Re: Lucky bulls and your silly neonatal ideas

Written by RS on 18. September 1999 at 17:49:13:

In Reply to: Re: neonatal circ. : a realistic perspective written by Gerald N. Weiss, M.D. on 31. August 1999 at 00:45:28:

Hi Gerald,

it was a nice little phone chat the other day, I even feel you could be quite a pleasant human being despite you`re life long hobby ... I mean I think weŽd probably get on quite well if we were discussing earthquakes in Turkey or the taste of wine, who knows maybe even music or communism.

Now there is also a private letter from you in my mail box which I will ignore and invite you to send it here, you see, Gerald, I`d trust you with my kidneys my hands and legs and even probably my brain - heart, but youre not getting near my genitals, - Now I realise this is highly disrespectful for a man in your position but on this subject I dont trust you.

>I agree with your basic scientific endeavors, but years of medical practice are
>punctuated with the fact that Medicine/surgery is an INEXACT science.

This applies to livers enzymes or nerves ... foreskin problems are an absolute exception in the degree of inaccurate plain mis-information about the physiological movement of an external part of the anatomy. - I`m sure you agree, ...

>"Routine" is and should be a
>MISNOMER. Until QUALIFIED circumcisers are available to ALL-- there should never be
>ROUTINE surgery!!

This is the English language: and I`m not changing the language to fit the theories ... Routine is NOT a MISNOMER it is simply and plainly wrong and irresponsible. --- as you say ---

--- To follow this to a logical conclusion you should go touring medical colleges teaching the subject for several years before continuing with your advice to parents on neonatal cirucmcision ...

------------------------------
> My
>thesis is that RITUAL beliefs have often have good scientific basis

I believe this is generally accepted anthropological thinking ... I certainly have far more respect for the other Jewish traditions since discovering the reason for this one ... I mean "primitive" peoples often had a better *feeling* for what makes sense - the modern civilised jungle, sigh ... in this respect read https://members.tripod.co.uk/songs/breakfast.html

-- as the
>Hebraic circumcision (please review and comment on my article Prophylactic
>Neonatal Surgery and Infectious Diseases).

You keep giving me these long texts to plough through, now I dont mind looking at them as long as once I`ve smattered them to illogical fragments you`d be so good as to acknowledge it ... wot? - no answer to the statistics on AIDS UTIs and cancer ... ? well I guess it was only the first time I asked.

--------------------------------

>"Techniques in Large Animal Surgery", Second Edition by A.S.Turner et al. recom-
>mend prophylactic circumcision in the bull-- an old veterinarian practice in this
>country. The recommended oblique rather than transverse amputation of the pendu
>lous sheath results in oval rather than circular scar

Now here is a subject which you win me on. So we`ll forget that you never answered (for the 4th. time) if you`ve ever done a partial circ. ... obviously some part of your nervous system has been scanning for possible ways of sidetracking me, well, success ! --- well done sir ! ... I`ve been dimly considering oblique cuts to get over stretching problems for only the last couple of weeks, and you have crystalised the idea, ... well done that is a definate advancement and it will be fed straight back into the site

can you quote me a page no. in the book? or even FAX the page to me c/o 0049-40-442236

And dont bulls have it good, not only pre puberty checks, for frenulum and phimosis but now super stylish modern oblique shaped half circs, ... one thing I still find many hours amusement puzzling over is why bullocks have their eyesight checked as part of the "Breeding Soundness Examination"? - maybe you can tell me

----------------------------------------

>>>I heartily endorse this attitude and commend Robin for his outstanding work which
>>>serves to elaborate so well the COMPLICATIONS of those who have not been fortunate
>>>enough to have been PROPHYLACTICALLY circumcised neonatally.
>
>>I completely distance myself from this conclusion. My
>>suggested modern methods of PREVENTION (which you answered
>>to above) have nothing to do with "PROPHYLACTIC" circumcision.
>
>TRUE-- BUT IMAGINE HOW MUCH MISERY WOULD BE PREVENTED IF PROPER
>NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION HAD BEEN DONE!!

So you think this is wonderful absolute logic. - just hang on, look at it, - The only absolute logical conclusion is if I`d have been born a bullock I wouldn`t have had the problems ... !

First: if IŽd received a neonatal circ - if it left any inner foreskin I`d still have had the short frenulum and as objective research indicates (AS. Griffin and RL. Kroovand "Frenular chordee: implications and treatment" Urology 1990 Feb;35(2):133-4)
"Persistent frenular chordee after circumcision may result in deformity
of the penis on erection making sexual intercourse difficult or uncomfortable."

So, I`m surprised that any modern doctor, would suggest operating on anyone previous to giving a complete and accurate diagnosis, this seems totally contra modern medical practice. ...

So next, how are you going to decide who is neonatally circd? are you going to screen them, humm how are you going to screen them without checking them huh? ... remember checking them was my theme but,:

HOW CAN YOU CHECK NEONATES? with the epithelial adhesions jamming the whole area up, and even it were free, many infant phimotic rings are soft they will stretch, particularly it seems if encouraged early, (and I mean encouraged rather than forced by a doctor or parent), ... but it takes a couple of years ...

My research indicates that the only possible wise routine neonatal step is to non-forcefully release the adhesions so that the foreskin could be allowed to develop in a healthy way, ... unfortunately there seems no research (apart from my own) on how to dissolve these ahesions

https://www.male-initiation.net/dissolve.html

.... think about it ... wouldn`t this also satisfy some of your suggested approach?

So next point I feel your other papers have made it clear that your neonatal circ is also intended as a routine measure - so lets have it straight and stop debating with me.

>>The modern medical attitude and the conclusion of my study is
>>that children must be checked and these conditions prevented.
>
>ROUTINE circumcision or nothing at all = this is a total fallacy!
> GNW

Yes this is my conclusion ... hummm which makes me suspicious when I hear it coming from you (what a curiously twisted approach one develops after talking with people for a few years on this subject!) ... so what are you "debating" here?

I`m getting to know your devious ways, -- I hope you allow me the pleasure of uncovering your desperate ploys in future missives ---

happy days,
Robin