Censored Fact II
Moving on to Censored Fact II...
This one is a little less controversial, and it's becoming even more widely known today. Even College Humor did a video about it! And quite honestly, they did aphenomenal job.
I'm gonna play the first three minutes.
[Lights go down. CollegeHumor video plays. Brief synopsis below.]
Adam Conover, the show’s host, interrupts a couple making love to inform the man that his belief that his circumcised penis is “normal” is incorrect and that the US is the only country that still performs routine circumcision for non-religious reasons.
Adam then takes this circumcised man back to his own circumcision in 1985; his dad consented to it because “his penis should look like mine, right?” They then go back to the 1920s where the doctor circumcises a baby to “stop him from masturbating.”
Adam gives us a brief history lesson about “puritanical doctors” during the Victorian era and how they genuinely believed at the turn of the 20th century that masturbation caused venereal diseases. He then highlights “one prominent advocate of dick docking – and I’m not making this up – [was] John Harvey Kellogg, the inventor of cornflakes.” He then discusses how Kellogg had a three-part social campaign: to serve corn flakes to everyone, to circumcise every baby boy, and to pour carbolic acid on baby girls’ clitorises, the latter two initiatives were designed to keep both genders from enjoying sex and masturbating (the former was presumably to make money selling corn flakes).
Adam and the circumcised man then return to present day and get into a golf cart driven by a man named Bert. The circumcised man points out that he still masturbates so the original medical intent of circumcision didn’t work, and then he poses the question, “Isn’t it cleaner?” Adam dismisses this concern,saying “Nowadays you can just wash your dingus.” Adam goes on to concede that circumcision may have a minor prophylactic effect on some diseases, but condoms are far more effective and they don’t require you to “chop your dick off.”
The circumcised man continues to question Adam, “[Aren’t] foreskins useless.” Here the driver Bert interjects into the conversation, saying “Actually, foreskin plays an important role in sex” and then goes on to enumerate the functions of the foreskin below:
1. Natural Lubricant
2. Contains Millions of Nerve Endings
3. Protects Glans from Being Desensitized
Finally, Adam questions a group of three young women on whether they think circumcisedor uncircumcised penises look “weird.” The women are in agreement that “alldicks look weird.”
[CollegeHumor video ends. Lights go up.Audience applauds.]
CollegeHumor did a good job. Round of applause, I guess.
They did a pretty good job,right? See, if you watch their video on YouTube, you'll notice they include this actual disclaimer:
"If You're Not Jewish, and You're Circumcised, You Need to Watch This Video." -- CollegeHumor
I don't know… I'm Jewish. Seemed pretty relevant to me.
The reason CollegeHumor included that disclaimer is because they are scared of offending religious groups. I am not.
Now, to clarify, my objective isn't to offend religious groups. My objective is to tell you the truth. And if the truth offends certain groups, so be it. I refuse to be censored, and this information is too important to be censored.
So,I guess the billion-dollar question is, “How did we go from a Jewish blood sacrifice to a Gentile medical procedure?” Seems like a stretch, right?
Well, CollegeHumor was actually spot on. 19th century doctors actually believed that sexual pleasure, especially masturbation, was not only evil, but the root of all physical and mental illness. And it was always well known that the foreskin was highly erogenous and facilitated masturbation, so the only reasonable course of action [considering their “understanding” of human sexuality] was to forcibly circumcise children.
If we take a look at the medical literature in the 19th century, here we can see an  treatise on venereal diseases of the sexual system. (1) If we take a look,the author didn't even include illustrations of genitals in his textbook because he didn’t want people masturbating to the pages.
It looks like it may not have worked…
Now,again, CollegeHumor, spot on, one of the primary advocates of “dick docking”was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the inventor of cornflakes. Surreal, isn't it?
Dr.John Harvey Kellogg wrote a widely read book in the 19th century titled Treatment for Self-Abuse – also known as masturbation – and its Effects. (2) And in this book he advocated using “carbolic acid to burn the clitoris,” “chaining kids to chastity cages,” and “tying them up so they couldn't touch their genitals.” He also “advocated circumcision in small boys, and that it should be performed without anesthesia, so [the child forever associates sexual pleasure with pain].”
Do you understand how sordid this is?
To make things even more surreal, Sylvester Graham, the inventor of graham crackers, also advocated circumcision to prevent masturbation, claiming:
[A masturbator] becomes a confirmed and degraded idiot, whose deeply sunken and vacant glassy eye, and livid, shriveled countenance, and ulcerous, toothless gums, and fetid breath, and feeble broken voice, and emaciated and dwarfish and crooked body, and almost hairless head—covered, perhaps, with suppurating blisters and running sores—denote a premature old age—a blighted body—and a ruined soul! (3)
And if we take a look at the medical literature in the 19th century, we can see what they thought an actual masturbator looked like...
