This blog is a companion to our IntactWiki website
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Circleaks main site
To all our concerned friends and foes:
Our main site, circleaks.org, is having a small technical inconvenience that should be resolved within the next few days. The site will be back online once this issue is resolved.
What is the "small technical inconvenience"? From what I saw of the site, before it vanished, it was a disgraceful mix of innuendo and "guilt by association". Little more than ad hominems and crude character assassination. Has the host been threatened with libel perhaps, and pulled the plug? Would not surprise me, and it would not be before time.
Technical inconvenience is just that, and it's being resolved. Not a legal issue.
Information is not libel if it's documented.
Finally, circumcision is such an emotional issue (because it's marked permanently in our flesh) that we need to understand the motivation and bias of those promoting it. That's not an ad hominem. Bias causes conflicts of interest. Those conflicts of interest are rarely declared.
For example, the AAP did not declare that Andrew Freedman is Jewish, works with a mohel and circumcised his own baby in a non-sterile environment for religious reasons. These are indications of bias that should be declared if this person is part of a committee saying that "the benefits outweigh the risks" and "the procedure should be reimbursed by third party payer"
The AAP did not declare that Doug Diekema was chair of the committee that approved the "Ashley treatment", wrote reports about it as a potential treatment for other patients, has twice promoted the "ritual genital cutting of female minors" and has appeared as witness for plaintiffs who denied medical treatment to their children based on religious beliefs, resulting in one death.
Circumcision is as much of a medical/cultural/religious issue as it is psychological. Understanding the mentality of people, both for and against, is quite fascinating, and essential to understand the plethora of contradictory studies for over 115 years. It's just the one topic people can't be objective on.
Have you realized that in "a snip in time", Morris, Tobian and a number of usual promoters, suggest that circumcision is better performed in infancy, and one of the reasons is that "these various psychological problems should be mitigated by making MC normative in a community, just as with most fears and anxieties, the prospect of such concerns would be largely eliminated if MC were performed in infancy"?
Add to this that Freud considered circumcision a substitute for castration, and you have lots of psychological ground to cover.
None of what you write changes my impression of the site. It was pure character assassination. Morris et al are probably correct re infant circ and the quote you cite. Freud's ideas carry little weight in modern psychiatry. Have you ever considered the possibility that intactivists themselves may be biased? And that this may affect their objectivity? I have seen so many instances of bad science and sloppy logic in their writings I have come to regard them as very like anti-vaccinationists or HIV/AIDS deniers. And as pernicious too. Perhaps the reason some circ'd males have psychological issues is because they have been tricked into believing intactivist bullsh!t about function and performance. At least you acknowledge it is an emotional topic. Have you any idea how emotional your own side are? Look at the vitriolic abuse they heap upon anyone who dissents, or worse, promotes circ. And circleaks only fed this bullying and nastiness. That's another of the reasons I've come to really dislike intactivism. The sheer nastiness of so many of them just makes them seem like bigoted fanatics. Even some circ-opponents are embarrassed by this behaviour. See: http://thedetractivist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/when-will-intactivists-learn-that.html Other reasons I dislike intactivism are the psychological harm it does to circ'd males telling them they have been sexually ruined. It really pains me every time I see some impressionable youngster complaining about being circ'd and parroting the standard mantras about 20,000 nerves, keratin etc, and then reinforced by others saying how true it all is. And there's the denialism about African HIV. circ DOES protect, condoms are not enough (and are failing) and the African circ programs are set to save lives big time. Intactivists would sacrifice African lives on the altar of "genital integrity" and that disgusts me. They are undermining an important public health initiative, and that is utterly immoral. The denialism extends to other medical issues. This summer I spent some time dissecting a "meta-analysis" purporting to "prove" that circ does not protect against other STDs. Its author (a prominent intactivist) applied a discredited, and wholly inappropriate "sampling bias correction" to studies on HPV in order to reverse the findings and arrive instead at his desired answer - that circ does not protect. It was an appalling piece of pseudoscience, and even made a scandalous personal attack on Johns Hopkins researchers, accusing them of incompetence or dishonesty for allegedly not publishing data from penile shaft samples. But one of the papers he cites states that they simply hadn't the resources to test those samples. They later did, and published them. His accusation was utterly false, and answered by one of his own references! He also ignored multiple published critiques of his "sampling bias" argument, applied it to a study that had specifically excluded it by testing for it, and applied it to this and another study that sampled areas, and used methods, to which his argument (based on glans-only sampling with emery paper then swabs) did not apply. And, of course, he ignored other studies, including RCTs, that ought to have been included in the meta-analysis. The whole thing was selective, misleading and dishonest from start to end. Is it any wonder I don't like intactivism? And all these criticisms are valid, regardless of the rights or wrongs of routinely circumcising babies - something I do not advocate for, and am actually rather ambivalent about.
