AAP stance ... Seriously?? - Page 2

[Dave2GA]

The CDC is filled with pro-circ fanatics as far as I can tell. They never once mention the function of the foreskin. Daniel Halperin of Harvard ( of "my granddad was a part-time mohel and I am "destined" to bring this benefit to others" fame) appears to me from correspondence placed on the internet to have communicated with Peter Kilmarx of the CDC, who sat at the Nat'l HIV conference last year here in Atlanta [along with Katherine Kretsinger of the NHS and CDC] and said nothing as Inon Schenker of Operation Abraham from Israel derided the intact male by displaying a photo of a naked male with an elephant drawn on him so that his intact member looked like the trunk with "Yes, A Circumcision Please" drawn in a white cartoon balloon. I am still awaiting an apology from Kilmarx and Kretsinger. The medical literature is now filled with pro-circ "studies" by a small group (20-30) of pro-circ advocates who seem to me to have made pushing universal circumcision their careers. Among those are Robert Bailey, Bertrand Auvert, Ronald Gray and his wife M. Wawer, Brian Morris, Malcolm Potts of PSI, Catherine Hankin of WHO/UNAIDS, Helen Weiss from London, Stephen Moses from Canada, Edgar Schoen, Thomas Wiswell, Inon Schenker, Daniel Halperin, and others. Halperin gave a lecture at UNC's medical school in May entitled "Moyels Without Borders." Just Google "Daniel Halperin UNC medical school moyels without borders." His resume is on the internet and it is very instructive. Look through it and become enlightened. Go to Morris' website www.circinfo.net and look at who reviewed the brochures he has on there. Check out the Gilgal Society's website too. And for real entertainment check out the WebMD interview with Halperin at http://www.circumcisioninformation.c..._home_new.html where he recommends circlist. You will find it by clicking on "Circumcision in the Media" and then on "General News and Interviews About Circumcision" and then on "WebMD Interview with Dr. Daniel Halperin." Circlist is mentioned in the body of the interview. Click on the circlist site there [yes, check on it there; it has since been changed and you won't find the same thing at the site now] and then peruse it. [Warning - very graphic]. Wow! Would a dispassionate individual recommend such a site?

As to the AAP, the task force is headed by an apparent circumcision advocate from NY, its urologist circumcised his own son himself, the ethicist appeared recently as an expert witness for parents who let their son die rather than get medical care, and Peter Kilmarx is the liaison with the CDC and sits on the committee. Want to bet that there is no intact male on the committee and that all of the women have circumcised husbands and sons? [BTW this has been pointed out to the AAP's outside counsel, so they must be aware we are aware of it]. Can such a committee really look at the facts objectively? No wonder Dr. Brady, also on the committee, has recently been quoted as predicting that this statement will be more positive toward circumcision than the last one.

So don't be surprised at what is going on. It looks like a very well coordinated campaign to me. Doesn't it to you?? And don't you know they are desperate now that the circumcision rate is below 50% (or so they apparently believe).

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by brant31

It is not the AAP's and CDC's forthcoming pronouncements that concern me. I agree with tennisdude23 that they'll be largely ignored by parents, or have a very small impact.

I too agree largely with what tennisduded is saying here. There will not be a recommendation; what you will probably see change is the language from "potential benefits" to "identified benefits" or something like that. They'll support that by going on and on about the HIV research in Africa.

The real question is will they present that information honestly? That is to say one can, for example, accept the possibility that there may be some reduced risk to HIV infection in circumcised men from female -> male but what does that actually mean to a man in the US? The answer, as noted by the AFAO and others, is essentially nothing. They might say something about HPV but will they add, as British docs have noted, that since we now have a vaccine any potential benefit is a pointless pursuit? My sense is that they will be blind to those, and similar, points; I'll be shocked if they're mentioned at all.

Originally Posted by brant31

But circumcision in the United States is far more an economic issue than even a cultural or social issue, given the structure of our healthcare delivery system. When parents have to pay out-of-pocket, by and large they skip circumcision. There are exceptions, but that is the rule. In states that have dropped Medicaid coverage of infant circumcision, circ rates have dropped from 60-90% to about 10% among Medicaid births.

I believe this to a point but I think in a sense the cat is largely out of the bag on this one. Thanks to easily accessible information parents can be shown the the solid looking reasons folks like the AAP are pushing are as thin as a playing card turned to its edge. Information is a powerful tool and in spite of the past three years I see broadening support for our position among the general public. Many boards have pro-intact advocates (even ones that aren't parenting boards), there are always many positive blog entries, and lots of positive comments to these entries and articles. And the best part is most comments don't typically seem to come from whom I might consider the usual suspects. As the BMJ article noted, there are firmer stances from medical groups outside the US. If it hasn't been done yet I would hope that IA or NOCIRC has begun to talk with these medical groups and work with them to strengthen their statements. Get others who haven't released one to do it, such as the Norwegians. So support seems to be genuinely broadening.

Originally Posted by brant31

What concerns me is the repeated rumblings by both the AAP and the CDC about the urgent need to address the issues of "access to circumcision", "fairness of circumcision opportunity" and "public health concerns". It all sounds like code to me for lobbying to reinstate Medicaid circumcisions on-demand in the 16 states that have dropped it, and to put in place safeguards to ensure no state ever drops it again.

I have little doubt this will happen, and for now there won't be much we can do about it. We're all going to have to rely more on the message and appealing to common sense.

Originally Posted by brant31

Honestly, I don't see how they can come out and say "OK if you do, OK if you don't", then screech about discrimination against the poor.

Well to the first part, they already do this. I agree the second part will be more difficult but that's how it will shake out. They'll say because there are some "benefits" we must allow "access" to all.

[fruitful womb]

The AAP and the CDC have lost all credibility in my eyes. If the CDC's statistics were correct then it would seem 67.5% of the American population do not trust their judgment either. If you notice, the rates started to plummet as soon as their "Circumcise to prevent HIV/AIDS" claims made headlines. How could something so absurd NOT smell like rotten fish?

History tells us, when the rates of newborn genital surgery start to decline, the MGM lobby is the most active. They're doing whatever they can at whatever cost it takes to increase the rates of an arbitrary newborn genital surgery. Consequently, they're experiencing a serious backlash! Their propaganda backfired.


My guess is the actual rate of elective newborn genital surgery is 43% nationwide. The CDC's 32.5% is a cry to the underwriters, "Circumcision is on its way to extinction!" in hopes they'll rewrite their policy to a near-mandate stance. I truly hope I'm wrong and it really is 32.5%. That would be wonderful. Even better if it was at 0% which apparently is the rate for California Bay Area, a number noted at the Berkley Symposium earlier this summer.

The inconsistency, the illogical HIV/AIDS data, the researcher's motives to circumcise the world...

We're not stupid. As much as they'd love to dumb us down, literally: diluting education, poison in our water, over-inoculations... we can still see it for what it is & we will not be controlled. HA! This is the greatest "controlled" experiment in the history of the world! They can't scare us with their hypothetical #s conjectured by an imaginary crystal ball.


Their latest plans in the makings is to fund soccer teams for young African boys. The catch? They will not be allowed to play unless a certain number of them are circumcised. They said that they were not going to take no for an answer in the same breathing space as insisting that it would be voluntary. This is to further their fabrication for more propaganda.

Is it any wonder why many Americans lost their faith in the CDC and the AAP for the self-serving trade union that it is? The CDC says "No babies died". ummmm....

yeah, right. They need replace that statement with, "No babies have ever died from a complete set of male genitals!" Which is accurite. It doesn't suprise me at all that the CDC is trying to cover up the rate of death caused by "circumcision" an arbitrary penis reduction surgery.

[serendipity22]

Brant31 said

When parents have to pay out-of-pocket, by and large they skip circumcision.

There are number of possible reasons, one i think is if people see something is subsided they make a few assumptions "it must be recommended and good its covered", "its free we may as well get it". Nothing much to think about.
i.e. they take it for granted

If its not covered, people might start to think a little more 'Its not covered maybe its not necessary" or "they have stopped covering, maybe they don't think its any good any more." or "maybe we should research it"

Its very important that insurance stops covering infant circumcision.