As you can see… it looks nothing like me.
Now, if we were to take a representative sampling of circumcision advocates throughout the 20th century, almost all are vehemently anti-masturbation.
For example, Abraham Wolbarst, who didn't even have the courtesy to invent a shitty snack [laughter], claiming, "Circumcision is an absolute necessity for the continuing welfare of the human race." (4)
Sound like religious fanaticism to you?
He also advocated the forced sterilization of any adult caught masturbating.
Or Alan Guttmacher, the president of Planned Parenthood, and the vice president of the American Eugenics Society, because those were hand-in-hand in the 1940s,claiming, "Routine circumcision does not necessitate handling of the penis…[therefore] masturbation is considered less likely." (5) [A quote from his 1941] Parents’ Magazine article; this was widely read stuff!
Or even in the medical literature, Campbell's Urology, a gold standard urological textbook, claiming, "Parents are ready to adopt measures which may avert masturbation… Circumcision is usually advised on these grounds."(6) This was the formal training given to medical students in 1970! *
Do you know what it means if this type of rhetoric was in the medical literature in the 1970s?
It means that if you were circumcised in the '90s, like I was, it's very possible that our urologists learned that we should be circumcised to keep us from masturbating.
These Puritan attitudes are not ancient history. They affect us every single day ofour lives.
Today they circumcise for many reasons, and it changes every era, and we're going to get into that. But it is irrefutably true that…
American physicians adopted circumcision to damage our children's sexuality.
Again, this is a fact. It is an irrefutable fact. It is unmasked in the medical literature.
The sexual revolution did not happen until the 1960s. Up until then, throughout almost all of Judeo-Christian history, sexuality was deemed immoral and must be forcibly tamed.
Having fun yet? [laughs] I told you these facts were not kind.
Censored Fact III
Now, moving on to Censored Fact Number Three. We've been talking a lot about the foreskin. But what is it? I mean, yes, it's the part of penis that extends over the glans. But really, what is it? That's a great question. It's a totally foreign body to most American men, and many American women too. So, let's take a closer look.
I’ve found this analogy helpful over the years: I have terrible vision. I have terrible vision… Now, without my glasses on or my contacts in, I can still orient myself on the stage and see the general shapes of you. But at the end of the day, I only have partial vision. * However, once I put my glasses on or my contacts in, I can see the entire room in vivid detail, down to the facial expressions of those of you in the back, with my corrected entire vision. Sounds obvious, right? Well, it wasn't for me.
See, growing up I was decent at sports. I started on every state champ rugby team I played on. My nickname in Pop Warner football was “The Waterboy,” presumably because of my middle linebacker skills and not for my perceived autism. [laughs] But... But, there was one notable exception: little league baseball.
See,to the despair of my little league team, I managed to bat a zero for two consecutive years. A ZERO! And they threw the ball pretty slow back then. I had no idea why I was so bad.
What I eventually discovered was… the reason I was so bad was because I couldn't seethe ball! And I didn't know I couldn't see the ball because no one had told me that I needed corrective lenses, so I just unwittingly assumed that everyone saw the same way I did. It was out of my realm of consciousness that the eye could see with such range, depth, and clarity.
The point of story is, once I realized I had a sensory deficit, I corrected that deficit and my quality of life improved drastically, along with my batting average.
How does this relate to circumcision?
Well,I'm sure most of us have had pretty mundane conversations about eyesight and corrective lenses. But how many of us, you can raise your hands if you'd like, have had in-depth conversations about how much pleasure and where we feel it in our penises?
Probably none of us is my guess… Put your hand down, Britney.
However, in the British Journal of Urology they did just that. They studied the sensitivity differences between the circumcised and the uncircumcised penis:
If we take a look at their findings, with red and purple being the most sensitive, what we can see is the most sensitive part of a circumcised penis,the red, is along the circumcision scar line, the red and purple, whereas the least sensitive part, fun fact, is the glans, the yellow and green. Now, if we contrast that with the uncircumcised, or more appropriately named intact penis, what we can see is:
The most erogenous part of the intact penis is the entirety of the foreskin, which is entirely consistent with the historical knowledge that the foreskin was the most erogenous part of the penis, which is exactly why they cut it off.
Now,if you contrast that again with the circumcised penis, the most erogenous part of the circumcised penis is the scar of where the foreskin was amputated. When I've spoken with friends who've been circumcised in adulthood, they've said sex without a foreskin is the difference between night and day, the difference between black-and-white and color, which makes sense, because most of your nerve endings were in your foreskin.
So,if you were circumcised at birth, you were like me before I got glasses. You may unwittingly assume that's what everyone else sees or feels. But you have no idea what your penis is truly capable of because you've never had the sensory tissue necessary to feel the sensations you're supposed to.
