JERUSALEM: Baby Boy Rushed to the Hospital with Bleeding Complications

Advocates of circumcision often try to trivialize infant circumcision, saying it's "harmless" and "risk-free."

Well, yet another circumcision botch makes the news, this time in Israel. The last one that I know of happened in Pittsburgh, where a rabbi severed a child's entire penis during his bris. Not to mention the recent herpes infection due to metzitzah b'peh in New York.

Keep in mind these are complication cases that make the news; circumcision mishaps are often kept under wraps because there is a conviction to preserve a tradition that is ever under fire. Hospitals themselves may be obscuring these complications.

There is also financial incentive to hide or minimize circumcision complications; circumcision is a widespread practice in the United States. Annually, American doctors circumcise 1.2 million baby boys. At a dollar a pop, that's 1.2 million dollars; infant circumcision can cost anywhere between $100 up to $2,000 each. Therefore American doctors and medical facilities have incentive to hide or minimize complications due to circumcision, Jewish or secular.

Are these complications conscionable, given that infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery?

Another Mohel Botches a Bris

Whenever a botched circumcision case makes the news, and people start talking about it, either in the commentary section (when news outlets are actually brave enough to allow them), or parenting forums, or on Facebook, there is always somebody who says something along the lines of:

"This wouldn't have happened if it were performed by a mohel. Mohels are jacks of their trade who do circumcisions for a living."

Actually, mohels are often put on pedestals in more ways than one.

A Jewish bris performed by a mohel is better than a hospital circumcision performed by a doctor for a myriad of reasons. Here are some that I've heard:

• Mohels are more experienced, so your son is sure not to suffer a botched job
• Mohels take less time than doctors(some claim less than 10 seconds), shortening the painful procedure
• Mohels don't use pain medication (this is supposed to be a good thing, in spite of the facts)
• Mohels do their work outside of the hospital, in a religious setting, giving "meaning" to circumcision, making it more "holistic" ("holistic" taking on an entirely different meaning here)

There are other reasons, but these seem to be the main ones.

Now, there have been quite a few documented cases of mohels botching a bris, and being taken to court for it. (For example, here and here.)

But whenever I bring these up, strings and straws are grasped for, here and there, and Jewish circumcision advocates begin to list off alibis of why these are "special cases," and why mohels continue to be the best circumcision performers.

Among these are:

• The child had a pre-existing condition; not the mohel's fault (when a child is found later on to be a hemophiliac, have a heart condition and other ailments)
• The child had a particularly strange-shaped penis to work with; the case is an exception
• The botch was a result of clamp malfunction; mohel is not at fault
• The botch was performed by an inexperienced mohel; not a representative case

It's interesting to hear Jewish advocates of circumcision clarify that the bris has to be performed by a "trained and qualified mohel."

Thus, the reasons why Jewish circumcision performed by a mohel in a bris milah ritual are an ever moving target, and Jewish circumcision and its officiators remain sacrosanct.

Parents Usually Not Forthcoming
One of the reasons why very few botched circumcision jobs make the news is because parents, both Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are complicit in keeping the botched circumcision job and its perpetrator secret.

What parent wants to admit that their child has been permanently disfigured because they decided to agree to a medically unnecessary procedure?

In the case of Jewish parents, who wants to admit that what is perhaps the most precious of Jewish mitzvot is the cause of their child's disfigurement, and in worse cases, death?

As an example, when investigators were querying the Jewish families whose babies were infected with herpes, they would not name names. People in these communities were also unwilling to help find the perpetrator. The preservation of a cherished tradition that people have emotional attachment to is more important.

Circumcisors, Jewish and non-Jewish have reputations to protect. Gentile parents have peace of mind to preserve. Jewish parents have the added burden of protecting their own, and not giving away a holy man who performs the sacred ritual of bris milah. Thus, silence is perpetuated, and parents are complicit in keeping this silence.

That is, until now.

Circumcision Lawsuits
Recent years have seen a series of lawsuits against circumcisors, mohels and doctors, sometimes people who are both, for circumcision mishaps, which indicates that there are parents who are deciding to no longer keep silent about what has happened to their sons.

