portray having a circumcised penis as "normal," while portraying having a foreskin as some kind of genetic variation, and as the cause for angst in some teens who might be worried about being viewed "normal," like a big nose or ears that stand out.

The creators of the video take great care to show all the different variations of the female vulva (e.g. large labia, small labia, uneven labia, large clitorises, small clitorises, etc.) and reassure their female viewers that "all are normal." For males, you're either circumcised or not, those are the only two options, and not being circumcised is portrayed as some kind of deformity only some males are born with, when in actuality, a penis with a foreskin is standard equipment when it comes to human male anatomy, and not having one is not even a genetic variation but a deliberately forced phenomenon. Somehow, I don't think Planned Parenthood would ever depict vulvas with missing labia and/or clitorises as "normal variations of female genitals."

Planned Parenthood's tacit advocacy for forced male genital cutting wouldn't end there; in opposition to a proposed bill to defund elective, non-medical infant circumcision in New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood was ready to fire back that "[C]ircumcision carries public health benefits, including lowered risk of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted diseases."

Even in their 2012 statement, the AAP stopped short of a recommendation for male infant circumcision because "the benefits are not great enough." Somehow Planned Parenthood is above them?

Of what business is Planned Parenthood's that funding is cut for an elective, non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting minors that they don't even provide?

Their business is with adult men and women. Cutting funding for an elective, non-medical procedure that is forced on healthy, non-consenting minors should be of zero consequence to them.

WHY did they stand in the way of this bill?

What are the implications?

"Having a foreskin is normal, except for having one automatically makes you a promiscuous male likely to have STDs and are prone to UTIs?"

"Having a foreskin in normal, but better cut it off?"

Does Planned Parenthood plan on denying their services to intact males and their partners unless the man opts to get circumcised and any male offspring that are born as a result of their services must be circumcised also?

But it doesn't stop there.

Planned Parenthood can be seen jumping onto the circumcision/HIV bandwagon, as, apparently, they're also in Lesotho, Africa, pushing male circumcision there.

My guess is, it has to do with securing funds from HIV organizations who make pushing male circumcision as prevention one of their conditions.

It seems funding is what it all boils down to.

While in this recent case they are fighting to secure their own funding on the grounds that cutting federal funding is "an assault on women's rights," because they should have this "choice" on what to do their bodies, on the other hand they worked to deny this same "choice" for male children, the same "choice" they claim women are entitled to.



Ultimately, it seems like planned parenthood is willing to throw the rights of boys and men under the bus in the so-called name of "women's health."

Until I see them change this stance, I'm afraid I can only agree that federal funds should be cut.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying into an organization that tacitly approves of, advocates for, even facilitates male genital cutting, and promotes "women's health" at the expense of men's health and choices.

Would Planned Parenthood Ever Promote Female Circumcision?
Some may argue that Planned Parenthood is only going by what "studies say," but is there a number of "studies" that would ever cause Planned Parenthood to push female circumcision in any way, shape or form? Offer it to mothers of daughters? Push it in Africa?

What if it were made "safe?"

What if new gadgets were made that would make it "quick and easy?"

What if doctors were trained to do it with sterile utensils in pristine clinics?

Or is all they care about funding at the expense of males?

What if female genital cutting provided some "benefit" to males?

Would they ever promote female circumcision if it "prevented prostate cancer" in males?

Here's a question about "gender inequality" for you, how come there are millions of dollars going into circumcision "studies" to see what "benefits" it has? Why isn't there the same amount being allocated for female circumcision, if  we're so concerned with "finding benefits?" So much "vigorous research" to see just what diseases male circumcision can prevent. Why is "research" on male circumcision given the go-ahead, while on female circumcision is automatically considered to be "unethical?"

Self-serving sexist double-standards.

Planned Parenthood defends male genital mutilation. Why should I support an organization which opposes the right to autonomy over the bodies of healthy, non-consenting male children?

Defending "women's health" and "women's choices" while defending forced male genital cutting in healthy, non-consenting minors is pure hypocrisy.