This sensory deficit has always been known and praised by circumcision advocates, despite fierce opposition from both inside and outside of religious ideologies. For example, European doctor C.J. Fallier advances the astute argument in the medical literature:
The sensory pleasure induced by the foreskin is lost by circumcision.The fundamental biological sexual act becomes, for the circumcised male, the satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience it was meant to be.(1)
This is a profound loss. This is a profound loss... It is a loss of your humanity is what it is.
Now,the foreskin is responsible for more than just the majority of sexual pleasure a man will experience throughout his lifetime. There are essential functions of human sexuality intrinsic to the foreskin, which is why it has evolved to be part of our reproductive organ.
Now,these sensitivity diagrams are great, but what is the foreskin? Like, really,what is it? This is a great question. I had no idea for two decades. And medical professionals are by no stretch of the imagination exempt from this blaring gap in medical knowledge.
I have had to educate prestigious surgeons on basic penile anatomy and function! And the reason for this is… most people, physicians included, grew up in the age of mass circumcision in the U.S., with rates as high as 90%, meaning…they never had a foreskin, never saw a foreskin growing up, and studied from medical textbooks that omitted the foreskin as if not part of the penis!
Now,this is truly mind-blowing…
I need you to grasp this reality.
It is a reality that would make Orwell himself shudder!
A human body part! A human body part of great sexual value has been censored out of the public's consciousness.
This is a direct result of growing up in a genital-cutting culture such as the United States.
Reality can often be quite discomforting, and this is a prime example, so let me clear up the misconceptions. The average male foreskin on the adult male is 12 to 15 square inches… The average adult foreskin.
It may not surprise you at this point, but I actually happen to have a foreskin here with me.
[I unzip my pants. Audience cheers]
No,I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding…
I'm not getting paid enough.
I keep my foreskin where all normal people keep them: in my pocket.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the size of the average male foreskin:
Mine would be much bigger!
This foreskin sculpture was created only a few years ago by the brilliant artist Vincenzo Aiello, who is actually joining us here today. It's called HuFo, human foreskin, a hyper-realistic art sculpture.(2)
If we take a look at how it actually works on an anatomical level, what we can see is the foreskin is composed of four major parts:
We have the outer foreskin, which is just a continuation of the shaft skin, which keeps the glans sensitive throughout life.
We have the inner foreskin, similar to the inner mucosal tissue of your mouth or the female genitalia.
We have the frenulum, which is a highly erogenous tethering structure, which anchors a moving body part, the foreskin, to a non-moving body part, the shaft.
And then we have the ridged band, also known as the lips of the foreskin, because like the lips of the face, the lips of the foreskin provide transition from skin to inner mucosa. And like the lips of the face, the lips of the foreskin are densely innervated, with approximately 10,000 to 20,000 fine touch nerve endings, also making this known as the male G-spot.
Ever wonder why ribbed condoms exist? They are trying to recreate what every man comes with standard-issue. [laughs] The intact penis is far superior at stimulating the female than the circumcised penis because our genitals evolved to stimulate each other. *
Damaging female sexuality was also a motivation of the architects of circumcision.
As Rabbi Isaac Ben Yedaiah explains:
She too will court the man who was uncircumcised in the flesh and lie against his breast with great passion, for he thrusts inside her a long time because of his foreskin, which acts as a barrier against ejaculation in intercourse. Thus she feels pleasure and reaches an orgasm first... But when a circumcised man desires the beauty of a woman, he will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts his crown... As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax… She has no pleasure from him when she lies down.(3)
Woah…Now remember, this was an argument in favor of circumcision, [laughs] because rabbis didn't only want to damage their men's sexuality, but they wanted to make sure that their women weren't sexually fulfilled either.
Rabbi Yedaiah's claim is actually supported by recent studies in the medical literature. For example, what we can see here is, with their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm.(4)
And if we take a look at the actual numbers, percent likelihood of vaginal orgasm,what we can see is circumcised men brought their female partners to orgasm about 35% of the time and intact men 60%. Those numbers in parentheses are standard deviations, and they're quite large because every man uses his penis differently.
But, if we were to extrapolate the results of this methodologically sound study, what we can conclude is that:
Male circumcision has robbed American woman of about half of all of their vaginal orgasms!
This is a staggering loss for American woman. I am sorry that male circumcision has profoundly harmed you in this way as well.
There's an entire body of scientific literature that shows that amputating a large, functional part of your sex organ results in a variety of sexual difficulties.Obviously! This is fucking obvious! Here’s another example ...
“Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in men and a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women.” (5)
Now remember, despite our fancy clothes and venues, we are all still animals. And if you damage an animal's reproductive and bonding organ, you will damage how it reproduces and bonds. We've even done rat studies on this!
