TV show on Foreskin

Last Thursday night there was a sex information show on TV, it was about circumcision. A doctor went on about the benefits of Circumcision, he stated that one of the main reasons for Circumcision was to stop penile cancer. He said that it has been shown that men who are circumcised when they are young babies, when they grow they do not suffer from penile cancer, as opposed to those men who have not been cut, do suffer from penile cancer.

He also went on to discuss the benefits of the foreskin, apparently these skin very special qualities, 1 foreskin can be used to generate 4 football fields of new skin. Foreskin has been used to grow new skin for burn victims. It is the only skin on the human body that this quality of regeneration.

There was two or three Urologist some for and some against circumcision. But all agreed that the foreskin had some very special properties, that until recently, in last ten years was not known.

Also the doctors also agreed that if you do grow back a foreskin, it will lack the properties of regeneration, and once cut it is gone forever.

(hopefully my typing doesn't suck to much, i'm tired and half blind so, it mightt)
Yes, also some (a lot (of)) babies don't cry during the circumcision b/c they enter a state of shock, a lot fo teh pro circumcision stats are retarded, one of the test compared men worldwide and said that by beign uncircumcised you increase your risk of aid by lik 40%, which is total bs you can't get aids from foreskin espicially because its original job is to protect the penis, and as far as all the other test, they use data from crappy 3rd world places where disease runs crazy (it sounds kind of mean, but it wasn supposed to). The circumcision is evil, and it costs about $400 so they (modern medicine practitioners) would of course encourage it, then they can sell the skin to medical labs and cosmetics institues so, its win win. Penn and Teller's bullshit talked about it, and i guess there a 20,000 (i'll go back and check, but it sounds close) nerve ending in the forsekin and by removing them it can reduce sexual pleasure (although i'm not to sure how they could measure it), and that cimcrumsized penises tend to be smaller, all kinds of fun things like that, after watching penn and teller, i could never in good conscience encourage circumcision, the clips they show made me cringe, it's brutal. Circumcision is evil. But with all the really biast info out there who can you really believe?

The stats aren't convincing on the pro-circ side. They take populations with very different cultures, not only circumcision, and compare disease rates. Fair comparison?

Like cut guys don't get HPV? That is the only cause of cancer on a penis that I know of.

One more thing about circumcision is that when the foreskin is cut according to the Urologist, the sensitivity of the Glan is very much diminished. The poor sod has to go through life not having much pleasure out of sex. The foreskin also provides lubrication for the Glan and thus makes the sex much more pleasurable

ElGeorgio said:

one of the main reasons for Circumcision was to stop penile cancer.

Click to expand...

MALE breast cancer affects as many men as penile cancer (about 1 in 100,000) and some cut men DO get penile cancer. In fact the rate in some countries that almost never circ is lower than the rate in the US. Penile cancer is just a skin cancer; as such it is usually detected early and not fatal.

The death rate from circumcision exceeds the death rate from penile cancer and male breast cancer combined. 3 babies died in one month in NYC alone last fall.

No national health organization in the world recommends circ. Whoever you saw was going against the deliberations of a panel from whatever medical society he/she might be a member of.

-Ron Low
TLCTugger.com

ElGeorgio said:

1 foreskin can be used to generate 4 football fields of new skin...It is the only skin on the human body that this quality of regeneration.

Click to expand...

Those docs must have been ignorant as well as greedy and malicious, since those two quotes are utter bullshit.

A large majority of parents do it for cosmetic and cultural reasons. Like oh its the popular and american thing to do etc. Like its just fitting in etc. My friend got his kids cut because he was cut. Its a fad. Everything else thats pro circ is generaly fluff. I hope every doctor gets sued up the rear for not informing
parents about options. Its vastly safer to be circumcised later in life. And the chances of the doc doing a botched job is less.

Gravesubject said:

Those docs must have been ignorant as well as greedy and malicious, since those two quotes are utter bullshit.

Click to expand...

Gravesubject, I am just quoting what the Urologist said, I am sure that the guy knows more about the foreskin use than you or I do. The subject of Circumcision is very delicate and it depends on you talk to, as to whether they are for or against it. For me I would never let my son be cut, I was not cut. However, My grandson was cut, because his dad was cut. I think it is a very unnecessary and painful operation to go through.

