20,000 nerve endings - Revision history

WikiModEn2: /* Conclusion */

2023-12-30T22:12:41Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 30 December 2023
Line 153:		Line 153:
	}}		}}

	[[Paul M. Fleiss\| Dr. Fleiss]], however, is no longer with us, so no explanation or correction may be expected from him. It is likely that when he prepared the article for publication in the popular press in 1997, he simply meant to informally express the concept of a [[Ridged band\| very substantial innervation of the foreskin]] as had been previously reported by Taylor et al.<ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>		[[Paul M. Fleiss\| Dr. Fleiss]], however, is no longer with us, so no explanation or correction may be expected from him. It is likely that when he prepared the article for publication in the popular press in 1997, he simply meant to informally express the concept of a [[Ridged band\| very substantial innervation of the foreskin]] as had been previously reported by [[John R. Taylor\| Taylor]] et al.<ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>
	----		----

WikiModEn2: /* Conclusion */

2023-12-30T22:06:38Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:06, 30 December 2023
Line 153:		Line 153:
	}}		}}

	Dr. Fleiss, however, is no longer with us, so no explanation or correction may be expected from him. It is likely that when he prepared the article for publication in the popular press in 1997, he simply meant to informally express the concept of a [[Ridged band\| very substantial innervation of the foreskin]] as had been previously reported by Taylor et al.<ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>		[[Paul M. Fleiss\| Dr. Fleiss]], however, is no longer with us, so no explanation or correction may be expected from him. It is likely that when he prepared the article for publication in the popular press in 1997, he simply meant to informally express the concept of a [[Ridged band\| very substantial innervation of the foreskin]] as had been previously reported by Taylor et al.<ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>
	----		----

WikiModEn2: /* Conclusion */

2023-12-30T21:43:09Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 30 December 2023
Line 153:		Line 153:
	}}		}}

	Dr. Fleiss, however, is no longer with us, so no explanation or correction may be expected from him. It is likely that when he prepared the article in 1997, he simply meant to informally express the concept of a [[Ridged band\| very substantial innervation of the foreskin]] as had been previously reported by Taylor et al.<ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>		Dr. Fleiss, however, is no longer with us, so no explanation or correction may be expected from him. It is likely that when he prepared the article for publication in the popular press in 1997, he simply meant to informally express the concept of a [[Ridged band\| very substantial innervation of the foreskin]] as had been previously reported by Taylor et al.<ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>
	----		----

WikiModEn2: /* Conclusion */ Add text and citation.

2023-12-30T21:36:42Z

Conclusion: Add text and citation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 30 December 2023
Line 144:		Line 144:

	=== Conclusion ===		=== Conclusion ===
	It is time to take leave of the exaggerated number of 20,000 nerve endings in the [[foreskin]].<ref>If you want to name a number, you should only specify the order of magnitude >3,000 <10,000. The number of nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] is probably at least 4,000, since the [[Glans penis\|glans]] already has 4,000 and the [[foreskin]] is more sensitive – but this is not qualitatively differentiated, for instance between sensitivity to pain or touch.</ref> This legend is very wide spread by the opponents of circumcision. As long as the number cannot be scientifically proven, it is sufficient to say that the prepuce is very densely innervated and for fine touch is more sensitive than the [[Glans penis\|glans]]<ref name="Approvals" />,<ref name="Appendix" />. Otherwise, the credibility and persuasive power of the Intactivist movement suffers and makes itself unnecessarily vulnerable. Unfortunately, this can also be seen on the Internet.		It is time to take leave of the exaggerated number of 20,000 nerve endings in the [[foreskin]].<ref>If you want to name a number, you should only specify the order of magnitude >3,000 <10,000. The number of nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] is probably at least 4,000, since the [[Glans penis\|glans]] already has 4,000 and the [[foreskin]] is more sensitive — but this is not qualitatively differentiated, for instance between sensitivity to [[pain]] or touch.</ref> This legend is very wide spread by the opponents of [[circumcision]]. As long as the number cannot be scientifically proven, it is sufficient to say that the prepuce is very densely innervated and for fine touch is more sensitive than the [[Glans penis\|glans]]<ref name="Approvals" /> <ref name="Appendix" />. Otherwise, the credibility and persuasive power of the [[Intactivist]] movement suffers and makes itself unnecessarily vulnerable. Unfortunately, this can also be seen on the Internet.