“Removal of the penile sheath virtually eliminates penile reflexes and decreases copulatory effectiveness.” (6)
I don't know who did that study…
Removing functional sex organs necessarily leaves you with sexual dysfunction.
Here's a personal question. Have any of you ever come too soon in intercourse?
Show of hands...
[no hands go up]
Nobody! Damn, I'm the only one!
[A few brave souls now raise their hand]
Well I have!
I have in like the past 12 hours. Britney complains about it all the time!
What's so funny? What's so funny? It's not like she's perfect either. She doesn't even clean up afterwards.
It's like living with a Petri dish!
What? What? It's not like I'm the only one.
Any of you have circumcised partners who've ever come too soon in intercourse? She has…
Maybe…maybe it's because we've had a big part of our penis that regulates the ejaculatory response stolen from us! It's just this wild theory I have!
Mission accomplished… rabbi.
That’s a great picture of Britney and I, isn't it? [As I gesture to the full screen picture of Britney and I on the board.]
Now, I realize how it is not immediately obvious how this butterfly shape is a foreskin.
So, if we take a look at this composite, what we can see is that the foreskin is a bi-layer tissue that wraps around the head of a circumcised penis until we have what we would recognize as an uncircumcised or an intact penis:
I just covered a snapshot of the functions of the foreskin. * I have actually compiled a comprehensive list of the foreskin’s functions, if you can believe.And I have broken them down into sexual, protective, and other functions:
Now look how massive the average male foreskin is. Look how massive it is!
Could you imagine?
Could you imagine how big mine would be?
But seriously... But seriously, could you imagine saying that this massive part of the penis, with 20 compelling sexual functions, is unimportant?
It is massively important! It is massively important! And everybody knew it was important! That is why they removed it!
So, if you were circumcised at birth, you are condemned to a life of a devastating sensory deficit, as you lose most of your nerve endings, including your male G-spot. But it gets worse…
See,once this tissue is removed, your penis undergoes a process called keratinization, where the protein keratin, the same protein that makes up your hair, and nails, and rhinoceros horns, covers the remaining minority of sensory tissue on the penis.
So if we take a look at an intact penis, what we can see is the glans are soft and sensitive, kept that way by a protective foreskin, retracted in this picture.Where if we contrast that with a circumcised penis, not only is it missing most of its sensory tissue because the foreskin is removed, but the remaining minority of sensory tissue is covered in this protein callus, which even further desensitizes sex. Circumcision removes almost the entirety of the sexual experience from men.
Circumcision is a profoundly evil thing to do to a human being.
Just as you could never fully appreciate a kiss if you have your lips amputated, so too can you never fully appreciate the essential human experience of making love if you have your foreskin amputated.
This is a profound loss. It is a loss of your humanity. It changes your worldview. And that is why I'm so passionate about this issue! Because,
Circumcision is a radical violation of an individual's fundamental human rights.
Now,there is also a slew of other sexual dysfunctions that result from removing a massively functional part of your penis. One of the more compelling ones is the loss of all the penis's natural mobility and lubrication, which has resulted in ubiquitous sexual disability, which we have internalized as a genital-cutting culture and accepted as normal.
And you may be thinking to yourself, "Wow, Clopper, do you have examples?"
You bet! Here are just eight of them ...
Family Guy: “Lotion… check.” BuzzFeed: “I put hand lotion in a baggie and masturbate myself with it.” Or this next one, who I included before he was pulling Weinsteins, Louis C.K.: “It's easier to masturbate if I use this lubricant.”
See,the reason that many circumcised men rely on personal lubricant to masturbate is an imposed sexual disability(!), necessary for us because we're no longer able to take our foreskins in our hands and jerk ourselves off properly with it! [laughs]
You know, most European men have no idea that you need lotion to masturbate.Considering we evolved in the wild, the very notion that you need to go to CVS and buy a synthetic lubricant to masturbate is ludicrous! [laughs] It is lunacy! Yet we have internalized this sexual disability in our culture.
There have been multi hundred million-dollar industries that have risen to address just this one sexual disability in our culture, namely the personal lubricant market:
It says it’s for vaginal and anal intercourse (7), but I'll defer to the man [Louis C.K.] whose entire career was built and ruined by masturbation, when he says, and I quote, “It's technically made for sex, but I have personally never used it that way. I use it to masturbate with.” (8)
Yeah, Louie, most of us do! But at least I don't force others to watch me. I get paid for that shit! [laughs]
Now...pain during intercourse is also a big problem for women in this country. And if you take a look at the mainstream articles, it's all, "Oh, what's wrong with the woman? What's wrong with me?" 
No,there is nothing wrong with women in this country. See, women are engaging in intercourse with men who do not have the penises they are supposed to have. Women are meant to be stimulated by the non-abrasive pressure of the male's erectile bodies sliding in and out of the foreskin. Think of a motion of putting your fingers on your cheeks and going like this ...
