CDC Trying To Get Male Teens Circumcised? Are They For Real?

Tools and procedure for infant circumcision. On one Penn & Teller 'BULLSHIT' episode the full procedure was shown with the infant given no anesthetic and screaming uncontrollably afterward. 

Seems the CDC has now stepped into the circumcision controversy advising teens to get the procedure done if the barbaric act wasn't perpetrated on them as an infant. On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new guidelines regarding the safety and benefits of circumcision. Wisely, the CDC didn’t actually instruct parents to get their sons snipped - after all, it's a personal decision that could be influenced by culture and religious beliefs. But,  the report makes it clear that it is a very good idea to do so, and urges teenage boys to elect to have the surgery if they have not already.  According to one CDC blowhard,  Jonathan Mermin:

"Male circumcision has been associated with a 50 to 60 percent reduction of H.I.V. transmission, as well as a reduction in sexually transmitted infections such as herpes, bacterial vaginosis and the human papilloma virus (H.P.V.), which causes penile and cervical cancer,” 


But hold strain. First, people that deludedly believe it's not barbaric need to see the Penn & Teller SHOWTIME ('Bullshit') episode ('Circumcision') in which an infant is shown strapped in restraints and then his foreskin sliced off by a Gomco clamp as he screams hysterically. Penn asks: "And you really think that kid doesn't feel pain?" (Implying that only an idiot wouldn't.)

But unsatisfied that sufficient American infants have been butchered for no good reason, the Medical-Industrial -Health complex now wants to take it to another level and get teens to agree to do it - oh yes, for the sake of hygiene, health and preventing STDs, of course.

Look, speaking as one who's never been 'cut' (my parents,  when they inquired from our then family physician Dr. Behnke, were told no anesthetic was given because "he won't feel a thing" - backed away) I dispute the procedure is the least bit useful or valid. But again, let's back up a tad.

If a mature, uncircumcised person is worried about "cleanliness" well - DOH! That's why soap and water were invented! If you're worried about STDs or HIV infection,  well hey, that's why condoms were invented. If you're worried about the HPV (human papilloma virus) that's why they now have HPV vaccines - including for teen males. But for some CDC numb skull to urge teens to go get it done on their own borders on medical malpractice.

First, as barbaric as this antiquated butchery is on infants, it's vastly worse on a grown kid or teen. Consideration first has to be given to the fact that the operation is now  much more involved and thus longer, often requiring general anaesthesia. That means you're chances of croaking are already 3 to 5 times greater, including from many kinds of adverse reactions. 

Then there is the risk of complications (generally seen in up to 5% of operations)  and approximately 10 times higher for circumcision in older boys and adults as compared to infants. The top risk is that of infection, and in a worst case scenario we are talking about flesh -eating bacteria - because of the use of unsterilized implements - and in extreme cases having to lop off part or all of the penis to prevent the necrotizing bacterial spread.

Depending on the extent and degree of infection, the young adult may also face a future of prostatis and urinary problems. If the penis is badly infected and urination proves problematic he may need to be catheterized with a Foley catheter - possibly for weeks. (And having had that for only a few hours during prostate cancer treatment - believe me it's no fun.)

In addition to the above serious issues, healing is a lot slower - since stitches or adhesives are needed, and the person will probably be laid up 4 -6 weeks. And btw, those are 4- 6 weeks during which you absolutely will not be able to wank off! Do not even think of it.

Oh, and we won't even get into the costs which can easily run over $1,000 and there's no assurance that even Obamacare will foot the bill.

Some misguided women often try to pressure their mates to get it done because "it looks more beautiful after". Which is arrant bull pockey.  How can "it look more beautiful"  if nature's own organ has been lopped off? Does a woman look more beautiful after a clitorodectomy? I think not!. These are the mouthings of poppets brainwashed by the Medical -Industrial complex and its surgical instrument manufacturers. If these bozos had their way every manjack would be getting some kind of surgery at least twice per year. It's a "growth" sector!

