Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. 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. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.
It's also ridiculous hearsay. There's plenty of published articles covering the adverse effects of circumcision. These people are crackpots and you're letting them off with horseshoe logic.
They fMRI a baby's brain and record it. Then they circumcise it. Then they do follow up fMRIs are are fucking surprised, somehow, that it "never returns to baseline."
No fucking shit, retards, it's a baby, it's growing. Did you expect the results to stay constant for a month? That's a brain dead baby. Plus they had no control group. They sound full of shit to me.
The results immediately before and after could have still been interesting data. I doubt the baby wasn't already stressed at being strapped into the MRI machine, so any changes that came after would be clues to how developing brains specifically react to more extreme emotional/physical trauma.
But yeah they should have no basis to say anything so specific happened on the basis of one case without even a single control to compare "baselines" with.
We have results for that, I remember discussing it back in my psych undergrad over a decade ago. The physical pain is so severe that it creates a notable brain change similar to that of PTSD (if not literally just PTSD) that doesn't get wiped even with infantile amnesia. It was theorized that the restraints, the vision of your mother not helping, and the pain creates a very formative memory.
The fact that it was openly addressed and talked about in a classroom of 98% women not generations ago means its also not entirely a "groundbreaking study they don't want you to hear" as it can clearly get through in other places.
I know this is a real "dude trust me" source, but it was a very long time ago and I recall little specifics beyond the topic.
The circumcision thing is at the point where everybody clearly knows its wrong and barbaric, but nobody wants to be the one to acknowledge it because it would make everyone in America look like monsters and crumble a billion dollar industry from lack of foreskins. So they just pretend not to notice.
There's no date on that article but that website appears to have archives going back as far as 1996, reading between the lines I'm assuming this is a very old anecdote at this point.
So yeah it's old news now, but if this was 1996 it may well have been the first before/during/after MRI data of the procedure and warranted publishing on that merit alone.
[Edit - quick Google Fu and there's another copy of this exact retrospective out there dated 2009. So it was at least before then.]
The downvotes over this are hilarious. You pointed out that there are other studies confirming this issue better, but because you say this particular one is bogus a lot of people reached for that button.
Tons of published medical research has no control group (like almost every vaccine study) and can be criticized for methodology (like, well, every vaccine study).
The point here is that the suppression of the data is obviously political.
Don't forget the growing replication crisis which isn't limited to the soft sciences and has grown to such an insane degree that hard sciences are also facing growing issues with replication.
This isn't the scientific method.
It's also ridiculous hearsay. There's plenty of published articles covering the adverse effects of circumcision. These people are crackpots and you're letting them off with horseshoe logic.
They fMRI a baby's brain and record it. Then they circumcise it. Then they do follow up fMRIs are are fucking surprised, somehow, that it "never returns to baseline."
No fucking shit, retards, it's a baby, it's growing. Did you expect the results to stay constant for a month? That's a brain dead baby. Plus they had no control group. They sound full of shit to me.
The results immediately before and after could have still been interesting data. I doubt the baby wasn't already stressed at being strapped into the MRI machine, so any changes that came after would be clues to how developing brains specifically react to more extreme emotional/physical trauma.
But yeah they should have no basis to say anything so specific happened on the basis of one case without even a single control to compare "baselines" with.
We have results for that, I remember discussing it back in my psych undergrad over a decade ago. The physical pain is so severe that it creates a notable brain change similar to that of PTSD (if not literally just PTSD) that doesn't get wiped even with infantile amnesia. It was theorized that the restraints, the vision of your mother not helping, and the pain creates a very formative memory.
The fact that it was openly addressed and talked about in a classroom of 98% women not generations ago means its also not entirely a "groundbreaking study they don't want you to hear" as it can clearly get through in other places.
I know this is a real "dude trust me" source, but it was a very long time ago and I recall little specifics beyond the topic.
The circumcision thing is at the point where everybody clearly knows its wrong and barbaric, but nobody wants to be the one to acknowledge it because it would make everyone in America look like monsters and crumble a billion dollar industry from lack of foreskins. So they just pretend not to notice.
There's no date on that article but that website appears to have archives going back as far as 1996, reading between the lines I'm assuming this is a very old anecdote at this point.
So yeah it's old news now, but if this was 1996 it may well have been the first before/during/after MRI data of the procedure and warranted publishing on that merit alone.
[Edit - quick Google Fu and there's another copy of this exact retrospective out there dated 2009. So it was at least before then.]
[Ed #2, some pro circumcision article trying to defame the guy says it was allegedly carried out in 1998]
The downvotes over this are hilarious. You pointed out that there are other studies confirming this issue better, but because you say this particular one is bogus a lot of people reached for that button.
Tons of published medical research has no control group (like almost every vaccine study) and can be criticized for methodology (like, well, every vaccine study).
The point here is that the suppression of the data is obviously political.
Don't forget the growing replication crisis which isn't limited to the soft sciences and has grown to such an insane degree that hard sciences are also facing growing issues with replication.
It's ideological possession bordering on religious fervor. Which is why I do it.. I like forcing the irony.
These are the same people pushing trans everything, but they won't allow this to be studied? Think this through fool.