Women are not meant to be stimulated by the friction of an immobile, un-lubricated, circumcised penis, which has never and will never exist in nature. Think of a chafing motion like this:
Very different motion. You can try these out for yourself if you'd like.
Removing the foreskin permanently and drastically alters the mechanics of intercourse,which can manifest itself in sexual pain and/or dysfunction for both partners,the effects of which are increasingly pronounced as the circumcised male ages.
Now,I can't believe I have to say this. This is absurd[ly obvious]. But, to remove a massive amount of form from the penis and expect not to affect it function is insane! It is naive, and it exhibits fundamental misunderstandings of both biology 101 and the history of circumcision, 99% of which was an outspoken attempt to control and repress male sexuality.
Only in the U.S., only in the U.S. are circumcisions done for “medical” reasons. And only in the U.S. are there multiple multi-billion-dollar industries that rely on the continuation of circumcision to continue to rake in their profits off of the backs of our children's sexual futures, which will bring me to Censored Fact Number Four, also known as the medical malfeasance behind the circumcision industry.
But,to wrap up Censored Fact Number Three. Removing the foreskin is damaging. It is obviously damaging. Circumcision was designed to damage you, and that is exactly what it does.
Circumcision significantly damages you for life. The foreskin is important.
Yes, these three facts are true.There is no ambiguity whatsoever.
Censored Fact IV
You may be asking yourself, “If these three censored facts are true,” which they are, “how does a supposedly scientific authority like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend circumcision?” Well, I can't just tell you. It's too radical. But I can show you. I can show you how they did it, and that is exactly what I'm going to do.
Now, remember when I said all these mainstream sources recommend circumcision?
Well, what the media is actually doing is they're deferring to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Now, what the American Academy of Pediatrics did is they wrote a circumcision recommendation in 2012. (1) (2) It was a one-page policy statement supported by a 22-page epidemiological technical report, which by chance I happen to have here with me ...
This might seem daunting to most of the public, the American public, which is largely scientifically illiterate. Well, I am not just scientifically literate, I am scientifically dominant. And modest!
I started working under senior faculty here at Harvard when I was 18 years old on a graduate-level textbook on the thermodynamics of energy consumption and climate change. I wrote my college thesis on quantum tunneling! I'm not kidding. Here it is! [laughs] (3) ...
This [AAP] report, this report right here is child's play to me. And I will tell you exactly what it has to say. Now, the summary is… “the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.” And what are those benefits? “Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer,and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.”
I'm a pretty hardcore nerd, and I like to write things in equations, and it's very easy to write this recommendation in an equation. So, we can say the benefits outweigh the risks:
Notice implicit in their frame there can be no negatives to circumcision, because we know the foreskin isn't important, right?
According to the AAP, we can write the benefits of circumcision on the left side of the equality as UTIs, penile cancer, and STIs and HIV.
Now, let's quickly dissect this. *
First, urinary tract infections. Just to be clear, women are 10 to 50 times more likely to get a UTI, and we never suggest amputating parts of their bodies! And if we were to take the AAP's numbers at face value, which we shouldn't(!), it takes 100 circumcisions to prevent one UTI. At 20 compelling sexual functions per foreskin, you need to remove 2,000 sexual functions from men to prevent one nothing infection that's easily treated by an antibiotic. That's insane! They're just grasping at straws. It is inconsequential is what it is.
Penile cancer... Sounds scary, right? Well it's one of the rarest types of cancer on the planet! [laughs] And according to the AAP, it takes anywhere between “922 and 322,000 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer.” Do you know what that discrepancy means? Between 1,000 and 322,000? It means they have no idea! They have no idea how many circumcisions it takes to prevent one case of penile cancer. [Audience laughs at AAP] That is because penile cancer is so absurdly rare, the data doesn't exist! Besides … Besides,it only exclusively affects elderly men, which makes the penile cancer argument completely irrelevant to neonatal circumcision.
The case that circumcision prevents STIs. Okay ... Well, just to be clear, almost all of the literature is a confusion between causation and correlation, because genital-cutting cultures do not simply map onto non-genital-cutting cultures. But even if they did, the U.S. has both the highest rate of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rate of STDs and HIV in the developed world! Now, the nuance here is, this doesn't necessarily mean that circumcision doesn't prevent the spread of STDs, but it certainly suggests it promotes the spread of STDs, and there are sound immunological reasons for this. Namely by drastically altering the mechanics of intercourse, which causes pain and bleeding, which opens pores for pathogens to exchange between partners. But, it does unequivocally prove that circumcision is not a primary STD deterrent. To claim otherwise is a claim of lunacy. It really is.
Now,the claim that circumcision prevents HIV. Well, HIV is scary, so let's take a closer look.