In a very recent case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, a device notorious for glans amputations, even when used by professionals. So notorious is the Mogen clamp for glans amputations that the company that makes this device went out of business, because it couldn't afford the $11 million dollar lawsuit filed against it, after a mohel severed the end of another baby's glans using one of their clamps

The peculiar thing about Mogen is that up until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, "when used properly," even after other glans amputations were reported. The injury behind a prior lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars.

And, just this month, another mohel was taken to court by parents in Queens. The rabbi told the parents he did an "acceptable job" that was "performed appropriately" and "within the standard of care and skill required of Jewish mohelim and circumcisers." He also allegedly told the parents that calling a doctor wasn't necessary, even though it was obvious that something had gone wrong with the bris. The parents claim that the delay in medical treatment resulted in greater permanent damage to his son, resulting in the necessity for corrective surgery with general anesthesia; the boy may need more operations in the future.

Of course there will be those who claim that this would never happen if the circumcision were "properly performed."

To which I would retort that female circumcision does not result in complications "when properly performed" by the right shaman priestess either.

The self-serving, ad hoc special pleading is astounding.

Interesting note; Jewish groups are challenging a New York law that says mohels have to warn parents of the risks, and have them sign a consent form before proceeding. Does this mean that Jewish parents AREN'T being told of the risk of glans ablations, herpes infections and death?

Hopefully more parents, Jewish and non-Jewish, will find the courage to bring the botched circumcisions of their sons to light.

Related Posts:

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room 

The Ghost of Mogen 

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way 

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes 

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

 Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

The Ghost of Mogen

Advocates of circumcision always minimize circumcision to "just a little snip with little to no risks." They always say "there are no risks, and if there are, they're worth it." When you present them examples of circumcisions gone wrong, they will always say "Oh, well that's just a once in a million case. Circumcision mishaps don't ever happen when a professional does it." Well, in this blog post I'm going to talk about a very real risk that circumcision advocates may not tell you about. The following circumcision mishap is one that is so common that there have already been numerous court cases; glans amputation.

In a very recent case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, a device notorious for glans amputations, even when used by professionals. So notorious is the Mogen clamp for glans amputations that the company that makes this device went out of business last year, because it couldn't afford the $11 million dollar lawsuit filed against it, after a mohel severed the end of another baby's glans using one of their clamps. A year after Mogen goes out of business, we are still hearing of the damage their clamp is causing.

The peculiar thing about Mogen is that until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, even after other glans amputations were reported. The injury behind a prior lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars.

I'm afraid that this may not be the last we hear of Mogen glans amputations yet. Despite going out of business in America, and despite its notoriety for glans amputations, Mogen clamps are being used in a pilot project to have male children circumcised at birth under the pretext of HIV prevention in Kenya. They are currently being used in Rwanda to circumcise newborns under the pretext of "HIV prevention." In light of the fact that newborn children aren't at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, and in light of the fact that there are already better, more effective, less invasive modes of prevention, how is taking this risk conscionable?

Until the next apparition of  Mogen's ghost... *sigh*

UPDATE (added 7/28/2011):
It utterly infuriates me that the WHO has been effectively pissing in our mouths and calling it rain... "Circumcision would only be offered to consenting adults," they promised. Well why in the hell have they approved circumcision devices for infant male circumcision? Given what I presnt above, why have they approved MOGEN of all torture devices? What in the world are these people THINKING??? GEEZ. Pisses me off.

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

So a recent news report from Richmond, VA finally highlights the fact that circumcisions can and do result in botches that have to be corrected later on.

The report sounds promising, giving the impression that doctors and parents are finally pondering the validity of putting children at risk for permanently mangled organs over an elective, medically unnecessary, cosmetic procedure.

Nope!

Basically, the conclusion is that staff needs to be better trained, and everyone completely ignores the best way to eliminate the possibility of a botched circumcision; leaving the poor child's genitals alone.

I've gone through and taken the report and inserted my own critique in parentheses. It's simply infuriating the way everyone pretends to be so utterly stupid and without a clue.