As long as Planned Parenthood approves of, defends and facilitates male genital cutting, I can't approve of them getting federal funds.

Related Posts:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate

Monday, September 28, 2015

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Mother May Get Monitored Visits With Her Son


It has been a while since I last commented on this story from Florida, where a court has ordered a child to be taken away from his mother to be circumcised as his father wished, and his mother was forced to sign the documents of consent under duress. In part, I don't want to write about this story any further, as it breaks my heart every time I think about it.

It looks like at long last, the mother in this case is going to be reunited with her baby after being forcibly torn apart by the state to appease her ex-husbands wishes to have her son circumcised, albeit under tough conditions and extreme surveillance. The father fears the child will be "abducted." (That's a laugh, considering what he put the child through, ripping him away from his mother in the first place. No, the father is afraid the mother will try to do what he has done.)

No one knows what will happen exactly, as the father has fought tooth and nail to keep this under wraps, and the courts are taking his side and cooperating with him, but the possibility of meeting at a neutral place, once a week for an hour, while being watched by a cop was discussed in recent proceedings. No photos can be taken, and the mother is not to say a single word to the child about circumcision. For the fuller story, the Sun Sentinel article can be read here.

My Comment
That this is happening seems so surreal.

Is this really happening in the United States of America?

It fills me with rage every time I think about it.

Imagine you were at odds with an ex-husband who was looking for any which way to get at you. Imagine you knew he was planning to inflict abuse on your son just to spite you. Imagine you knew that his plans were to inflict permanent physical harm on your child for your detriment and for his own personal enjoyment. Imagine you knew his intentions were to get back at you in the most horrific, most indelible way possible; by leaving a physical, irremovable mark on your son's most sensitive, most intimate organs that you would see every time you bathed him.

Now imagine that the state was actually on his side. Imagine that no matter how hard you tried, the state would not listen to you, ignored you every time you tried to ask for their help, and dismissed everything you tried to say to let you protect your own son from needless surgical intervention. Imagine the state actually commanded you to hand your child over to your husband so that he could do as he pleases with your son, while you stand idly by.

Now imagine you doing the only thing you could think of as a last resort; taking your child and running to a place of asylum for one last attempt to protect your son. Imagine police forces storming in, ripping him from your arms and whisking him to his designated fate. Imagine being thrown in jail, being treated as a criminal for wanting to protect your son from needless surgery, and a judge forcing you to sign the permission papers for your son's abuse in exchange for your freedom.

There are no ifs or buts about it, your ex-husband is going to have his way with your son and the state is actually protecting him helping him realize his sick ambitions.

Imagine the court has decreed that you will not get to see your son for 90 days. Imagine that the court has decreed that your ex gets to spend 90 whole days alone with your son to do with him as he pleases, and that you will not see or talk to him during that time, all the mean while lawyers helping him to try and make it so that you never see him again.

Now imagine that after time has passed, the court has finally decided it's time for you to see your son, but you will be monitored, and you are gagged from asking the one burning question whose answer you've been dying to know; is he OK? Has he been mutilated or has he been, at least for the time being, spared?

Well that's basically what is happening here.

How is it the father can take the child and do as he wishes, telling him the boy whatever he wants, but the mother is gagged from doing so?

How is it that what the boy actually wants for himself hasn't been considered? And that the courts have actively refused that option?

How is it the boy's own mother is being denied the right to know what has transpired in the time her son was taken away?

How absolutely infuriating.

A father who is hell-bent on having his son's genitals mutilated for his own self-satisfaction is rewarded sole custody, while the child's mother whose only wish is to protect her son from needless surgery is being treated as a criminal.

All meanwhile, no one has bothered to ask the child whose body is in question what it is he wants for himself.

Poor child.

His story is a catastrophe and a shame on this country.

It is a shame in this country when the selfish whims of a father are more important than the fundamental human rights of a child.

To end this post...
There is nothing more to say.

We live in a backwards country where you're thrown in jail and treated like a criminal for wanting to protect your children from forced needless surgery, but sick perpetrators who want to take them to have plastic surgery on their genitals to fit their liking get awarded sole custody.