	Statements on [[foreskin]] anatomy should be evidence-based on studies published in scientific journals, to keep them verifiable and comprehensible. This should be taken seriously. Publications containing the 20,000 (or 10,000 and more) legend should no longer be disseminated. We should make sure our articles are accurate and add correcting notes to published articles where possible.		Statements on [[foreskin]] anatomy should be evidence-based on studies published in scientific journals, to keep them verifiable and comprehensible. This should be taken seriously. Publications containing the 20,000 (or 10,000 and more) legend should no longer be disseminated. We should make sure our articles are accurate and add correcting notes to published articles where possible.
Line 153:		Line 153:
	}}		}}

			Dr. Fleiss, however, is no longer with us, so no explanation or correction may be expected from him. It is likely that when he prepared the article in 1997, he simply meant to informally express the concept of a [[Ridged band\| very substantial innervation of the foreskin]] as had been previously reported by Taylor et al.<ref name="taylor1996">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>
	----		----

WikiModEn2: /* Nerve endings in the foreskin / Quarter (25-US-Ct.) */

2023-12-30T21:16:28Z

Nerve endings in the foreskin / Quarter (25-US-Ct.)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 30 December 2023
Line 88:		Line 88:

	==== Nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] / Quarter (25-US-Ct.) ====		==== Nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] / Quarter (25-US-Ct.) ====
	1995, in the film "[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]"<ref name="WhoseBody" /> starting from Montagu's description of the number of nerve endings in normal [[skin]], the number of nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] was calculated as follows: “15 square inches comfortably fits 15 quarters. This analogy helps us to understand that the adult [[foreskin]] contains … over 1000 nerve endings …" (15 × more than 50 = more than 750), which NOHARMM supplements to "Since Dr. Taylor's research suggests that the [[foreskin]] is '''more densely ~~enervated~~ than "normal" [[skin]]''', a circumcised man likely loses many times more than 1,000 nerve endings.”<ref name="circumcisionharm" /><sup>b</sup>		1995, in the film "[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]"<ref name="WhoseBody" /> starting from Montagu's description of the number of nerve endings in normal [[skin]], the number of nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] was calculated as follows: “15 square inches comfortably fits 15 quarters. This analogy helps us to understand that the adult [[foreskin]] contains … over 1000 nerve endings …" (15 × more than 50 = more than 750), which NOHARMM supplements to "Since Dr. Taylor's research suggests that the [[foreskin]] is '''more densely innervated than "normal" [[skin]]''', a [[circumcised]] man likely loses many times more than 1,000 nerve endings.”<ref name="circumcisionharm" /><sup>b</sup>

	==== The “ridged band" ====		==== The “ridged band" ====
	In 1996 the article by the Canadian pathologist [[John R. Taylor]] et al.<ref name="Taylor" /> about the “ridged band” of the [[foreskin]] had appeared. Taylor reported, that the encapsulated nerve endings<ref>Nerve endings can be divided into types with or without end corpuscles (corpuscular/encapsulated or free nerve endings). “… the free nerve endings (FNE) … do not seem to have any part in fine touch sensation (they are innervated by unmyelinated axons which conduct too slowly, don’t have specialised end corpuscles to transduce vibration, etc. and have a high threshold, all of which prevent the conduction of fine touch).” [[Ken McGrath\|McGrath]], Fn 29b</ref> of the [[foreskin]] are concentrated in the “ridged band” and thus are distributed very differently. In his article, Fleiss also mentions the "ridged [[mucosa]]" and calls Taylor as a source. He therefore knew of Taylor’s work.		In 1996 the article by the Canadian pathologist [[John R. Taylor]] et al.<ref name="Taylor" /> about the “ridged band” of the [[foreskin]] had appeared. Taylor reported, that the encapsulated nerve endings<ref>Nerve endings can be divided into types with or without end corpuscles (corpuscular/encapsulated or free nerve endings). “… the free nerve endings (FNE) … do not seem to have any part in fine touch sensation (they are innervated by unmyelinated axons which conduct too slowly, don’t have specialised end corpuscles to transduce vibration, etc. and have a high threshold, all of which prevent the conduction of fine touch).” [[Ken McGrath\|McGrath]], Fn 29b</ref> of the [[foreskin]] are concentrated in the “ridged band” and thus are distributed very differently. In his article, Fleiss also mentions the "ridged [[mucosa]]" and calls Taylor as a source. He therefore knew of Taylor’s work.