CBS 6
wtvr.com - richmond, VA
http://www.wtvr.com/wtvr-botched-circumcisions-20110517,0,4411553.story

CBS 6 INVESTIGATION: Circumcision Errors all too common in Central Virginia
Tracy Sears
Reporter
10:15 a.m. EDT, May 18, 2011

RICHMOND,VA (WTVR) - For some it's a cosmetic or health decision. For others, it's a religious covenant.

(And religion is relevant in medicine because???)

Regardless of the reason, a majority of baby boys born in the Greater Richmond Area today are being circumcised.

(Circumcision is SURGERY. It's CUTTING PART OF A CHILD'S PENIS OFF. The reason is DAMN WELL RELEVANT. But let's not dwell on it EVER.)

While circumcision is one of the most common procedures performed, a number of things can and do go wrong.

(Let's not talk about the fact that circumcision is elective, non-medical cosmetic surgery in a healthy, non-consenting newborn.)

Traci Stevens knew she didn't want her second baby to go through what her first son did. Stevens says, "My husband said over and over, 'Something's wrong.'"

(That first sentence is misleading. You think the woman grew a brain and decided her second son shouldn't be put through a needless risk. The plot thickens...)

Pediatric urologist Dr. Boyd Winslow confirmed what the Stevens feared, their first son's circumcision had been done wrong in the hospital and needed to be repeated. To spare their second born, Jonah, the same heartache, the Stevens took him directly to Dr. Winslow a month after he was born.

(WAIT, to "spare" their second born, they put him through the EXACT SAME RISKS??? Am I MISSING something here???)

Stevens says, "Jonah didn’t cry one bit when it was done, so I was very happy with that."

(Notice the wording; the child didn't cry. SHE was happy with that. I wonder how she would feel if she was the one undergoing the knife...)

Dr. Winslow says the Stevens aren’t alone; circumcision errors are becoming all too common.

Dr. Winslow says, "Babies crying and bleeding and I'm like, 'Come on, this is not humane.'"

(What, the bleeding and the crying? Or the fact that they're undergoing NEEDLESS SURGERY???)

Over the past three years, Winslow's practice has performed more than 1,600 repeat circumcisions. Some are minor fixes, others are major ones.

(Sounds like there's a market for repeat circumcision... It's not as "rare" as people would like to think...)

Dr. Winslow says, "The ones that have more serious problems can have so much skin removed that the penis becomes constrained and scarred or either bent and distorted."

(When was the "appropriate" amount of skin to be removed determined? What is there like a dotted line or something? FACT: The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue. The circumcised penis IS constrained, scared and distorted.)

So why is this happening?

(It should be obvious; children are being left with mangled penises ever a needless procedure. Do you really have to ask?)

"A lot of circumcisions are done on a newborn in a hurry," says Dr. Winslow.

(That's right, perhaps female circumcision wouldn't be so bad if the cutters weren't so hasty...)

Obstetricians have been doing circumcisions for years. One because they're experienced surgeons, and two, because they're in the hospitals with the new mothers.

(AKA, they get first dibs.)

Susan Lanni, The Medical Director for Labor and Delivery at VCU Medical Center says, "It’s really not our specialty, but by default it falls in our lap." She says with any medical procedure, there are complications, but says the majority of procedures are done correctly.

(Most medical procedures require a distinct medical REASON.)

Dr. Lanni goes on to say, "As a parent, I would want the person who has done the most procedures and felt the most comfortable with the procedure to be doing it and quite honestly nowadays, that’s the obstetrician."

(Shouldn't there be a MEDICAL REASON first? At its convention in Washington DC last week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refused Intact America permission to place a stall among those offering medical products, etc, because circumcision is "beyond the scope of the practice of obstetrics and gynecology." How is it people can't lobby against them because it's outside their competence, and yet claim the right to do it? http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Epaper/2011-05-02/Ax11.pdf)

Dr. Winslow doesn't dispute obstetricians should be the ones doing the circumcisions.