Only if the child is male.

Were this a Sudanese, Malaysian, Indonesian man, or a man from a culture where female genital cutting is the norm, the scene would be different.

In this scenario, such a father would be jailed.

Girls and women are protected from unwanted, non-medical genital surgery by law, but the state will actually help you out if you want to inflict the same to a boy.

How fucked up this country...

A country whose laws will not protect the most basic human rights of a child, a country who was complicit in actually carrying the violation of these rights has failed.

It sounds as though intactivist efforts may be paying off however; according to the report referenced here, the father appears to be having a hard time finding somebody that will circumcise the child without a medical diagnosis. This may be due in part to intactivist demonstrations being held across the country, but also in great part to doctors and other organizations threatening to file a complaint against the doctor and hospital who would perform or facilitate this child's non-medical genital surgery.

What will happen to this child?

His mother?

Will a father actually get away with having a doctor perform non-medical surgery on his 4yo son's genitals for his own satisfaction? At the expense of the child's rights and express wishes?

Will a doctor actually go through with carrying out the whims of this mentally depraved father?

I hope that this is the last blog post I EVER write on this story.

To be honest I don't want to know anymore than this; I'd be too afraid to know this child was mutilated, to imagine the horror and pain he must have gone through.

My deepest prayers are that this child is safe, that this mother is finally reunited with her child, and that he doesn't have to spend any more time with that sick, disgusting monster of a father of his.


May this child be back in his mother's arms where he belongs.


Previous Posts:
FLORIDA: What Happened Today As Per Intact America
FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Insult to Injury
FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: It's Not Over Yet
FLORIDA BULLETIN: Circumcision Scheduled for 4-yo - Anonymous User Discloses Details
FLORIDA: Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital Complicit in Medical Fraud, Child Abuse?
Related Links:
Parents in circumcision fight appear to settlevisitation dispute after judge, attorneys meet privately

Sunday, September 20, 2015

AFRICA: Boys Circumcised at School Without Parents' Knowledge




As if it weren't enough that male circumcision is being promoted in Africa under the dubious pretext of HIV prevention using questionable "research", and as if it weren't enough that parents are being brainwashed to have their children circumcised, organizations in Africa are taking the liberty of going to schools and circumcising children without their parent's knowledge.

Since "mass circumcision" campaigns began to be rolled out across Africa, promoters of male circumcision were careful to really push that the circumcision of males would be "voluntary," where it can mean that, at least theoretically, men would not be circumcised without their fully informed consent. 'Voluntary" can also mean that parents could "volunteer" their children to be circumcised. (Intactivists, such as myself, contest that a child forcibly circumcised without his own consent is no "volunteer.") "Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision", or "VMMC", it was called, for short.

But now, it seems that "voluntary" doesn't even matter anymore, and organizations are taking it upon themselves to visit schools and circumcising male students without even consulting parents on the matter.

In a recent case, at least 25 boys were circumcised at Oderai Primary School in Soroti sub-county, Soroti District, prompting furious protest by parents, some who were extremely distraught that their children were circumcised without their permission. The boys were circumcised at Soroti Health Centre III in an exercise that was facilitated by NGO Baylor Uganda.

District medical workers came, and a woman filling in for the head teacher (she was away on sick leave) simply authorized them.

When queried, the official in charge of the facility where the boys were circumcised, Harriet Amuat, insisted they were carrying out a government programe and Soroti District administration had signed a partnership with Baylor Uganda to fund the circumcision exercise in Teso sub-region.

The question is, who gave the go-ahead with a "circumcision exercise" that would forcibly circumcise healthy, non-consenting children, completely sidelining their parents?

Who held these talks?

Who made the preposition that children were to be circumcised without informing their parents?

Who accepted?

That's what I'd like to know.

Incidentally, Baylor Uganda is funded by none other than PEPFAR and the CDC. The CDC, a strong partner and supporter of BIPAI’s efforts in Uguanda, provides a majority of the Baylor-Uganda $24 million annual budget, through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

American organizations are essentially bankrolling the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting children. Some may argue that "parents can give consent," but in this case even parents were disregarded.