WikiModEn2: /* The myth */

2023-12-30T21:11:22Z

The myth

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 30 December 2023
Line 23:		Line 23:
	A frequent argument against the non-therapeutic [[foreskin]] [[amputation]] is the concept that the [[foreskin]] not only contains numerous nerve endings and is more sensitive for touch than the [[Glans penis\|glans]], but also that the number of nerve endings is “more than 10,000”, "(more than) 20,000" or even "up to 70,000" or “100,000”. There appears to be no reliable evidence for these figures.<ref name="Appendix">see Appendix: Documentary Part, p. 5f. – Ditto on facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/hannes-mueller/the-legend-of-20000-nerve-endings/2034618236765662/ The legend of the “20,000 nerve endings]”:</ref> Nevertheless, this article identifies the origin and the calculation of these figures, explains how credible they are, and what magnitude range is the most realistic.		A frequent argument against the non-therapeutic [[foreskin]] [[amputation]] is the concept that the [[foreskin]] not only contains numerous nerve endings and is more sensitive for touch than the [[Glans penis\|glans]], but also that the number of nerve endings is “more than 10,000”, "(more than) 20,000" or even "up to 70,000" or “100,000”. There appears to be no reliable evidence for these figures.<ref name="Appendix">see Appendix: Documentary Part, p. 5f. – Ditto on facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/hannes-mueller/the-legend-of-20000-nerve-endings/2034618236765662/ The legend of the “20,000 nerve endings]”:</ref> Nevertheless, this article identifies the origin and the calculation of these figures, explains how credible they are, and what magnitude range is the most realistic.

	The [[Intactivists]] movement, which promotes the idea that the possession of intact genitals is a [[human rights\|human right]], is active against the genital mutilation of all children. [[Intactivists]] clarify many widespread myths about [[circumcision]], especially those concerned with male genital cutting. Advocates of circumcision often allege there are advantages. But the results of evidence-based scientific studies disprove these. They provide convincing arguments that the [[foreskin]] is not a superfluous piece of [[skin]], but a part of the body with many positive functions and its lack leads to many disadvantages. To explain this, it is important to provide reliable, i.e. also verifiable, information about the anatomy of the [[foreskin]].		The [[Intactivists]] movement, which promotes the idea that the possession of [[intact]] genitals is a [[human rights\|human right]], is active against the genital mutilation of all children. [[Intactivists]] clarify many widespread myths about [[circumcision]], especially those concerned with male genital cutting. Advocates of [[circumcision]] often allege there are advantages. But the results of evidence-based scientific studies disprove these. They provide convincing arguments that the [[foreskin]] is not a superfluous piece of [[skin]], but a part of the body with many positive functions and its lack leads to many disadvantages. To explain this, it is important to provide reliable, i.e. also verifiable, information about the anatomy of the [[foreskin]].