Throughout all history, circumcision advocates have claimed that circumcision prevents the scariest disease of the era, whether it be masturbation, syphilis and gonorrhea, cancer, now… HIV. Surprise! [laughs]Now, who here has heard the popular claim in the media that circumcision prevents your chance of contracting HIV by 60%?
[Much of Audience Raises hand]
Wow, okay, most of you it seems. Well, we're gonna take a closer look at the numbers is what we're gonna do, because… I'm a scientist.
So,if we take a look at the three randomized control trials (4)(5) (6) that the media often cites, what they actually found, if you aggregate their results, is 2.5% of intact men got HIV and 1.2% of circumcised men. (7) That is a 1.3% difference! Much smaller than 60%, wouldn't you say?
So how did they get to 60%? Well, what 60% refers to is a relative risk reduction, in that 1.2% is about 60% less than 2.5%.
Now,if you take a look at the studies, which I did, which I am eminently qualified to assess, you see this list of blaring methodological errors, which are cumulative! Any one of them could easily account for the 1.3% percent difference.
If we take a look at just one flaw, they taught the circumcised group how to use condoms. Seems like a pretty relevant difference to me!
[Harvard Audience laughs at the fact that the HIV studies are obvious nonsense]
To use two very small, very poorly measured numbers and report their relative risk reduction as a factual rate of reduction is not just disingenuous, it is dishonest. The claim that circumcision prevents HIV is no truer than the claim that it prevents masturbation. It is a lie! And this is an erroneous claim.
Now,if we sum up the left sides of the equation, we have inconsequential,irrelevant, and erroneous benefits outweigh the risks of the procedure.
And what are the risks of procedure?
Well, according to the AAP, they tell us not once but twice that “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is … unknown”! They have no idea!
And then, just to hammer the point, they say, and I quote, "It is difficult if not impossible to assess the impact of complications, because the data [doesn't exist]." The data doesn't exist! Did you know? Did you know, there is no legal requirement for circumcisers to report complications in this country?
Which brings us to the new equation after doing the math:
We have these vaguely defined, highly dubious benefits outweigh the unknown risks of a prophylactic amputation of a body part. And do you know how many times in this “scientific document” they mention the functions of that body part? Zero! ZERO. Not once do they mention the function of the foreskin. Implicit in their frame, it is completely useless. I just spent an hour describing how important the foreskin is! The foreskin is massively important, and everybody knew! That is why they removed it!
Whew! I'm gonna get all worked up again soon [laughs] – you can tell me – “calm down Clopper.”
But, do you know how they have the audacity to omit the foreskin’s functions? * Do you? Well, they say, and I quote:
“The literature review does not support the belief that male circumcision adversely affects sexual function, or sensitivity, or sexual satisfaction, regardless of how those factors are defined.”
Do you understand how broad of a statement that is?
Who knew!? Who fucking knew that amputating a large part of your sex organ affected sexual function?
Oh, that's right, literally everybody! Throughout all of history!
That's why they did it! That's why they did it! Did they forget censored facts one and two, that both rabbis and physicians circumcised children to damage their sexuality in the most fundamental of ways for life?
It's very telling if we take a look at their literature review. They reviewed 1,028 articles. That is a big number just to make it look like they did a lot of work. Do you know how many focus on sexual satisfaction? Just one! Just one. Remember this study? And they ignored its conclusion that the foreskin is the most erogenous part of the penis. (8)
And do you know what they had to say about all the overwhelming irrefutable evidence that demonstrates just how important foreskin is?
They say, and I quote, "They fail to provide evidence that the circumcised penis has decreased sensitivity compared with the uncircumcised penis."
And do you know what they base that statement on?
[Audience laughs at AAP’s stupidity/malfeasance]
They just say “all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary? We're not going to include it.”
Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Wow, Clopper, everything you say is logically sound and consistent, and I think I agree. It seems like there’s something fishy going on here." * That's good! That means you're thinking now. You're doing something they don't want you to do.
To be clear, I’m not proposing that there’s any type of “foreskin conspiracy”going on here. I’m explaining to you how the foreskin conspiracy works! Isn’t that wild! Isn’t that wild that we live in a country with a foreskin conspiracy? But it’s true! It is objectively true. And I bet you’ll never guess who’s behind it! *
Now, just so you don't think I'm some fringe activist up here, what I am telling you is the prevailing worldview.
Only in the US and Israel do they think it is a good idea to cut into the flesh of newborn children.
If we take a look at what the rest of the world has to say, we can see that the Royal Dutch Medical Association says, "Circumcision is a violation of the child's right and can and does cause complications." (9)
Or the German Pediatric Association: "There is no medical reason to circumcise a boy before he can give consent. And virtually all other pediatric societies worldwide hold the AAP's views as… nonsense!” (I’m paraphrasing, but only slightly.) (10)
Or Australia and New Zealand claiming, "The AAP's technical report on circumcision is epidemiologically incompetent and an embarrassment to the AAP." (I’m not paraphrasing here.) (11)
[Harvard audience applauds global condemnation of the AAP]
Yeah... Boo AAP.