Not the first time
This might be dismissed as a "one-time accident," but unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened; a similar case happened recently in Eldoret, Uasin Gishu, just this April.

In this case, 30 children were forcibly circumcised by NGO Impact Research Development Organisation (IRDO) based in Kisumu, which has a clinic in Eldoret. Apparently the children were lured by strangers into cars with sweets.

Here too, parents protested the fact that their children had been forcibly circumcised without their knowledge.

It appears here too, the NGO has ties with PEPFAR, as evidenced by the "about" tab on their Facebook Page.

In yet an even earlier incident, high school students were being targeted at Embakwe High School.

Here too parents were furious to find that their children came home circumcised.

I cannot find any reference as to who gave the go-ahead, and who financed it in the linked article.

Wrong on so many levels
First off, the "mass circumcision" roll-outs are based on questionable material.

Even if the so-called "research" could be lent any credibility, circumcision would still be considered so ineffective at preventing HIV, that circumcised males and their partners must be urged to wear condoms. There is not a single doctor or "researcher" that can deny this fact.

If adult men wish to be circumcised, even being fully informed, that's one thing, but it is despicable that the procedure is being presented to parents as a "decision."

But lastly, it is simply horrific that children are being forcibly circumcised, completely disregarding their parents, and something needs to be done about it.

Was this an accident?

Or was it deliberate?

Those who authorized programs that go to schools and circumcise children without their parents' knowledge ought to be investigated and held responsible.

Relevant Links:


Tuesday, September 8, 2015

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision


In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a controversial policy statement on circumcision.

While the statement did not culminate in a recommendation as circumcision advocates were hoping for, it was littered with the baseless mantra that "the benefits [of circumcision] outweighed the risks," and with calls for public medical programs to cover it.

The claim that "the benefits outweigh the risks" conflicts with statements that "the benefits [of male infant circumcision] aren't great enough to recommend" it, and that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision are unknown," found within the same Policy Statement.

So out-of-line was the 2012 AAP report, that 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries formally rejected it.

Even so, circumcision advocates took the "benefits outweigh the risks" soundbite and ran with it.

Some go as far as actually saying the AAP has given a recommendation for circumcision, when it is clear to those who have actually read their 2012 statement that they stop short.

After the AAP released their statement, it didn't take very long for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to mirror them. Almost like clockwork, the CDC released a statement similar to that of the AAP, seemingly giving circumcision advocates yet more ammunition for promoting male infant circumcision. (As the AAP, the CDC shies away from a clear recommendation for male infant circumcision.)

With the Canadian Paediatric Society due for a release of their own policy statement on male infant circumcision, speculation arose as to whether or not they too would mirror the controversial AAP statement.

Circumcision advocates were hoping the CPS would get into lockstep with the AAP, and repeat the same "benefits outweigh the risk" slogan.

Much to their chagrin, however, the CPS not only failed to join the AAP and CDC in chorus, they outright reaffirmed their position against it.

Said Dr. Thierry Lacaze, chair of the CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee:
"While there may be a benefit for some boys in high risk populations and the procedure could be considered as a treatment or to reduce disease, in most cases, the benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks."

Thus the AAP and CPS can be witnessed going separate ways on the matter.

Is the CPS stepping out of line?

Or is it the AAP who is deviating?

The fact of the matter is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations.


The AAP tried very hard to push the slogan that "the benefits [of circumcision] outweigh the risks" in their 2012 statement, but they were formally rejected by 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries.

And now, the Canadian Paediatric Society joins the number of respected medical organizations who diverge with the AAP.

Thus, it continues to be true:

No respected medical board in the world recommends male infant circumcision. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant this endorsement.

To say otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the West.

Good on the CPS for refusing to buy into the AAP's nonsense.

Relevant Posts:
CANADA: Canadian Paediatric Society - Monkey See, Monkey Do?

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

USA: Centers for Disease Control to Mirror American Academy of Pediatrics

Relevant Links: