Mothering Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I am reading my NOCIRC info and I get to "A Short History of Circumcision in North America, In the Physicians' Own Words".

I just cannot take it.
:

Quote:
1963
Our observations and those of the earlier workers reveal that the changes produced in experimental mice with human smegma are not consistent and are even contradictory...The conviction that human smegma is a carcinogen could not be substantiated as no malignant changes occurred in the genital mucous membrane and the skin of 29 male and 16 female Swiss mice (Rockefeller Foundation Laboratory strain) subjected to the application of fresh human smegma for a period of 16 months.
D. Giovinda Reddy: I.K.S.M. Baruah. "Carcinogenic Action of Human Smegma." Archives of Pathology 1963;75:414-420.
Poor laboratory animals
: Poor sweet babies
:

I know that this "experiment" is saying that smegma is not a carcinogen, it is just that I am so disgusted with "mad scientists" and all their barbaric procedures on innocent animals. I feel so sad for the animals in labs and for the little children that are circ'd.
:

Also, who in the hell is providing these sadists with the "fresh smegma?" :puke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,239 Posts
So disturbing sometimes what people do in the name of science for sure
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by MCatLvrMoMof2 View Post
So disturbing sometimes what people do in the name of science for sure

Yes, it is. I am shocked each time I learn something new about circumcision and also each time I hear of another horrific experiment done on innocent animals. I just heard about "Pom" pomegranate juice doing experiments on lab animals to study erectile dysfunction. WTH?
I think stopping circumcision would stop a lot of cases of erectile dysfunction, the men could then have full feeling and pleasure like they are supposed to. Leave the animals alone, no need to load up on pomegranates and have a beautiful fully-functioning sex organ. Simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,360 Posts
Yup. That is where the cervical cancer myth came from!!!

Read on (from my site to answer your question

Quote:
Also, who in the hell is providing these sadists with the "fresh smegma?"
(and more)):

A curious individual- PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris-. did an analysis on just what smegma (and incidentally also analyzed ear wax!) consists of and came up with this:

* Cholesterol and cholesterol esters: 18%

* Fatty acids: 71%

Another historic study which maligned smegma was probably the most repeated, produced by a man named Abraham L. Wolbarst. (Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932; 150-3) It seems that Wolbarst did not base his findings in this 1932 study on actual evidence but on sterotypes. Not ironically, he promoted circumcision as a cure for epilepsy and masturbation-- two of the same things that circumcision had been said to cure when circumcision was "begun" in the U.S. in the late 1880's. The British Medical Journal is quoted in 1996 as saying, "Wolbarst invented this myth and was directly responsible for its proliferation; he based it on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and a unbridled missionary zeal. It was not based on valid scientific and epidemiological research."

In 1947, another study ( Plaut A, Kohn-Speyer AC (1947) The carcinogenic action of smegma. Science 105(2728):391-392 ) attempted to prove that smegma caused cancer, by putting horse smegma into the cervixes of mice. (Remember that the 1940's and '50's were the decades that cancer was the big fear, so it isn't surprising to see a study being done to prove circumcision could reduce genital cancers.) Apparently, this is because horses have a lot of smegma to "get", and because mice are usually used for experiments due to their rapid "turn-over rate" and the the fact that, now, all lab mice are decended from one very inbred mouse (okay at least two) from the mid-twentieth century and therefore identical enough to do reliable comparisons, where genetic variance is not a factor.

"Smegma is best obtained from dead horses in rendering plants or from anesthetized animals in a department of veterinary surgery.

"There was no significant difference in the survival rates of treated and control mice up to the 400th day of life: 85 and 88 per cent, respectively, after 200 days; 74 and 80 percent after 300 days; 65 and 57 percent after 400 days. After 500 days, 47 percent of those treated with smegma were alive as compared with 30 percent of the controls. From the 600th day on, there was a marked difference (26 and 6 percent, respectively), and on the 700th day, the survival rates were 12 and 1½ per cent."

Cervical cancer, it is found, is caused by the Human Papilloma Virus, or HPV-- not the presence of a foreskin, nor smegma; risk factors include a history of multiple sexual partners, first sexual experience at a young age, smoking, and being infected with HIV.

The American Cancer Society sent a letter in 1996 to the American Academy of Pediatrics saying, "Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated, and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer."

However, their website, Cancer.org, has an October, 2005 update, with the vague statement, Uncircumcised men are thought to be more likely to harbor the virus, and nothing further to back up this opinion. (Notice that they did not say "are more likely" but merely "are thought to be more likely", which I guess is actually true, when you figure that this is a stereotype that has grown over the years about men with their whole penis!)

In November, 2002, Science News, a weekly magazine, published an article titled Virus Stopper: Vaccine could prevent most cervical cancers about a new vaccine for cervical cancer. In the Nov. 21 New England Journal of Medicine, a team of U.S. scientists reports that a vaccine fashioned from an HPV protein protects women from long-term viral infections that can lead to cervical cancer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·



This is what I have been SCREAMING forever and ever, leave the animals out of it!! WHAT THE HELL DOES HORSE SMEGMA PUT INTO THE CERVIX OF MICE HAVE TO DO WITH COPULATING HUMANS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE DISORDERS OR LACK THEREOF?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, the more I know the worse it is getting. I just cannot take it.
:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan1097 View Post
Its because horses have lots of smegma! And mice are the perfect lab animal. That's about all I can think of as an answer.
I realize this, but what my animal rights activism has shown me is that science is flawed over and over and over again when it tries to tie animal experiments to humans. That is where we get so many "bad drugs" and such and also how we have had delays in "good drug" approval. It is a mistake to experiment on animals and relate those findings to human beings, we are different.

There is a common thought in my animal rights community that is showing the absurdity of animal experiments and using them to relate to humans, it is....
We can experiment on them because they are not like us, they are not human. We can experiment on them because they are like us, flesh and blood.

There isn't any point in wasting time and effort on other species which are likely to yield misleading results because in many respects they are not like us. Their bodies are different, they suffer different diseases and their reactions to drugs and other substances are also different from us.

So that is my point, horses and mice DO NOT copulate with each other and if they did, what the heck would it have to do with human beings? Nothing. Circumcizers seem to be looking for "reasons" to circ, trying to do ridiculous experiments to justify their money-making business. Just like so many of the fraudulent companies that rush approval for their products, procedures, and therapies through animal testing laboratories as a cheap way to get
"rubber stamped" approval.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan1097 View Post
I thought I read somewhere that mice are best used as experimental animals because they are a lot like us and reproduce very quickly.
Here is an article about that:
http://www.neavs.org/resources/Updat...newsbriefs.htm
another
http://www.neavs.org/betterscience/b...sts_110101.htm

bunch here
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q...018af8&x=0&y=0

I understand why they use mice and I understand that they are not a sympathetic animal to most people, like a dog or chimp might be. However, I am opposed to research on them nonetheless. Opposed as an animal rights advocate, a consumer and the mother of a child who could get a "bad drug" or "bad procedure" based on these types of studies.
Also, I can't find the actual study mentioned in OP, just references to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I guess my point of this post was that I really despise circ and circumcisers as well as having a huge problem with inflicting pain on animals, no matter how unattractive or small they are.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top