	Medical studies of the past 25 years have provided much good evidence for [[intactivists]]. Evidence can be found, for example, that the [[foreskin]], especially at the end, is very densely supplied with nerve endings<ref name="Taylor">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>, and is very sensitive to fine touch, even more sensitive than the [[Glans penis\|glans]]<ref>{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>. Basically this is enough to emphasize the special sensitivity of the [[foreskin]]. However, it is in this connection that the above figures are often quoted.		Medical studies of the past 25 years have provided much good evidence for [[intactivists]]. Evidence can be found, for example, that the [[foreskin]], especially at the end, is very densely supplied with nerve endings<ref name="Taylor">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>, and is very sensitive to fine touch, even more sensitive than the [[Glans penis\|glans]]<ref>{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>. Basically this is enough to emphasize the special sensitivity of the [[foreskin]]. However, it is in this connection that the above figures are often quoted.
Line 63:		Line 63:
	The dissemination of Fleiss’ article took place through the Intactivist movement through [[NOCIRC]], [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]], [[NOHARMM]], NRC and “[[Mothers Against Circumcision]]”, amongst others.<ref>http://www.nocirc.org/; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/; http://www.noharmm.org/; http://childrightsnurses.org/; “For More Information”: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html</ref>		The dissemination of Fleiss’ article took place through the Intactivist movement through [[NOCIRC]], [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]], [[NOHARMM]], NRC and “[[Mothers Against Circumcision]]”, amongst others.<ref>http://www.nocirc.org/; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/; http://www.noharmm.org/; http://childrightsnurses.org/; “For More Information”: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html</ref>

	However, in the article by Bazett et al. (1932),<ref name ="bazett1932" /> no number is given for the nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] as a whole. Only a count of 212 nerve endings in a 1 cm² piece of a single prepuce tissue is given (see Table 1, p. 492). The 29-page Bazett article of 1932<ref name="bazett1932"/> to which Fleiss refers as a source for his "20,000", without mentioning the page, is only provided with "Conclusions" at CIRP: "For both technical reasons and perceived lack of general interest, CIRP will not present these parts and will only transcribe the conclusions." – the entire article is available in the archive of "The JAMA Network"<ref name="JAMA">http://jamanetwork.com/journals/archneurpsyc/article-abstract/645191</ref>. The article may be available in 2019 but it was not available in the spring of 1997.		However, in the article by Bazett et al. (1932),<ref name ="bazett1932" /> no number is given for the nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] as a whole. Only a count of 212 nerve endings in a 1 cm² piece of a single prepuce tissue is given (see Table 1, p. 492). The 29-page Bazett article of 1932<ref name="bazett1932"/> to which Fleiss refers as a source for his "20,000", without mentioning the page, is only provided with "Conclusions" at CIRP: "For both technical reasons and perceived lack of general interest, CIRP will not present these parts and will only transcribe the conclusions." — the entire article is available in the archive of "The JAMA Network"<ref name="JAMA">http://jamanetwork.com/journals/archneurpsyc/article-abstract/645191</ref>. The article may be available in 2019 but it was not available in the spring of 1997.

	=== How did Fleiss come to this number, which is nowhere documented? ===		=== How did Fleiss come to this number, which is nowhere documented? ===

WikiAdmin: /* The legend of "20,000 nerve endings" */ hint about updated IntactiWiki content

2022-11-23T12:56:19Z

The legend of "20,000 nerve endings": hint about updated IntactiWiki content

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 23 November 2022
Line 203:		Line 203:
	\|accessdate=2021-08-31		\|accessdate=2021-08-31
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>

			: {{NOTE}} IntactiWiki has updated the relevant text to "The [[foreskin]] contains '''very many''' nerve endings ..." since then.

	* '''[[PflegeWiki]]''': "And more than 20,000 nerve endings are irreversibly removed."<ref>{{REFweb		* '''[[PflegeWiki]]''': "And more than 20,000 nerve endings are irreversibly removed."<ref>{{REFweb

WikiAdmin: adjusted some REFs

2022-11-23T12:53:18Z

adjusted some REFs

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 23 November 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:
	\|season?Winter		\|season?Winter
	\|date=1997		\|date=1997
	}}</ref> by Paul Fleiss appeared in the popular mothers’ magazine “''Mothering''”. This is the first documentation of the ‘fact’, that the [[foreskin]] contains "more than 20,000 nerve endings". Fleiss referred to an article from 1932 by the English physiologist H. C. Bazett (1885-1950) together with other authors within a medical scientific journal.<ref name="bazett1932">Bazett HC, McGlone B, Willams RG, Lufkin HM~~. [~~http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/ I. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch thermo-metric conductivity~~]. ''~~Arch Neurol Psychiatry'' 1932;27(3):489-517.</ref>		}}</ref> by Paul Fleiss appeared in the popular mothers’ magazine “''Mothering''”. This is the first documentation of the ‘fact’, that the [[foreskin]] contains "more than 20,000 nerve endings". Fleiss referred to an article from 1932 by the English physiologist H. C. Bazett (1885-1950) together with other authors within a medical scientific journal.<ref name="bazett1932">{{REFjournal
			\|last=Bazett
			\|init=HC
			\|last2=McGlone
			\|init2=B
			\|last3=Willams
			\|init3=RG
			\|last4=Lufkin
			\|init4=HM
			\|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/
			\|title=I. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch thermo-metric conductivity
			\|journal=Arch Neurol Psychiatry
			\|date=1932
			\|volume=27
			\|issue=3
			\|pages=489-517
			}}</ref>

	The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos\|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?"] </ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; [[AIDS]] and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>		The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos\|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">{{REFweb
			\|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM
			\|title=film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?"
			\|publisher=YouTube
			}}</ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; [[AIDS]] and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>

	The dissemination of Fleiss’ article took place through the Intactivist movement through [[NOCIRC]], [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]], [[NOHARMM]], NRC and “[[Mothers Against Circumcision]]”, amongst others.<ref>http://www.nocirc.org/; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/; http://www.noharmm.org/; http://childrightsnurses.org/; “For More Information”: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html</ref>		The dissemination of Fleiss’ article took place through the Intactivist movement through [[NOCIRC]], [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]], [[NOHARMM]], NRC and “[[Mothers Against Circumcision]]”, amongst others.<ref>http://www.nocirc.org/; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/; http://www.noharmm.org/; http://childrightsnurses.org/; “For More Information”: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html</ref>
Line 190:		Line 210:
	\|first=		\|first=
	\|accessdate=		\|accessdate=
	}}</ref> - In the link to Bazett ''et al'' there is ~~not~~ such a number.		}}</ref> - In the link to Bazett et al. there is no such number.

	* Book of [[Matthias Franz\|M. Franz]]: '''„Die Beschneidung von Jungen – Ein trauriges Vermächtnis“''': Even there it is without proof: "it [the [[foreskin]]] has around 20,000 nerve endings, ..." - The reference to Hartman 2012 contains no number and the on Jaermann 2010 gives "over 1000": '''Scheinfeld''' in [[Matthias Franz\|M. Franz]], Die Beschneidung von Jungen, 2014, p. 364		* Book of [[Matthias Franz\|M. Franz]]: '''„Die Beschneidung von Jungen – Ein trauriges Vermächtnis“''': Even there it is without proof: "it [the [[foreskin]]] has around 20,000 nerve endings, ..." - The reference to Hartman 2012 contains no number and the on Jaermann 2010 gives "over 1000": '''Scheinfeld''' in [[Matthias Franz\|M. Franz]], Die Beschneidung von Jungen, 2014, p. 364