If you're ambivalent about male circumcision -- especially as a man, you disgust me. Are you against FGM? Are you a hypocrite? Let's see...
Male circumcision is about human rights. I suspect no amount of "medical benefits" would cause you to support any (even mild) form of FGM, would they? Because that means you're either a sexist or a hypocrite. There are no medical benefits to male circumcision, and plenty of risks. More than that, there is significant loss of sexual function. Even a nick is FGM, but cutting off 1/2 penis skin is "no big deal". Even if there were health benefits to male circumcision, it is wrong -- just like FGM.
Circumcised men still need condoms. If you don't know this, you're a moron. American men get HIV at very high rates. Circumcision doesn't protect them. Why must men lose an important part of their sexuality just because some poor quality research indicates there is an insignificant reduction in risk? Use your brain, my friend.
To circleaks. I am a south-korea's intactivist and medical doctor. I am managing intactivism community : http://cafe.naver.com/nocircum I must communicate with you to eradicate circumcision in south-korea. Please, send me your e-mail. My e-mail is nocirc@naver.com I can't speak english well, so I can't talk on the phone with you sadly.
We, in korea's intactivists, are so much thank you that you tell us about the truth of circumcision.
These "technical problems" have been going on for some time. Is there something I can help with? I have a great bit of experience in this area. You can contact me on Twitter (username @dlindenii). I follow you so you can DM me.
I hope that you will be back online.
ReplyDeleteWe, korean intactivist, got so much helps from your site.
Cheer up...
Thank you so much! We'll be up and running again very soon.
DeleteWhat is the "small technical inconvenience"? From what I saw of the site, before it vanished, it was a disgraceful mix of innuendo and "guilt by association". Little more than ad hominems and crude character assassination. Has the host been threatened with libel perhaps, and pulled the plug? Would not surprise me, and it would not be before time.
ReplyDeleteTechnical inconvenience is just that, and it's being resolved. Not a legal issue.
DeleteInformation is not libel if it's documented.
Finally, circumcision is such an emotional issue (because it's marked permanently in our flesh) that we need to understand the motivation and bias of those promoting it. That's not an ad hominem. Bias causes conflicts of interest. Those conflicts of interest are rarely declared.
For example, the AAP did not declare that Andrew Freedman is Jewish, works with a mohel and circumcised his own baby in a non-sterile environment for religious reasons. These are indications of bias that should be declared if this person is part of a committee saying that "the benefits outweigh the risks" and "the procedure should be reimbursed by third party payer"
The AAP did not declare that Doug Diekema was chair of the committee that approved the "Ashley treatment", wrote reports about it as a potential treatment for other patients, has twice promoted the "ritual genital cutting of female minors" and has appeared as witness for plaintiffs who denied medical treatment to their children based on religious beliefs, resulting in one death.
Circumcision is as much of a medical/cultural/religious issue as it is psychological. Understanding the mentality of people, both for and against, is quite fascinating, and essential to understand the plethora of contradictory studies for over 115 years. It's just the one topic people can't be objective on.
Have you realized that in "a snip in time", Morris, Tobian and a number of usual promoters, suggest that circumcision is better performed in infancy, and one of the reasons is that "these various psychological problems should be
mitigated by making MC normative in a community,
just as with most fears and anxieties, the prospect of
such concerns would be largely eliminated if MC were
performed in infancy"?
Add to this that Freud considered circumcision a substitute for castration, and you have lots of psychological ground to cover.
None of what you write changes my impression of the site. It was pure character assassination.
DeleteMorris et al are probably correct re infant circ and the quote you cite.