(Well he SHOULD. Obstetricians are specialists in women and childbirth. They have no particular competence at male genital surgery. Male infant circumcision is not even in their field of work.)

After all, there are roughly 4,500 baby boys born in Greater Richmond each year and statistics show 80-90% of them are circumcised, yet Winslow's Pediatric Urology practice is just one of two in town. He says, "We couldn't take on all those, we wouldn't dare offer that."

(Notice how encouraging parents and doctors to NOT be needlessly putting babies at risk by circumcising them isn't even talked about...)

But what Winslow is offering is his expertise. A year ago, he began doing presentations for local doctors to help them recognize problematic conditions and to perform the procedure as safely and painlessly as possible.

(Since they are not medically indicated, WHY PERFORM THEM AT ALL??? Is NOT circumcising part of Winslow's presentations? At 3:00 Dr Winslow shows a slide saying "Now the fun is over..." FUN? Does he know how close to the wind he is sailing, when there are are group of men who call themselves "circumsexuals" who take erotic pleasure from the idea of circumcising and being circumcised? They have websites and hold conventions. Better not to think about the fun they have at them.)

While the American Medical Association has set up guidelines for doctors to follow, the procedure is often left up to an individual physician’s discretion, and some don’t even use a local anesthetic.

(As if pain were even part of the issue...)

Dr. Winslow says there are ways doctors can improve the procedure and that has become his mission and says, "I've got my talk ready to give any place that wants to hear it."

(Shouldn't the first option, since it is not medically necessary, to try and convince doctors and parents NOT TO DO THIS AT ALL???)

Traci Stevens is thankful her little guy has a good start in life...

("Good start?" So baby boys are born defective straight out of the womb? The only two counties where the majority of baby boys are circumcised are Israel and the United States; even in Muslim countries it is mostly performed on older children. So children in the rest of the world are all off to "bad starts?" What self-serving, self-deluding, ad-hoc rubbish.)

...and Dr. Winslow says all babies deserve the same respect.

(The "respect" babies deserve is the right to their whole bodies.)

Dr. Winslow says, "Later on, little boys I can tell you, their penis becomes their best buddy and it means a lot to them."

(Yes. Have you ever wondered how they might feel about being circumcised? What if it meant a lot to them that some doctor never messed with their "best buddy" in the first place?

This statement is almost sick to think about. He can "tell us?" How can he "tell us" this? What does he CARE about a child's relationship to his penis, and why does he feel others are entitled to intervene?

Why can't we leave children's genitals alone???)

Some of the warning signs of a troubled circumcision include adhesions and scarring.

(Trouble that is needless and easily avoided by NOT circumcising...)

Doctor Winslow says the best time to circumcise a baby boy is in the first four weeks of life.

(The best time to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting individual is NEVER.)

However, if you're unsure whether circumcision is right for your child, consult your doctor first.

(The elephant in the room - not circumcising would eliminate any risk of a botch.)

And remember; these are the stats for just ONE CITY. How's the rest of America doing?

Bottom line, always the bottom line.
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nor is it a congenital deformity or a genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all males at birth.

Circumcision in healthy boys is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue. It permanently alters the appearance and mechanics of the penis, and it puts a child at risk of infection, disfigurment, complete ablation and even death.

Thanks to research and modern medicine, we now have better, more effective, less-invasive ways to prevent disease, so that circumcision is not needed anymore (actually, it was never needed).

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is by very definition infant genital mutilation. Doctors have no business performing it in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving his parents any kind of "choice."

Doctors like Winslow are nothing less than charlatans justifying their trade.

"It's hard to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding."~Upton Sinclair

Letter to Editors at the Vancouver Sun

OK, so Neil Pollock, a Jewish mohel and child circumcisor by trade, notorious for plugging his business whenever, wherever he can, takes advantage of  yet another situation. In response to Sharon Kirkey's article "Circumcision best left to prepubescence," he, aided by well-known circumcision czar Edgar Schoen (he goes by "Ed" now, just so you know... ain't it cute?), plugs circumcision and his own business, YET AGAIN. You can read the article, which basically reads like an informercial, right here:

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/skinny+circumcision/4599446/story.html

I took it upon myself to write a letter to the editors at the Vancouver Sun myself. Here it is:

To whom it may concern,

This is in response to Neil Pollock's shameless self promotion, and his support by Edgar (AKA "Ed") Schoen. Before anybody takes what Pollock and Schoen say seriously, there are some conflicts of interest that readers of the Vancouver Sun should know about.