WikiAdmin: adjusted some REFs

2022-07-28T09:48:34Z

adjusted some REFs

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 28 July 2022
Line 25:		Line 25:
	The [[Intactivists]] movement, which promotes the idea that the possession of intact genitals is a [[human rights\|human right]], is active against the genital mutilation of all children. [[Intactivists]] clarify many widespread myths about [[circumcision]], especially those concerned with male genital cutting. Advocates of circumcision often allege there are advantages. But the results of evidence-based scientific studies disprove these. They provide convincing arguments that the [[foreskin]] is not a superfluous piece of [[skin]], but a part of the body with many positive functions and its lack leads to many disadvantages. To explain this, it is important to provide reliable, i.e. also verifiable, information about the anatomy of the [[foreskin]].		The [[Intactivists]] movement, which promotes the idea that the possession of intact genitals is a [[human rights\|human right]], is active against the genital mutilation of all children. [[Intactivists]] clarify many widespread myths about [[circumcision]], especially those concerned with male genital cutting. Advocates of circumcision often allege there are advantages. But the results of evidence-based scientific studies disprove these. They provide convincing arguments that the [[foreskin]] is not a superfluous piece of [[skin]], but a part of the body with many positive functions and its lack leads to many disadvantages. To explain this, it is important to provide reliable, i.e. also verifiable, information about the anatomy of the [[foreskin]].

	Medical studies of the past 25 years have provided much good evidence for [[intactivists]]. Evidence can be found, for example, that the [[foreskin]], especially at the end, is very densely supplied with nerve endings<ref name="Taylor">~~Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. [http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/The prepuce: specialized [[mucosa]] of the [[penis]] and its loss to circumcision]. ''Br J Urol''~~ 1996~~;77:291-295.~~</ref>, and is very sensitive to fine touch, even more sensitive than the [[Glans penis\|glans]]<ref>{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>. Basically this is enough to emphasize the special sensitivity of the [[foreskin]]. However, it is in this connection that the above figures are often quoted.		Medical studies of the past 25 years have provided much good evidence for [[intactivists]]. Evidence can be found, for example, that the [[foreskin]], especially at the end, is very densely supplied with nerve endings<ref name="Taylor">{{TaylorJR LockwoodAP TaylorAJ 1996}}</ref>, and is very sensitive to fine touch, even more sensitive than the [[Glans penis\|glans]]<ref>{{Sorrells etal 2007}}</ref>. Basically this is enough to emphasize the special sensitivity of the [[foreskin]]. However, it is in this connection that the above figures are often quoted.

	The traceable story of the legend of "20,000 nerve endings" began in October '''1997''', when the article "The Case Against Circumcision"<ref name="Fleiss">Fleiss, P. [http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/ The case against circumcision~~]. ''~~Mothering Magazine~~'' (~~Santa Fe). Winter 1997.</ref> by Paul Fleiss appeared in the popular mothers’ magazine “''Mothering''”. This is the first documentation of the ‘fact’, that the [[foreskin]] contains "more than 20,000 nerve endings". Fleiss referred to an article from 1932 by the English physiologist H. C. Bazett (1885-1950) together with other authors within a medical scientific journal.<ref name="bazett1932">Bazett HC, McGlone B, Willams RG, Lufkin HM. [http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/ I. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch thermo-metric conductivity]. ''Arch Neurol Psychiatry'' 1932;27(3):489-517.</ref>		The traceable story of the legend of "20,000 nerve endings" began in October '''1997''', when the article "The Case Against Circumcision"<ref name="Fleiss">{{REFjournal
			\|last=Fleiss
			\|init=P
			\|author-link=Paul M. Fleiss
			\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/
			\|title=The case against circumcision
			\|journal=Mothering Magazine
			\|location=Santa Fe
			\|season?Winter
			\|date=1997
			}}</ref> by Paul Fleiss appeared in the popular mothers’ magazine “''Mothering''”. This is the first documentation of the ‘fact’, that the [[foreskin]] contains "more than 20,000 nerve endings". Fleiss referred to an article from 1932 by the English physiologist H. C. Bazett (1885-1950) together with other authors within a medical scientific journal.<ref name="bazett1932">Bazett HC, McGlone B, Willams RG, Lufkin HM. [http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/bazett/ I. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch thermo-metric conductivity]. ''Arch Neurol Psychiatry'' 1932;27(3):489-517.</ref>

