Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings

EricAllonde · 2017-11-06T10:51:27+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.

That's fucking evil. There's no better term for it than that.

Imnotmrabut · 2017-11-06T10:44:00+00:00

Full Text

Most Worrying is This;

The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

Those are the brain structures that undergo both structural and functional change with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Exposure to trauma in childhood is linked to adult development of PTSD.

skywyze · 2017-11-06T14:22:18+00:00

Source or it didn't happen. And I mean peer reviewed source, not a link to the guy's own website.

kwv55QKXMvC3aQtu · 2017-11-06T13:28:47+00:00

A little googling reveals that Paul Tinari has no medical degree. This reads like how someone imagines medical research to be done, not how it is actually done.

Oppose circumcision if you like, but don't rely on such low quality pseudoscience to support your position.

Lethn · 2017-11-06T10:05:31+00:00

Can you post the source for this? I'm sure there will be some online version somewhere.

Wisemanner · 2017-11-06T10:07:12+00:00

So research into male health and safety is illegal in this case? Which feminist lawmakers were responsible for that law?

2017-11-06T12:42:14+00:00

deleted ^{^{^What}} ^{^{^is}} ^{^{^this?}}

Imnotmrabut · 2017-11-06T21:16:08+00:00

Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae
Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD. Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.

The outcome of painful childhood trauma includes long-lasting neurophysiological and neurochemical brain changes (Anand & Carr, 1989; Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Ciaranello, 1983; Taddio et al., 1997; van der Kolk & Saporta, 1991). Richards, Bernal, and Brackbill (1976) found that circumcision may impact adversely on the developing brain, and that reported "gender differences" may actually arise from behavioural changes induced by infant or childhood circumcision.

Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.

It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision (Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision. Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).
Boyle, Gregory J., et al. "Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae." Journal of Health Psychology 7.3 (2002): 329-343.

Kowaae · 2017-11-06T21:59:33+00:00

People who mutilate infants genitals should serve jail time.

LoneKharnivore · 2017-11-06T15:05:02+00:00

Dr Tinari has a PhD in fluid dynamics, not medicine.

aussietoads · 2017-11-06T10:36:38+00:00

Well, they didn't ATTEMPT to study, they DID study, and good on them. Knowledge reveals another aspect of the truth. Parents need to know all possible known risks/side effects of a surgical procedure that will have a lifetime effect, bad or good.

Rethgil · 2017-11-06T22:41:12+00:00

I'm honestly shocked reading this. I don't know where to start but the hypocrisy of feminism over FGM compared to their acceptance and even promotion of FGM is symbolic of their hypocrisy and double standards on everything else.

wasnew4s · 2017-11-06T19:08:54+00:00

This may sound stupid but the makes be wonder about connections between circumcision and childhood development and how much influence this has on developmental disorders.

perdair · 2017-11-06T14:21:12+00:00

Male Genital Mutilation. They could at least call it what it is. "Circumcision" normalizes it.

SlipperyDishpit · 2017-11-06T23:15:45+00:00

Fucking disgusting. How do people not see that circumcision is GENITAL MUTILATION.

Tintcutter · 2017-11-07T03:04:13+00:00

Excellent Post!

Dembara · 2017-11-06T14:23:45+00:00

Do you have a link to the study itself?

romulusnr · 2017-11-06T17:17:17+00:00

Might it have had something to do with strapping the infant tightly and immobilizing its head? Seems problematic to investigate non consensual activity via non consensual activity

2017-11-06T16:48:42+00:00

But the important question is, how does this affect girls?

Topoficacion · 2017-11-06T12:45:49+00:00

I want to ask why is there so much talk about circumcision. I just dont understand it. I was circumcised when i was 16. I was told i had to undergo the surgery. I think i needed it because my skin around the penis was not elastic at a specific point and it felt like having a tight belt there. While i agree that it shouldnt be done by default to infants, i dont feel like it had any bad effects to me. Apart from this trauma to kids, is there any bad side effects on it that i might not be aware of? I honestly think that it is not comparable to female circumcision where the girl is really affected by it. Please correct me if im wrong. Edit: thanks for the responses. I now understand that it isnt against circumcision as a procedure, but against the systematic mutilation of infants. I was just worried there was something i was missing. If you medically need one as an adult, dont be afraid because in my case it made it better and no problems by now.

Imnotmrabut · 2017-11-06T17:37:23+00:00

That haunting moment when science becomes heresy.

Terminal-Psychosis · 2017-11-06T14:53:28+00:00

These criminals calling this "ethical regulations" deserve not only to lose their jobs,

but to be put in a mental institution, or in prison.

This is the exact opposite of ethical. What ever happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Greedy bastards. :(

Veteran4Peace · 2017-11-06T18:45:29+00:00

Well, that's the most screwed up thing I've read all day.

McGauth925 · 2017-11-06T20:40:49+00:00

I would have to suspect that organized religion reared its head, on this one. Studies that call into question the ethics of a religious practice...I can see how the Gov. might back off on that, as well as how it could be construed as some kind of harassment/discrimination.

