Follow the pro-circ money
The LA Times recently had two different unbalanced stories on circumcision. Both stories downplayed the negatives, and both offered absurdities for a pro-circ position, i.e., appearance, penile cancer (1 in 100,000 cut as opposed to 1 in 300,000 intact — DO THE MATH!!!).
One reader complained,
The risk of penile cancer is minuscule, lower than for appendicitis. Should we remove the baby’s appendix as well?
In fact, this would be less illogical, as circumcised men can still get penile cancer.
Another reader noted,
Your article also failed to mention an article published last year in the peer-reviewed British Journal of Urology International titled “Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis.” The results indicated that intact penises were four times more sensitive than cut penises.
So I asked myself…are the editors afraid of something? Who owns the LA Times?
Is it owned by a Jew? Is it owned by a right-wing Jew?
Yes. Yes.
The LA Times is owned by a Mr. Sam Zell. Mr. Zell supports numerous Jewish causes, including some right-wing ones.
Did the editors fear upsetting their new owner with balanced stories on circumcision? If so, this is no shame to Mr. Zell. But it reflects quite poorly on the editors who did not publish accurately or fairly on this matter.
4 comments
There are many risk factors to cancer, including a genetic predisposition, nutrition, environment etc. According to my bf, even secular Ashkenazim in the US mostly eat junk and convenience food (the traditional foods aren’t too healthy either), and my Chasidic friends mostly seem to survive on snacks and fast food apart from the homemade stuff they get over the holidays; spices, herbs, fresh fruit and veggies are no-go area for most of them. That might be a factor one needs to consider, too.
What would a balanced story on circumcision be?
One that didn’t promote penile cancer as a “benefit” for circumcising, and one that referenced the recent specific test of the intense sensitivity of the tip of the foreskin, not just minority psychological trauma.
A balanced story would be one that posts the SCIENTIFIC evidence–and THAT clearly shows that circumcision has NO PROVEN benefits, PROVEN harm, PROVEN risks, and a PROVEN loss of sensation and functions.
NO major medical orgnaiozation claims there are any proven benefits–only the US organizations even claim there are “potential” benefits… the others simply do not recognise ANY benefit—proven or potential.
So WHY does not the LA Times print the PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS?
Leave a Comment