	The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos\|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?"] </ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; [[AIDS]] and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>		The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos\|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?"] </ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; [[AIDS]] and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>

WikiAdmin: wikify DOC

2022-06-16T09:07:48Z

wikify DOC

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:07, 16 June 2022
Line 31:		Line 31:
	The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos\|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?"] </ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; [[AIDS]] and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>		The popular American pediatrician [[Paul Fleiss]] (1933-2014), in empathy with the children, was very active against the genital mutilation of newborns by [[RIC]](non-therapeeutic) (Routine Infant Circumcision) in USA. Fleiss, [[Marilyn Milos\|Marilyn F. Milos]], and alongside them many other [intactivist]] pioneers, have contributed enormously to explaining its negative consequences. Fleiss knew of the article by Bazett et al. (1932) through the medical historian F. Hodges. Fleiss and Hodges were well known to each other. They appeared both in the 1995 film “[[Whose Body, Whose Rights?]]”<ref name="WhoseBody">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0kr6BiVZMM film "Whose Body, Whose Rights?"] </ref>, and together they co-authored several articles<ref>Letter; Neonatal circumcision does not protect against penile cancer; [[foreskin]] IS NECESSARY; [[AIDS]] and circumcision; Circumcision in infancy; Authors’ reply; Immunological functions of the human prepuce</ref> and two books<ref name="SweetDreams">a) Sweet Dreams 2000; b) www.amazon.com/What-Your-Doctor-About-Circumcision/dp/0446678805 2002</ref>. In “The Case Against Circumcision” Fleiss referred to Hodges’ article: “A short history of circumcision in the United States” from Jan. 1997, wherein Hodges writes about Bazett’s “detailed anatomical description of the innervation of the [[foreskin]].”<ref>http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=0: Fn 50</ref>

	The dissemination of Fleiss’ article took place through the Intactivist movement through [[NOCIRC]], [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision~~\|DOC~~]], [[NOHARMM]], NRC and “[[Mothers Against Circumcision]]”, amongst others.<ref>http://www.nocirc.org/; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/; http://www.noharmm.org/; http://childrightsnurses.org/; “For More Information”: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html</ref>		The dissemination of Fleiss’ article took place through the Intactivist movement through [[NOCIRC]], [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]], [[NOHARMM]], NRC and “[[Mothers Against Circumcision]]”, amongst others.<ref>http://www.nocirc.org/; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/; http://www.noharmm.org/; http://childrightsnurses.org/; “For More Information”: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html</ref>

	However, in the article by Bazett et al. (1932),<ref name ="bazett1932" /> no number is given for the nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] as a whole. Only a count of 212 nerve endings in a 1 cm² piece of a single prepuce tissue is given (see Table 1, p. 492). The 29-page Bazett article of 1932<ref name="bazett1932"/> to which Fleiss refers as a source for his "20,000", without mentioning the page, is only provided with "Conclusions" at CIRP: "For both technical reasons and perceived lack of general interest, CIRP will not present these parts and will only transcribe the conclusions." – the entire article is available in the archive of "The JAMA Network"<ref name="JAMA">http://jamanetwork.com/journals/archneurpsyc/article-abstract/645191</ref>. The article may be available in 2019 but it was not available in the spring of 1997.		However, in the article by Bazett et al. (1932),<ref name ="bazett1932" /> no number is given for the nerve endings in the [[foreskin]] as a whole. Only a count of 212 nerve endings in a 1 cm² piece of a single prepuce tissue is given (see Table 1, p. 492). The 29-page Bazett article of 1932<ref name="bazett1932"/> to which Fleiss refers as a source for his "20,000", without mentioning the page, is only provided with "Conclusions" at CIRP: "For both technical reasons and perceived lack of general interest, CIRP will not present these parts and will only transcribe the conclusions." – the entire article is available in the archive of "The JAMA Network"<ref name="JAMA">http://jamanetwork.com/journals/archneurpsyc/article-abstract/645191</ref>. The article may be available in 2019 but it was not available in the spring of 1997.