Freud's ideas carry little weight in modern psychiatry.
Have you ever considered the possibility that intactivists themselves may be biased? And that this may affect their objectivity? I have seen so many instances of bad science and sloppy logic in their writings I have come to regard them as very like anti-vaccinationists or HIV/AIDS deniers. And as pernicious too. Perhaps the reason some circ'd males have psychological issues is because they have been tricked into believing intactivist bullsh!t about function and performance. At least you acknowledge it is an emotional topic. Have you any idea how emotional your own side are? Look at the vitriolic abuse they heap upon anyone who dissents, or worse, promotes circ. And circleaks only fed this bullying and nastiness. That's another of the reasons I've come to really dislike intactivism. The sheer nastiness of so many of them just makes them seem like bigoted fanatics. Even some circ-opponents are embarrassed by this behaviour. See:
http://thedetractivist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/when-will-intactivists-learn-that.html
Other reasons I dislike intactivism are the psychological harm it does to circ'd males telling them they have been sexually ruined. It really pains me every time I see some impressionable youngster complaining about being circ'd and parroting the standard mantras about 20,000 nerves, keratin etc, and then reinforced by others saying how true it all is. And there's the denialism about African HIV. circ DOES protect, condoms are not enough (and are failing) and the African circ programs are set to save lives big time. Intactivists would sacrifice African lives on the altar of "genital integrity" and that disgusts me. They are undermining an important public health initiative, and that is utterly immoral. The denialism extends to other medical issues. This summer I spent some time dissecting a "meta-analysis" purporting to "prove" that circ does not protect against other STDs. Its author (a prominent intactivist) applied a discredited, and wholly inappropriate "sampling bias correction" to studies on HPV in order to reverse the findings and arrive instead at his desired answer - that circ does not protect. It was an appalling piece of pseudoscience, and even made a scandalous personal attack on Johns Hopkins researchers, accusing them of incompetence or dishonesty for allegedly not publishing data from penile shaft samples. But one of the papers he cites states that they simply hadn't the resources to test those samples. They later did, and published them. His accusation was utterly false, and answered by one of his own references! He also ignored multiple published critiques of his "sampling bias" argument, applied it to a study that had specifically excluded it by testing for it, and applied it to this and another study that sampled areas, and used methods, to which his argument (based on glans-only sampling with emery paper then swabs) did not apply. And, of course, he ignored other studies, including RCTs, that ought to have been included in the meta-analysis. The whole thing was selective, misleading and dishonest from start to end. Is it any wonder I don't like intactivism? And all these criticisms are valid, regardless of the rights or wrongs of routinely circumcising babies - something I do not advocate for, and am actually rather ambivalent about.
If you're ambivalent about male circumcision -- especially as a man, you disgust me. Are you against FGM? Are you a hypocrite? Let's see...
DeleteMale circumcision is about human rights. I suspect no amount of "medical benefits" would cause you to support any (even mild) form of FGM, would they? Because that means you're either a sexist or a hypocrite. There are no medical benefits to male circumcision, and plenty of risks. More than that, there is significant loss of sexual function. Even a nick is FGM, but cutting off 1/2 penis skin is "no big deal". Even if there were health benefits to male circumcision, it is wrong -- just like FGM.
Circumcised men still need condoms. If you don't know this, you're a moron. American men get HIV at very high rates. Circumcision doesn't protect them. Why must men lose an important part of their sexuality just because some poor quality research indicates there is an insignificant reduction in risk? Use your brain, my friend.
To circleaks.
ReplyDeleteI am a south-korea's intactivist and medical doctor.
I am managing intactivism community : http://cafe.naver.com/nocircum
I must communicate with you to eradicate circumcision in south-korea.
Please, send me your e-mail. My e-mail is nocirc@naver.com
I can't speak english well, so I can't talk on the phone with you sadly.
We, in korea's intactivists, are so much thank you that you tell us about the truth of circumcision.
These "technical problems" have been going on for some time. Is there something I can help with? I have a great bit of experience in this area. You can contact me on Twitter (username @dlindenii). I follow you so you can DM me.
ReplyDeleteAahhh, it's back! Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAahhh it's back! Thanks!
ReplyDelete