First, Neil Pollock is a surgeon from Vancouver, Canada, whose sole livelihood comes from performing infant circumcision and vasectomy.[1] He charges $455.00 Canadian for circumcising children under 2 months of age,[2] and if his website is correct, he performs 2,500 annually, which means he grosses $1,137,500 Canadian on infant circumcision alone. Pollock is also a mohel by trade,[1][3] which suggests that aside from his livelihood, circumcision is of cultural and religious importance to him. Edgar Schoen also once made a living from circumcision, and has been a long-standing vocal advocate of circumcision for years. Pollock and Schoen are also both Jewish, where circumcision is a religious ritual central to their religious and cultural identities. Mentioning these men's religious affiliation is important, because belonging to a religious group where circumcision is a religious requirement is at odds with presenting anything disparaging about it; it predisposes people to presenting only that which puts circumcision in a positive light.[4]

Neil Pollock dispenses misleading, or outright untrue information. On his website, he sells his circumcision technique as "a new approach" that "has recently been developed."[5] Pollock's website uses language that suggests that he uses state-of-the-art techniques and equipment that no other surgeon possesses, by warning against others who try to "emulate" him.[6] Closer inspection reveals that Pollock isn't doing anything "new"; his website reveals that he uses the Mogen technique, which involves the Mogen clamp. The Mogen clamp was invented in 1954,[7] but it is actually one of many successors to the much older, traditional barzel device.[8]

Here are some things Neil Pollock may not tell parents about Mogen. On his website, and on this article, he insists that without experience, which he boasts for having, the methods and techniques he uses could be "potentially dangerous," however the Mogen clamp has been notorious for glans amputations, even among experienced conductors of circumcision.[9] Mogen went out of business after losing a 10.8 million dollar law suit, after a mohel severed the end of a baby's glans using one of their clamps. Mogen claimed that injury was impossible with its use. The injury behind a prior lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars. [10]

Many of the "benefits" that Pollock tries to highlight are dubious, or are based on debunked information. For example, when he talks about the lining of the inside of the foreskin, and how the cells "trap the virus but are unable to destroy it," this was one of the original hypotheses that was used to run the circumcision trials in Africa. The specific name for these cells are the Langerhans cells, and deWitte actually found in his study that the Langerhans cells are not only impossible to eliminate, because they are found all over the body, but they actually secrete a substance called Langerin, which actually destroys the HIV virus.[11]

The langerhans hypothesis has been long forgotten, and researchers have tried to sell the lie that "Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV because it's harder for the virus to get through the keratinized glans." But other studies have found no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin. Keratin layers alone are unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection. [12] Additionally, "No difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin."[13] As of yet, circumcision "researchers" have yet to explain the mechanism whereby circumcision prevents HIV transmission. The repeated studies are all based on disproven hypotheses, bringing their validity into question.

Pollock and Schoen say that STDs are more likely in uncircumcised men, but this does not reflect reality, where STD transmission rates are higher in North America, where the majority of the men are circumcised (approx. 80% according to Edgar Schoen), than they are in countries in Europe, where circumcision is rare. They also fail to mention studies that show circumcision makes no difference in HIV transmission [14] or that it actually has the opposite effect, increasing infection, especially to female partners [15]. They mention HPV transmission, but not that there are already vaccines for them. They say that penile cancer is "almost exclusive" to uncircumcised men, but they do not talk about the rate, which is something like 1 in 100,000 of men who smoke with poor hygiene practices.[16] Prostate cancer is more common in men; 1 in 6 North Americans will develop prostate cancer. [17] Using Pollock and Schoen's logic, removing prostates at birth is more urgent than male circumcision.