If the CDC wants to be useful, instead of advising teens and others to get circumcised  it should work harder to develop more effective flu vaccines. The news this morning - that the current flu vaccines are only 50% effective - is not designed to inspire much confidence. (The excuse is 'the virus mutated', well doh, we know that happens - so why not do better advance research to have foreseen that and tweak the vaccine?) Oh, and let's not forget all the CDC foul ups during the Ebola scare-- and leaving deadly viruses like smallpox and anthrax in cardboard boxes in various locations.

Bottom line here: Circumcision is an antiquated RELIGIOUS practice (by Jews and Muslims) that has no place in the modern world of rational, secular society. It is only advised under the rarest of conditions and certainly not as a general Rx for STDs, HPV, cancer or any other red herring reason.

A Dental Visit And Oral Cancer Scare - What You Need to Know

Most of us are concerned with a constellation of other cancers, including prostate, lungs, breast, skin and the liver and kidney cancers John Phillips has linked to consuming GMO foods. But off the radar is oral cancer, which kills one American every hour.  A fact I learned yesterday at the regular 6 month dental cleaning and periodontal exam.

The dentist strongly suggested getting the Visilite test at the end of the cleaning and exam, given the incidence has been increasing - especially among males. I agreed, and probably also learned more about oral cancer, its emergence and treatment then I ever wanted to know. (And here I am still dealing with getting psa tests after radiation treatment nearly a year and a half ago. But good news there - at least the psa went down for once - from 2.8 to 2.5).

The Visilite test begins with filling one's mouth with one half of a small bottle of liquid tasting only somewhat less vile than the stuff they prescribe drinking before a colonoscopy. The taste was roughly similar to a strong raspberry vinaigrette that's gone off. You hold it for a minute, swish and gargle at the end- then it's time to take the other half bottle. The same procedure is followed, after which you are left waiting five minutes for the concoction to do its work and stain the tissues that need to be examined using the Visilite.

The dentist then begins probing  all around the mouth with the Visilite, from left to right side, while also pushing on the gum tissue, then peering down the throat (which is why you're asked to gargle too.)  In attendance too is the dental hygienist taking notes. About halfway through I heard the ominous words:

"Lesion on soft palate on left side."

When the exam concluded, she obviously had my attention and I asked about the lesion discovered. She said it was "unremarkable" and described it as keratotic tissue. This basically refers to any kind of tissue that increases the thickness of the epithelium and causes it to appear white. Generally it arises from a (genetic ) condition called hyper-keratosis where any excess keratin becomes drenched with saliva and appears white. It can also happen with cheek biting or use of tobacco products, either from chewing tobacco (smokeless tobacco induced keratosis) or nicotine stomatitis.

When I asked regarding the cancer risk on a 1-10 scale she replied: "I give a '3'."

She didn't appear to worry too much - she was more concerned with a periodontal (gum loss)  measurement of 6mm at one rear molar. (For which a "deep cleaning and scaling" was prescribed at a later date.)  In any case she said oral cancer was far more prevalent among younger males in the 18-34 age group, particularly those who have regularly engaged in oral sex.

The culprit for the younger set? HPV or human papilloma virus which can reside in the cervix and is taken in during oral sex. Unless the female has had the HPV vaccine, she is likely to spread it to unsuspecting males. It may linger for years with the guy unaware of the cancer that has been triggered until finally some disconcerting event, perhaps a difficulty in swallowing, leads to a medical intervention.

I asked what the treatment would be if the lesion discovered in my mouth becomes cancerous and the dentist said: "We'd have to surgically excise it."

I was also interested in the fact that most people who get oral cancer have no adverse life style indicators: they don't smoke, they don't chew tobacco, they don't use alcohol to excess and they rarely ever perform oral sex. In this case, I asked whether external factors like chemical agents or even GMO foods could be responsible for the onset, and she said "It's possible, but we don't have enough information.".

Other stats show the high incidence for oral cancer has been around at least the past 40 years. Whatever is causing it, and if it exists in the environment, must be widespread  - and I suspect, chemical. Perhaps a pesticide or weedicide - left on foods that aren't organic - but consumed by many people? Maybe.