Entire consortiums of doctors, epidemiologists, urologists and pediatricians have said, "Only one argument put forth by the AAP has some theoretical relevance, namely the possible protection against UTIs." (12)
Can you imagine saying, "Oh, a one-in-a-hundred chance of contracting a UTI,or my male G-spot?" It's not even on a scale. It's an absurd statement. It is an absurd statement is what it is.
Ladies and gentlemen, this AAP report is not a “scientific document.” It is an obfuscating lie.
And there are bad guys to this story. There are bad guys. And I did not let them get away. Do not worry. And they are the masterminds behind this lie:
1. Susan Blank, MD, MPH,Chairperson
2. Michael Brady, MD,Representing the AAP Committee on Pediatrics AIDS
3. Ellen Buerk, MD,Representing the AAP Board of Directors
4. Waldemar Carlo, MD,Representing the AAP Committee on Fetus and Newborn
5. Douglas Diekema, MD,MPH, Representing the AAP Committee on Bioethics
6. Andrew Freedman, MD,Representing the AAP Section on Urology
7. Lynne Maxwell, MD,Representing the AAP Section on Anesthesiology
8. Steven Wegner, MD, JD,Representing the AAP Committee on Child Health Financing
Now it's very telling if we listen to what they have to say.
For example, Andrew Freedman is a Jewish urologist, which there are many. But you would imagine if he's on this “prestigious medical committee,” he'd be able to separate his religious beliefs from his scientific medical opinion. Unless… he tells us he can't. And he says, and I quote, "I circumcised my son for religious reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder." (13)
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me!
[Audience laughs at Andrew Freedman]
And then, just to clarify, on camera he says, and I quote, "In my practice, I like to sort of define it as a tribal custom. And if you belong to a tribe that does it, then you really want it." (14)
Well I've got news for you… Andy. [Audience snickers in approval of Andy’s new nickname] You are not a tribal practitioner. You are not a witch doctor.You are a medical doctor, or at least you're supposed to be.
[Audience applauds Andy’s verbal lashing]
Here's my theory on this… Here's my theory on this, because the AAP’s report is false.They are objectively lying to us. My theory is this: That if the American Academy of Pediatrics got eight borderline competent physicians in a room with understanding of basic penile anatomy and function, they would write a report like every other pediatric society in the world about neonatal circumcision, which is, “circumcision is medically unnecessary, violates your fundamental human rights, and damages your sexuality for life.”
Now,if the AAP were to write this report, as a society we would begin to understand that amputating large functional parts of your child's reproductive organ is a bad idea. I can't believe I have to be up here saying this! [laughs]
Now,if we were to understand this as a society, we wouldn't allow anyone to circumcise any child under any pretense, including fulfilling ancient acts of rabbinic revenge, meaning
The Holy Covenant would die, as it must, as it should have thousands of years ago.
[Harvard Audience applauds the death of the Jewish Covenant of Circumcision]
Could you imagine if this group of doctors got together and said, "You know what, it's okay to circumcise females because of religious ideologies"?
Oh wait! What was that Douglas Diekema? In 2010 you published on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics a recommendation in favor of female circumcision! [crowd squawks in disbelief] Titled Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors? (15)
Of course you did! Of course you did! Why wouldn't you!? Why wouldn't you!?
And his reasoning was, well, “we respect the legitimacy of this tribal tradition [male circumcision]. How could we not respect the legitimacy of this one [female circumcision]?” At least he's a logically consistent monster.
[Audience laughs at Diekema – the AAP’s Logically Consistent Monster]
Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a group of physicians who have actively deceived us ...
They are recommending an amputation on a child's sex organ that is both heinously violent and sexually damaging for life.
How dare they?! Do you understand the magnitude of this crime?
How fucking dare they!
Now,this group, this group should fear me, and they will fear me! (16)
[Harvard Audience Cheers in Approval]
Because...Because I am younger than them, I am smarter than them, I am louder than them, and I'm right. And I'm better-looking, and that's just a bonus!
[Audience cheers in enthusiastic support of my last point]
Did they think they were going to get away with this crime? Lying to the entire United States and causing immeasurable sexual harm on children and the men they'll become?
No. No, no. Not on my watch.
Shame on you Andrew! Shame on you Douglas! And shame on the rest of you for your complicity in this disgusting lie!
That is right, I just made them all publicly my bitches.
