MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision (with multiple sources)

ErasmusMRA · 2012-09-24T19:42:26+00:00

Also check out The Bomb in the Brain for an explanation of how early childhood trauma affects us later in life.

It's important to point out that the surgery was done without anesthesia. It's not the circumcision itself that affected brain development but the trauma experienced by the infant.

Miracle_Fruit · 2012-09-24T21:02:27+00:00

We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations.

What? That's the entire opposite of how ethics regulations work. If circumcision was ILLEGAL, then it would be unethical to make infants undergo the procedure in order to determine the effects, especially if they otherwise wouldn't. But if they're going to be circumcised anyways, then it should be entirely possible to perform experiments like this ethically.

ZenDragon · 2012-09-24T19:31:24+00:00

Marked NSFW for a couple graphic/nude photos of infant circumcision on the page.

Riesea · 2012-09-24T22:05:40+00:00

Didn't they block the last attempt to study these MRIs? I can't remember where I saw it at.

Anyway, saved.

anecdotal · 2012-09-24T20:41:22+00:00

Where is the Hippocratic oath in all of this?

backside_attack · 2012-09-24T21:42:46+00:00

Im all for promoting the negatives of infant circumcision. But this study is poorly conducted and presented, to start there are no controls. It does not provide any evidence that circumcision permanently alters a persons brain. I think we should be careful before spouting off things like this as fact when there isn't much to back it up.

Mitschu · 2012-09-25T04:00:30+00:00

I admire her anti-circumcision stance, but ಠ_ಠ at her later comment:

"I wish more women also knew that LEGALLY the decision is up to them. They birthed the baby, and they legally can keep him intact no matter what the infant's father desires."

It's "MY baby, MY choice," huh?

HettGutt_MRMarxist · 2012-09-25T08:00:20+00:00

Ok, I could throw this out immediately, and any respectable scientist would, because n=1. That, in scientific terms, is the worst possible study, even if the sample (the one baby) were somehow random. (It isn't.)

But let's not throw it out, for just a minute. Conveniently for their case, "Not only could [they] not publish the results of [their] research, but [they] also had to destroy all of [their] results." This is not even anecdotal evidence. It is eyewitness testimony, the lowest form of evidence in science.

Furthermore, Paul Tinari is an anti-circumcision advocate. The suposed "other doctors" will never come forward because of the supposed "threats" from the hospital discipline committee. By lying, he can only gain; there is nothing for him to lose, since his cheap testimony is unfalsifiable! He has precisely zero motivation to be honest!

Let's assume, then, that everything actually happened as he claims, that the child's brain activity "never (wrong! it may have returned to normal after the one month) returned to its baseline configuration." It may have returned to a level with a statistically-insignificant difference to before the circumcision; we can never know.

Also, "[the mother's] goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision." so not only were the so-called researchers determined to get their pre-determined conclusion, even the legal guardian of the test subject was a confederate!

Then he claims "any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations." This guy is a compulsive liar! The committee would be rightfully pissed, because a patient was used for scientific testing with no ethical restraints, permissions, or even the hospital's knowledge. Everyone involved should have been fired immediately.

The so-called "multiple sources" are explicitly biased anti-circumcision blogs and one anti-circumcision advocacy website posing as unbiased "Circumcision Information and Resources".

You're going to have to do better to make it in the scientific community. This is just disgusting and shameful.

EDIT: Full-disclosure; I support infant circumcision as preventative medicine.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-09-25T01:15:02+00:00

I'm looking for a control group. Am I missing it or does it not exist?

Dolanduckaroo · 2012-09-24T23:23:49+00:00

Could this a potential cause for anxiety problems?

Dranosh · 2012-09-25T15:20:09+00:00

any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations.

Nope, can't have anyone critiquing a "scientific consensus", just like critiquing global warming the critiquer clearly hates science.

downvoted_by_lefties · 2012-09-25T13:59:49+00:00

Holy shit - my brain is messed up and I didn't even know it!

doladolabillyall · 2012-09-25T00:43:10+00:00

Why is there such a divide between circumcised and uncircumcised men? This all just screams insecurity issues.

truthman2000 · 2012-09-25T04:46:52+00:00

I'd like to see more details about HOW it alters the brain. If it alters in a good way, then that's a pro for circumcision.

Also, you really shouldn't be subjecting infants to MRIs.

Title	MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision (with multiple sources)
Author	ZenDragon
Upvotes	72
Comments	52
Date	September 24, 2012 7:29 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10eo3m/mri_studies_the_brain_permanently_altered_from/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mri-studies-the-brain-permanently-altered-from.1012845 https://theredarchive.com/post/1012845

Comments