But isn't it amazing that you can't even ask the questions?

relaxlu_ · 2017-11-06T23:32:58+00:00

We didn't get a chance to circumcised our boy during birth. He was born 3 weeks earlier and the family friend doctor hasn't returned from her vacation. So when my son was born, we decided to wait till she returned. We had 30 days to decide and insurance covers it. A week later our baby had a slight fever and we had to stay overnight at the hospital while they monitor him. He had all kind of tubes and fluids going through him. Then I decided that i don't want to put him through anymore and delay the circumcision till he's 12 when he can decide if he wants it or not.

2017-11-07T02:03:06+00:00

Can someone explain to me the differences and similarities between male circumcision and FGM?

housea1994 · 2017-11-06T14:58:40+00:00

You know, I've been on the fence for as long as I've been in the MRM about intactivism, seeing it as among the lower end of our issues we need to tackle (it's still about halfway down my list tbh) but after reading this, I've changed. Unless your son chooses it himself, or you're extremely religious, zero reason to do this.

68696c6c · 2017-11-06T15:22:35+00:00

If you even need a study like this to convince you that circumcision is wrong, you’re fucked in the head.

AFuckYou · 2017-11-06T16:33:13+00:00

Circumcisions are bad.

Malchael · 2017-11-06T14:41:13+00:00

Is this even proven?

KillTheScot · 2017-11-06T23:00:29+00:00

OK, before anyone gets worked up, I think MGM is abhorrent and we should all have a right to foreskins. I am however reserving judgement on the regulations until I have read them myself. That said, this study caught my eye for looking somewhat suspect, and it just got worse and worse the more I looked.

No control. This invalidates the result entirely. Without a child put in the exact same position minus only the snip itself, there's nothing to say that the trauma wasn't caused by being restrained, being out in a noisy, claustrophobic MRI machine, being separated from family, being manhandled by a doctor, some other unknown affects, or any combination thereof.
n = 1. One is not an acceptable sample size. For all we know, this kid is an outlier, and experiences more MRI-visible trauma than 99.9% of the population or vice versa. Sure, it's unlikely but the point remains that any deviation from the population mean shown in the scans is now our best guess at the whole effect.

Either one would be a death knell for the scientific credibility of their conclusions, and would get them laughed out of any reputable journal. I would assume that Dinari's focus on the single patient is indicative of there only being one, but as I was writing this up, I realised something - as the results are supposedly destroyed, Dinari is under no obligation to tell us about his whole sample.

If he got to the point where he was presenting results, it seems incredibly suspect that he would go in with only the data he mentions here due to the aforementioned reasons. It could very well be the case that there were more children that had experienced a less dramatic or persistent effect that Dinari leaves out - after all he isn't obliged to show his working. This is of course all conjecture, but this opinion piece based off only a single subject strikes me as incredibly odd.

For fun, here are some more easy targets:

Follow up testing happened at one day, one week, and one month. I really shouldn't have to point out why that doesn't constitute evidence of a "permanent change".
Despite the prevalence of non-anaesthetised circumcisions, this result can only be used to draw conclusions about those particular circumcisions. Not including that in the conclusion is a notable flaw. For all we know, the trauma disappears when you add an analgesic into the mix, the effect of which on pain is currently being tested in . . . Canada?
I'm getting bored here, but the final thing I want to bring up is that the consen given here is a grayscale rat's-nest:

The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine, and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised, and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.

There are a few other things I left out, like whether the analysis was blind, and the general methodological vagueness, but suffice to say, I would not be content using this as evidence in any scenario.

EssencialToLife · 2017-11-06T17:33:38+00:00

Vaccinantion and fluoridation studies have even more problems.

The opressing of unwelcome data by "established scientists" is one of the big problems in medicine and archeology. Opressing new findings until "the old profs" have literally died out is commonplace. Corruption of science by big money is commonplace.

Academia has become an ugly place.

Gayestjew · 2017-11-06T14:06:19+00:00

White guy foreskins make a lot of money for (((them))). They are in a lot of beauty products too. Women literally are smearing your dicks on their faces.

18hockey · 2017-11-06T17:27:13+00:00

As a circumcised male (my parents are Catholic), I often see posts like this and I'm a little flummoxed. I believe I've had it explained to me before that no one except the US and Israel really circumcise, and I think that it's wrong, but can someone explain to me in more detail about the ethical dilemma here, or why we shouldn't circumcise? I disagree with circumcising infants as they have no say in it and that's morally wrong to me. However let's say a legal adult wants to get circumcised, what is actually wrong about the process?

I'd also love to learn more to convince my gf as well because she believes that our future children will be "made fun of" for having foreskin (I don't really think that's a thing).

Skr0ut · 2017-11-06T21:32:35+00:00

Could they disprove that strapping an infant down inside of an MRI machine (which is a rather tight space) didn't cause at least some of that mental trauma? Or maybe even most of it?

2017-11-06T13:36:35+00:00

Legal procedures outcomes are studied all the time. I think they know circumcision changes men.