They briefly mention that "Sexual pleasure and power are not significantly affected by circumcision," but they will not mention that the foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis. Sorrells shows that circumcision reduces sensitivity by a factor of 4. [18]

Regarding UTIs, it is common knowledge that whether boys are circumcised or not, girls are 10 times more likely to develop UTIs. UTIs are already quite rare in boys, and are as easily treatable with antibiotics in boys, as they are in girls. It makes no sense to amputate part of a child's genitals to prevent a disease that is already quite rare, and already easily treated. Neil Pollock and Edgar Schoen point out Tom Wiswell's work, but they will not mention that all of it has been thoroughly discredited.[19][20]

Neil Pollock talks about phimosis, but nothing is mentioned about the frequency of occurence of this condition, much less about how often circumcision is actually indicated, even when the condition develops. He talks about circumcision promoting hygiene, but surgery is not needed to promote hygiene. An uncircumcised male child needs no more care than an uncircumcised female child. It is true that men in old age are often unable to clean themselves, and somebody else must do it for them, but the same applies to women in old age.

The rest of the article is basically self promotion. Unless it is medically or clinically indicated, doctors have no business performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, much less pander to a parent's sense of entitlement.

Neil Pollock is a professional mohel and child circumcisor and in this article, he is merely promoting his trade. Schoen did his share of circumcisions as well, and he is a very vocal advocate for circumcision. According to a MEDLINE search, Edgar Schoen has been published 20 times in the medical literature on the subject of circumcision. In addition to reaping, or having reaped profit from the procedure they are promoting, Neil Pollock and Edgar Schoen are both Jewish. I feel this is important to mention, because circumcision is an important ritual and religious commandment. Although physicians may act with what they consider to be sound medical judgement, some physicians may be influenced also by nonmedical consideration. The cultural background of many Jewish circumcision advocates predisposes them to view circumcision in a positive light, to welcome evidence that the most particular and problematic religious custom of their people is medically beneficial, and to dismiss arguments to the contrary.[21] Please do not conflate my assessment of potential bias and conflicts of interest with anti-Semitism. These are conflicts of interest that put the objectivity of the information presented in question, and it is the responsibility of the Vancouver Sun to publish them so that the public can make a better assessment of the information presented by these men.

In closing, it needs to be mentioned that Edgar Schoen is a well-known circumcision evangelist that has been rejected wherever he goes.[22]

Yours truly,

Joseph Lewis


References:
1."About Dr. Pollock". http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/circumcision-drpollock.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
2. "Arranging a Circumcision". http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/circumcision-arrange.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
3. Owens, Anne Marie (2001-01-22). "Like father, like son". National Post, The. http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/npost.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
4. Siegfried et al. "Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men." Cochrane Library 3 (2003)
5. "Parents' Guide to Circumcision". http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/circumcision-guide.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
6. "Pollock Clinics Infant Circumcision". 2011-04-08. http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/circumcision-index.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
7. "Use of the Mogen clamp for neonatal circumcision". http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/rdr5.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
8. "Methods of circumcision". circumstitions.com. 2011-04-08. http://www.circumstitions.com/methods.html#barzel. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
9. (April/May 2002). "Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision". Journal of Perinatology 22 (3): 214-218. http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v22/n3/full/7210653a.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
10. Tagami, Ty (2010-07-19). "Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/atlanta-lawyer-wins-11-573890.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
11. deWitte et al. "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells". Nature Medicine http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf Retrieved 2011-4-14
12. Dinh et al. "HIV-1 Interactions and Infection in Adult Male Foreskin Explant Cultures". http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/502.pdf Retreived 2011-4-14
13. Dinh et al. "Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294 Retreived 2011-4-14
14. Westercamp, M; Bailey RC, Bukusi EA, Montandon M, Kwena Z, et al. (2010). "Male Circumcision in the General Population of Kisumu, Kenya: Beliefs about Protection, Risk Behaviors, HIV, and STIs". PLoS ONE 5 (12). Template:Hide in print. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015552.
15. Wawer MJ, Makumbi F, Kigozi G, et al. Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374:229 ?37.
16. Wallerstein E (February 1985). "Circumcision. The uniquely American medical enigma". Urol. Clin. North Am. 12 (1): 123?32. PMID 3883617
17. ACS "What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?" http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-key-statistics Retreived 2011-4-14
18. Sorrels et. al "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf Retreived 2011-4-14
19. AAP Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics 1999;103(3):686-693.
20. Van Howe RS. Effect of confounding in the association between circumcision status and urinary tract infection. J Infect 2005;51(1):59-68.
21. Glick, Leonard (2005). ""This Little Operation", Jewish American Physicians and Twentieth-Century Circumcisoin Advocacy". Marked in Your Flesh. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 183-184. ISBN 0-19-517674-X.
22 .G Hill, J V Geisheker (2006) "Edgar Schoen does not represent the North American view of male circumcision". Retrieved 2011-04-08. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083089/