[Audience laughs in approval. You can’t fight public opinion AAP. Bend the knee to Mr. Clopper]
Now, I wanted to get into the history of circumcision advocacy throughout the U.S.and how almost all major proponents are Jewish:
Now, mind you, I'm not proposing this is some type of Jewish conspiracy, but it certainly isn't a coincidence either.
See,Harvard's preeminent historian of science, Stephen Jay Gould, describes this phenomenon aptly in his book The Mismeasure of Man. How throughout all history, scientists have been completely blind to their own flawed frames of references, implicitly accepting them as truth.
See, when you grow up in a genital-cutting culture such as Judaism, you implicitly believe that the foreskin is dirty or terrible or dangerous. And you see that type of religious fanaticism reflected throughout almost all major circumcision advocacy, which is a clear demonstration as to just how toxic genital-cutting cultures are.
Genital-cutting cultures are toxic by definition. And as history has shown, they're contagious as well.
Well I've got news for any detractors out there... There is nothing anti-Semitic or discriminatory about being opposed to this“tribal custom”:
[Opposition to this] is just baseline human decency!
Stephen Jay Gould puts it aptly in his book: "We pass through this world but once.Few tragedies can be more extensive than the stunting of life."
That is what we have here, ladies and gentlemen. They are sexually stunting this child for life. It is a tragedy!And, it is happening thousands of times every day in our hospitals because this duplicitous group of physicians have lied to our faces. The [AAP’s report] is an unforgivable crime!
Make no mistake… they hide. They hide behind their degrees. They hide behind their symbols of authority:
But these “authorities” who recommend circumcision, they're composed of people,people like you and me. But the difference with me is… I hide behind nothing! Because I am the fucking authority!
[Audience laughs in concession]
I am Dr. Who in this motherfucker!
And there's not a person on this planet who can contest me on this.
Now,I remember… I remember when I graduated from university summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa in physics, when I was poised to get my Ph.D. in virtually any discipline from any institution on this planet, I instead… I instead started studying circumcision full-time! [laughs] My parents were thrilled. [laughs]
And I remember feeling like I was losing my mind, because the entire narrative was controlled by sexually violent ideologues like those on the board. Well, not anymore… I control the narrative now!
Now what we have here is, wrapping this whole thing together ...
We have a history of a small group of powerful and well-placed sexually violent ideologues, or ideological fanatics, who, despite global condemnation, have censored the functions of the foreskin ... by creating a nonsensical [AAP] recommendation which they have turned into an obfuscating lie,which they then peddle to a complicit and strangely ideologically homogeneous U.S.media, who I'm sure is going to love me. Who then disseminates widespread misinformation, creating this vicious fraudulent U.S. echo chamber.
It's all a lie! It's all a lie, guys. 100% of it is a lie.
Circumcision is a disgusting lie.
Why!? Why would they do such a thing? I don't know... I have a few ideas.
Maybe…maybe because they have damaged in the most sexually violent and fundamental of ways for life over 120 million men in this country. Do you understand the medical liability on that? [laughs] It is in the trillions and trillions of dollars.
Or, maybe… maybe because they have raped America men of over one trillion erogenous nerve endings. Do you understand the pleasure potential that has been lost? And what's it replaced with? It's replaced with rage. And that rage is embedded in our culture. Don't you see it? I do.
Or maybe… maybe it's to defend religious ideologies; that'd be a good idea. Because oh man… oh man would we look foolish if we were performing blood sacrifices in the 21st century. That would make us…like… a genital mutilation cult! But there's no way.
There's no way we have genital mutilation cults in the 21st century, is there? And, you can't criticize them, because we know they'll retaliate.
There's no universe where that could be a reality!
Or maybe… maybe it's all for the money! Maybe it's all for the money. You realize they make billions with a B, billions of dollars a year harvesting our children's genitals? Harvesting my genitals, harvesting your genitals. That’s the most evil thing I've ever heard! I couldn't come up with something so evil if I tried! This may be theatrical, but it's legitimately fucking evil! And I will not rest until these industries are wiped off the face of the fucking planet! [Audience applauds]
Now ladies and gentlemen, the AAP’s circumcision recommendation is not a “scientific document.” It is a piece of government propaganda authored by a small group of powerful and well-placed sexually violent ideologues who have written this to conceal the truth that the American medical complex has damaged our sexuality for life, violated our fundamental human rights, and harvested our genitals for profit.
It is all a fucking lie.
[I tear AAP report to pieces; the audience applauds]
Now,Censored Fact Number Four:
The complicit U.S. media continues to force-feed us the American Academy of Pediatrics’ circumcision recommendation, which is a blatant LIE, unapologetically motivated by religious ideologies… Which ideologies? I don't know… maybe the one designed to damage you in the most fundamental of ways for life.
Is this creating a clear picture for you as to what this ideology has done to thiscountry?
God! It's like I'mliving in a fucking crazy house.