ElGeorgio said:

Gravesubject, I am just quoting what the Urologist said, I am sure that the guy knows more about the foreskin use than you or I do. The subject of Circumcision is very delicate and it depends on you talk to, as to whether they are for or against it. For me I would never let my son be cut, I was not cut. However, My grandson was cut, because his dad was cut. I think it is a very unnecessary and painful operation to go through.

Click to expand...

ElGeorgio,

Don't take offense: I was saying that the doctor was bullshitting, not you.

First, the claim of football-fields worth of skin from one foreskin is marketing hyperbole from Organogenesis, the company that makes replacement skin from foreskins. This is a figure that they like to toss around because it sounds fantastic to investors... perhaps too fantastical though, as they are now in Chapter 11 bankrupcy.

Second, there are multiple tissues/cell types that can be grown in the same fashion. Foreskins happen to grow faster and for a longer period of time, and are easy to get and cheap.

In the future, please refrain from assuming that you know the limits of my knowledge. I am a graduate student in Physiology and Pharmacology, and my university is involved in tissue engineering. I may not know everything about foreskins, but I know enough to recognize marketing bullshit from pharma companies.

Peace.

Gravesubject said:

...as they are now in Chapter 11 bankrupcy.

Click to expand...

My bad: they are no longer in Chap 11. Tempus fugits!

Gravesubject said:

ElGeorgio,

Don't take offense: I was saying that the doctor was bullshitting, not you.

First, the claim of football-fields worth of skin from one foreskin is marketing hyperbole from Organogenesis, the company that makes replacement skin from foreskins. This is a figure that they like to toss around because it sounds fantastic to investors... perhaps too fantastical though, as they are now in Chapter 11 bankrupcy.

Second, there are multiple tissues/cell types that can be grown in the same fashion. Foreskins happen to grow faster and for a longer period of time, and are easy to get and cheap.

In the future, please refrain from assuming that you know the limits of my knowledge. I am a graduate student in Physiology and Pharmacology, and my university is involved in tissue engineering. I may not know everything about foreskins, but I know enough to recognize marketing bullshit from pharma companies.

Peace.

Click to expand...

Hey Gravesubject, I am not doubting your qualifications or your knowledge. I am a retired Electronic Instructor I have a Masters in Electronic Engineering a Masters in Computer Science, and a B.Sc. with Honors in Mathematics.

By the way,Gravesubjec, as an after thought, I realize that educational background has nothing to do with Foreskin restoration, but seeing as you mentioned your background, I thought I would mention mine!!!

ElGeorgio said:

By the way,Gravesubjec, as an after thought, I realize that educational background has nothing to do with Foreskin restoration, but seeing as you mentioned your background, I thought I would mention mine!!!

Click to expand...

Sorry, ElGeorgio, I wasn't throwing my credentials out there to look like I was better educated than anyone else, but to establish that I have fairly topical knowledge. The field of tissue engineering has amazing potential and is very exciting, but some of the marketing claims from for-profit companies have been picked up by people like that urologist and bandied about as if they were gospel truth. That one marketing claim that really irks me is the one about how much skin they can get from one foreskin. Think about this: the average infant prepuce is ~2 square inches of tissue, while the marketing claim of 4 football fields equals 17.28 MILLION square inches of tissue. Really, does a nearly 9 MILLION-fold increase in tissue quantity sound reasonable to you?

I certainly never meant for this to get under your skin.

Peace

O2B107.5 said:

Sorry, ElGeorgio, I wasn't throwing my credentials out there to look like I was better educated than anyone else, but to establish that I have fairly topical knowledge. The field of tissue engineering has amazing potential and is very exciting, but some of the marketing claims from for-profit companies have been picked up by people like that urologist and bandied about as if they were gospel truth. That one marketing claim that really irks me is the one about how much skin they can get from one foreskin. Think about this: the average infant prepuce is ~2 square inches of tissue, while the marketing claim of 4 football fields equals 17.28 MILLION square inches of tissue. Really, does a nearly 9 MILLION-fold increase in tissue quantity sound reasonable to you?