Afterthought...
I was in a hurry, otherwise I would have also included the following:

Pollock promises a "virtually painless" circumcision,[1] but this claim assumes the methods he boasts in using are actually effective. On his website, it says that the pain control methods used are Tylenol, sugar,[2][3] a topical cream, and a local anaesthetic injection called a dorsal penile ring block. The topical anaesthetic only serves to numb the area to lessen the pain of the injection, but studies have shown that a dorsal penile ring block is not always effective in stopping the pain of circumcision.[4][5] During the circumcision, the child is given sugar pacifiers to "reduce his pain perceptions", but in at least one study, data shows that giving sugar to a child doesn't help to reduce the perception of pain in the child.[6] Post-operative pain and the pain the child must endure during recovery is hardly, if ever, addressed.

Pollock advertizes that it takes him "only 30 seconds" to perform circumcision, but this doesn't take into account the fact that the child must first have topical anaesthetic applied, and then be given the dorsal penile ring block for which there is a 10 minute waiting period for the injection to take effect. In the FAQ page, it is admitted that "although the circumcision takes under 30 seconds, we require you to be in our office for one hour and fifteen minutes in total so that we can carefully review with you all post procedure care and answer any of your questions."

In closing, Neil Pollock is just doing what any other merchant does to promote his business. It must be emphasized that Neil Pollock was first and foremost a mohel, and that he, Edgar Schoen and other circumcision advocates were circumcising children long before the current HIV hype. Pollock is not interested in facts, he is interested in promoting his own trade and absolving his own religious practices. Pollock will never admit the truths about circumcision because it would be devastating to his livelihood, devastating to his faith, and devastating to his own personal identity. The fact that he is a Jewish mohel, and that his livelihood depends on the circumcision of children bring this man's objectivity into question.

"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding..."
~Upton Sinclair

References:
1. "Pollock Clinics Infant Circumcision". 2011-04-08. http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/circumcision-index.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
2. "Parents' Guide to Circumcision". http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/circumcision-guide.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
3. "Before the Circumcision". 2011-04-08. http://www.pollockclinics.com/circumcision/circumcision-before.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
4. Taeusch, H William; Alma M Martinez, J Colin Partridge, Susan Sniderman, Jennifer Armstrong-Wells, Elena Fuentes-Afflick (April/May 2002). "Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision". Journal of Perinatology 22 (3): 214-218. http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v22/n3/full/7210653a.html. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
5. Williamson, Paul S.; Nolan Donovan Evans (August 1986). "Neonatal Cortisol Response to Circumcision with Anesthesia". Clinical Pediatrics 25 (8): 412-416. http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/25/8/412.abstract. Retrieved 2011-04-08.
6. Slater, Rebeccah; Laura Cornelissen, Lorenzo Fabrizi, Debbie Patten, Jan Yoxen, Alan Worley, Stewart Boyd, Judith Meek, Prof Maria Fitzgerald (2010-10-09). "Oral sucrose as an analgesic drug for procedural pain in newborn infants: a randomised controlled trial". Lancet, The 376 (9748): 1225-1232. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961303-7/ Retrieved 2011-04-08.