The search goes on but in the meantime getting the Visilite oral cancer check may be in your best interest!

Should This Gynecologist Be Allowed to Examine, Treat Male Patients? Of Course!

Dr. Elizabeth Stier - wants to continue treating the men in her practice.


Dr. Elizabeth Stier isn't asking for much, only that she be allowed to continue examining and treating male patients  at risk for anal cancer. The disease is rare, but it can be fatal and its incidence is increasing, especially among men and women infected with H.I.V. Like cervical cancer, anal cancer is usually caused by the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which is sexually transmitted.  (One of the last major media notices put out about it was a few years ago, when Farrah Fawcett described her ordeal.)

As a New York Tmes piece described Saturday, though most of Dr. Stier's patients are women, (she works at Boston Medical Center), she also treated about 110 men last year, using techniques adapted from those developed to screen women for cervical cancer.  

But in September, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology insisted that its members
treat only women, with few exceptions, and identified the procedure in which Dr. Stier has expertise as one that gynecologists are not allowed to perform on men. Doctors cannot ignore such directives from a specialty board, because most need certification to keep their jobs.  Doctor Stier expressed shock to learn that she would lose a vital credential, board certification as a gynecologist, unless she gave up this important part of her medical practice and her research: taking care of men at high risk for anal cancer.

Now Dr. Stier’s studies are in limbo, her research colleagues are irate, and her male patients are distraught. Other gynecologists who had translated their skills to help male patients are in similar straits.  Worse, this comes at a time when researchers are about to start a major clinical trial that is aimed at preventing anal cancer (increasing at new, alarming rates), with $5.6 million from the National Cancer Institute. Observers say the Dallas' board’s decision will keep some of the best qualified, most highly skilled doctors in the United States from treating male patients in the study.


Though Dr. Stier and the Director of the planned study asked the Board to reconsider their decision, they remain adamant. According to the Times article, they are convinced such practice amounts to "money making" and is "tarnishing the specialty's image. . But  Dr. Mark H. Einstein, a gynecologic oncologist at Montefiore Medical Center  said, “The board’s approach is to be rather dogmatic and to draw a line in the sand.”
 

In many ways it reminds me of a fierce debate that erupted in an Astronomy meeting some years ago when one purist decried planetary scientists calling themselves astronomers. "How can they be astronomers? " he asked, "when the very name is based on 'astro' referring to stars, not planets!"  Presumably, if this person could be transported to the present context, he'd argue "gyne" refers to females so can't be applied to males.


But he'd miss the point that many of the techniques are the same and are medically transferable. For example, the technique entails the use of Anoscopy. .  This involves using 4-5 cm long lighted tube (anuscope)  to examine the anal canal which is 4-5 cm long. A high resolution version also adds a magnifier to look for abnormal growths much the same way as is done in a colonoscopy. These growths may be cancers or precancers, with the latter requiring surgery  though doctors can burn off precancers in much the same way gastro-enterologists can excise polyps during a colonoscopy.

The point is that Dr. Stier has been an expert in the high resolution method and her patients - males especially  - have come to depend on her. Though she has been treating men for 10 years, she will now be able to see only women and this worries her.  What most concerns her is what will become of the men she's been treating. As she points out in the NY Times piece, the procedures are embarrassing and uncomfortable for patients, and it takes time for a doctor to gain their trust.  Now, they will have to seek treatments and care at other hospitals, with other medical practitioners with whom that same trust may not be possible. It is possible that they won't even bother.

Dr. Joel Palefsky, a specialist at the UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco(where I had my prostate cancer high dose treatment) said:

"We need as many trained people as possible. The assumption all along has been that many of the gynecologists we trained would participate in the study and would see both men and women.”


Sadly, however, definitional absolutism and semantics has crept into a field which can ill afford it. If we are ever to win the battle against cancer - especially against the "squeamishness-inducing, embarrassing cancers" that make people's skins crawl - we will need all hands on deck and as many different resources and high level skilled professionals as possible!

Bravo to Dr. Liz Stier for trying to do her part!