Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wikipedia circumcision entry edited by pro-circumcision propagandist fetishist Brian Morris Syd Uni.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wikipedia circumcision entry edited by pro-circumcision propagandist fetishist Brian Morris Syd Uni.

    Wikipedia's circumcision entry has been edited by pro-circumcision propagandist and fetishist Brian Morris Syd Uni. Member of the glial society.

    It makes for sickening reading. And will unfortunately be the first place the ignorant will go for 'facts'.

    I can't believe this guy is employed by Sydney University.

  • #2
    Wow. You're right. I just went to the circumcision wikipedia page and if I didn't know any better, I'd think this was the best procedure ever.

    Not only do they talk about all the health benefits like preventing HIV, urinary tract infections and cancer, they also claim there are no adverse effects on sensitivity or other sexual functions. It sounds great. Who knew that removing body parts could be so beneficial?

    Edit: Wow! Upon further reading, it also includes a section that indicates the world may be better off economically as a whole if all men were circumcised because it would reduce healthcare costs!

    Comment


    • #3
      Can you challenge this by flagging the article and citing the United States as a high rate whereas low overall world rates?
      View My Progress Gallery @ https://foreskinrestoration.vbulleti...ooded-progress

      Comment


      • #4
        "highest-quality studies reported no adverse effects of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation or satisfaction."

        Right. Right.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm curioius. What proof do you have the BM edited the text? His name doesn't appear in the edit history. Is he using a pseudonym? If so, what is it?

          Comment


          • #6
            If you look at the footnotes 21 and 67 you can see his name, Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey
            If you contact the guy at Sydney Uni
            [email protected]
            he's completely transparent about his agenda. He is a member of the glial society. One of the members was busted for child porn. He uses every opportunity to propagate neonatal circumcision and wrote a circum fetish piece about tribal circumcision rituals in Malay.

            Comment


            • #7
              That doesn't prove BM himself edited the page. And even if he did, it doesn't show when. That footnote could have been added years ago by another person. In fact, when I checked the Wayback Machine, that footnote was added shortly after the paper was published in 2013. I'm afraid you haven't proven your claim. Best to not start rumors, start facts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Several years ago, I made some edits to the Wikipedia page on Foreskin Restoration. One of the site's users who was fairly active on both that and other circumcision related pages at the time was a guy named Jake Waskett, or JH as his name appears in the above mentioned footnotes (he left the site a while ago, though). Whatever the reason for his personal interest in circumcision, it was enough that he went so far as to host his own website with pro-circumcision articles, and used some of them as sources for these Wikipedia articles. Like Morris, he has no medical background whatsoever. The articles referenced at footnotes 21 and 67 were likely published in their respective journals simply because the reviewers would have made no effort to determine who wrote most of the articles' content - and they did quote a few actual doctors who have had other papers published.

                There are probably several other site users, though, who either knew those two or share the same interest. You'd have to sort through the article's history to see when the links were added, and which user added them, which would take a while and be rather pointless in the end.

                As for Morris himself, his interest in circumcision may be more clinical than anything else, but disgusting nonetheless. He's a molecular biologist, and has an interest in human skin samples - or at least he did a number of years ago: https://www.15square.org.uk/procircu...t-of-interest/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow this is deeply disturbing, Brian Morris has no credit at all to speak regarding foreskins other than micro biology, if this is the case there are so many other areas of the human body we could cut off just in case there would be nothing left and life not worth living.
                  He has no right to speak on the rest of the human condition especially the normal function off and nerve / sensory implications.
                  Just a quack with microscope who has gone WAY too far with a personal perversion he sees as a solution.
                  Glad he never studies bowel cancers he recommend every one one cut out their bowels and we could all crap in attached bags as there are so many preventative benefits would be his view.

                  If people wrote this on his behalf or are sighting his flawed outlook and research this needs to be corrected pronto!
                  The last thing we need are blatant distorted lies of twisted lies wrecking future infant male lives further because some lunatic re-edited Wiki.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree with z726's implication, putting too much emphasis on Wikipedia is pointless. It's recognized as a potentially tainted source of information (on any subject), and really it's just one site. Parents are confronted with much more immediate influence to decide yea or nay for their newborn. Balanced information has to happen at that level. Wikipedia, especially for the agenda types, is a notch away from vanity press. This can be explained to any parent who refers to it as a source of information. As an intactivist (and hopefully as a clinical provider) you work with the principals first and last.

                    That's the issue: balanced information, in a perennial climate of emotion, ignorance, and agenda, so ... explaining this situation is the point to make before any other point.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I may have mixed up facts slightly. This is the pro-circ guy who primarily edits Wikipedia, but in collusion with his peers: Jake Waskett.

                      He and B Morris and many others are associates who have published anti-intactivism articles: "
                      J.H. Waskett is listed as a co-author with Daniel Halperin and Thomas E. Wiswell in an anti-intactivist, pro-circumcision article published in 2009 in the American Journal of Public Health entitled "Medicaid coverage of newborn circumcision: A health parity right of the poor."

                      Make no mistake, these people are members of organised groups actively trying to oppose any advancements we make:

                      http://www.intactwiki.org/wiki/Jake_H._Waskett

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Think Jakes "Retirement" was real, its believable he'd be stressed out, wonder how he'd feel about the recent confession of dishonesty by the AAP.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RighteousMartyr View Post
                          Think Jakes "Retirement" was real, its believable he'd be stressed out, wonder how he'd feel about the recent confession of dishonesty by the AAP.
                          Amazing these sick people are allowed to distort society and some of the members end up in print or on talk back radio when in fact they are very sicko frauds by accounts released to date.
                          It goes to show how useless and unreliable journalism and the news media has become.
                          They should all be locked up and the key thrown away for good measure!

                          Exactly why aren't ALL these people charged and their web sites erased? Who is protecting them or is society that lazy and un-caring.
                          Last edited by OzVic; 05-14-2016, 08:32 AM. Reason: Last line added.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X