Krazyflipz · 2017-11-06T12:45:19+00:00

Hook and loop.

eduardo_escobar · 2017-11-06T14:37:29+00:00

Why does the bottom part of the image look distinctly different than the top? Suggests possible Photoshop.

Mentioned_Videos · 2017-11-06T15:25:38+00:00

Videos in this thread:

Watch Playlist ▶

VIDEO	COMMENT
Circumcision Video with Commentary	+25 - The real problem is that it's impossible to quantify the effects since there's no way to create a proper control. That said, what you did (medically necessary circumcision to treat a disorder or dysfunction) is VERY different from what babies underg...
(1) An interview with Dr. Paul D. Tinari of Pacific Institute at World Future Conference July 21, 2013. (2) Paul Tinari: The Revolution of 3d Printing	+16 - Here's Paul Tinari of the Pacific Institute for Advanced Study, who is quoted above: and here is Paul Tinari of the 3D printing company you mention: If what you say is true, then aside from sharing a name, they share a face. Remarkable, imo. Ma...
The Real Reason You're Circumcised - Adam Ruins Everything	+2 - It was originally to stop masturbation pushed by the same people who also advocated for putting carbolic acid on the clitoris.
Strawman Fallacy: FGM vs. MGM	+1 - This video gives a quick overview of different forms of FGM and how they compare to different forms of male genital mutilation. This essay goes more in depth.

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.

Play All | Info | Get me on Chrome / Firefox

freedomowns · 2017-11-06T16:24:22+00:00

Maybe that's why I'm slightly retarded.

Joe_Coop_Cooper · 2017-11-06T20:26:23+00:00

It's true! I'm circumcised and I couldn't read the OP.

TorontoIntactivist · 2017-11-07T16:52:06+00:00

It boggles my mind that people think you can torture an infant into shock and not have it affect brain development.

MichaelRahmani · 2017-11-07T18:53:04+00:00

oh I hope this is fake/not true

Kirby999 · 2017-11-10T09:35:39+00:00

Jewish influence has reached a breaking point now. Not surprised one bit.

Kirby999 · 2017-11-26T21:33:37+00:00

Deleted account and deleted image now 20 days later.

PM_ME_REDHAIR · 2017-11-06T12:53:18+00:00

They should have cut out some irrelevant skin to compare with this. And reproduce the results with some other kid. This alone means nothing.

Macheako · 2017-11-06T14:48:46+00:00

Holy fucking shit you people are whacked in the head....

People with snipped dicks lack the same reasoning abilities?????? From snipping your dick at 3 months old.........are you fucking kidding me??????

And this can be proved? Like gravity can? Or drowning? Or combustion? How does ANY of this shit get "replicated"?

This anti circumcision crap has gotta be the saddest part of the men's right movement. 85% of this country doesn't give a fuck about snipped dicks and neither should y'all.

Fucking hell....the shit we spend our time on....

brunofuckme · 2017-11-06T14:29:22+00:00

Am circumcised. Can confirm. Perception and emotions are fucked.

E/ ....thanks mom and dad

Pm_Me_Books_Podcasts · 2017-11-06T17:23:28+00:00

Clearly states that no anaesthetic was used. Kinda obvious the child would feel pain.

But hey, we got an agenda to push. Fuck being objective.

Robbaba · 2017-11-06T17:25:36+00:00

Most of the objections to this study are because there was no Rabbi present to suck the little gays dick.

choirdirector33 · 2017-11-06T19:36:18+00:00

This “study” is so skewed. They practically tortured a baby to manipulate these findings. Of course someone would react adversely to that kind of treatment. Do the study under normal circumstances.

Good grief.

Starting to sound like those crazy SJWs and Feminists m.

bleck05 · 2017-11-07T03:43:21+00:00

Ok, I oppose circumcision, but this isn't a big surprise. You don't fucking strap down an infant and circumcise it in an MRI chamber without consulting the ethics committee. While I oppose circumcision, this study is terrible and i think that it's horrible that they preformed it.

Two_Tone_Xylophone · 2017-11-06T19:35:19+00:00

Yeah I'm willing to bet this would happen to anyone who had any sort of painful surgery without anesthetic...i mean come on, what sort of study was this and who the fuck would do that to anyone much less a child?

If you are going to do a study like this it probably should be done exactly as they would in any clinic, as far as i know if you told the doc to use an obsidian blade and no anesthetic youd likely be thrown out on your ass and a call to cps would likely be made. Beyond that your movement would likely get more support if you lightened up on this issue you guys are nuts on this topic

DevilishRogue · 2017-11-06T12:17:27+00:00

u/theothermod could this be made into a permanent sticky?

Title	Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings
Author	White_Swallow_
Upvotes	3486
Comments	475
Date	November 6, 2017 9:20 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7b42yq/our_problems_began_when_we_attempted_to_publish/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/our-problems-began-when-we-attempted-to-publish.911696 https://theredarchive.com/post/911696

Comments

Full Text