I certainly never meant for this to get under your skin.

Peace

Click to expand...

No problem O2B107.5, and thanks for your input, I read your comments with an open mind and I am sure that you are correct in your analysis.

Thanks.

Btw, I really appriciate your sense of humor. You're commentary often makes me chuckle.

Cheers!
Priapologist

O2B107.5 said:

Sorry, ElGeorgio, I wasn't throwing my credentials out there to look like I was better educated than anyone else, but to establish that I have fairly topical knowledge. The field of tissue engineering has amazing potential and is very exciting, but some of the marketing claims from for-profit companies have been picked up by people like that urologist and bandied about as if they were gospel truth. That one marketing claim that really irks me is the one about how much skin they can get from one foreskin. Think about this: the average infant prepuce is ~2 square inches of tissue, while the marketing claim of 4 football fields equals 17.28 MILLION square inches of tissue. Really, does a nearly 9 MILLION-fold increase in tissue quantity sound reasonable to you?

I certainly never meant for this to get under your skin.

Peace

Click to expand...

They are tossing that number out because technically cell growth is a geometric expansion. And if you slice something thin enough you can get a large amount of area out of it. They could be right by claiming football fields of foreskin. Regardles given enough time large quantities of tissue can be grown. However there are limitation on the numer of times cells can divide before they work like aged tissues.

enkie said:

They are tossing that number out because technically cell growth is a geometric expansion. And if you slice something thin enough you can get a large amount of area out of it. They could be right by claiming football fields of foreskin. Regardles given enough time large quantities of tissue can be grown. However there are limitation on the numer of times cells can divide before they work like aged tissues.

Click to expand...

That's something of an oversimplification since the tissue is not thin sliced to increase area. Rather, the process of harvesting basal cells from human infant foreskins is to enzymatically separate the epidermis from the dermis and fatty tissues, which are discarded, then trypsinize and titurate the epidermis into a dispersed-cell suspension. The basal cells are isolated and grown (typically) in 80mm culture dishes. It takes approximately 12 days to get to 70% confluency, and under the best culture conditions, these cells can go a maximum of 16 generations (according to the industry's own literature, which is in line with other primary cell culture results). This means that the MAXIMUM area of skin that can be derived from basal cells under Penis EnlargementRFECT culturing conditions is x^16 or, for one square inch equivalent of epidermis, 32,800 square inches. This is nowhere near the 8,640,000 square inches that the marketing departments are claiming. Further, perfect culturing is a freakin' pipe dream, so the actual yield would be lower, usually much lower, than 32,800 square inches. Trust me, I've been doing cell culture for several years now, the numbers that the Urologist spouted are bullshit.

Cheers!
Pri

Priapologist said:

That's something of an oversimplification since the tissue is not thin sliced to increase area. Rather, the process of harvesting basal cells from human infant foreskins is to enzymatically separate the epidermis from the dermis and fatty tissues, which are discarded, then trypsinize and titurate the epidermis into a dispersed-cell suspension. The basal cells are isolated and grown (typically) in 80mm culture dishes. It takes approximately 12 days to get to 70% confluency, and under the best culture conditions, these cells can go a maximum of 16 generations (according to the industry's own literature, which is in line with other primary cell culture results). This means that the MAXIMUM area of skin that can be derived from basal cells under Penis EnlargementRFECT culturing conditions is x^16 or, for one square inch equivalent of epidermis, 32,800 square inches. This is nowhere near the 8,640,000 square inches that the marketing departments are claiming. Further, perfect culturing is a freakin' pipe dream, so the actual yield would be lower, usually much lower, than 32,800 square inches. Trust me, I've been doing cell culture for several years now, the numbers that the Urologist spouted are bullshit.

Cheers!
Pri

Click to expand...

Im not discounting that it might be a mis representation. But im stating why they might come up with that number. I already know what they are saying is a bit flawed by the very account that you dont have near inifinite cell division. And the reason why I said slicing something thin was to show that it was a perception issue. Also its nice that you can inform us on why they are bullshiting. However theres one thing you do throw out and im curious about is why is there a limitation of 16 generation of cell division. Does this 16 generation apply to all cell cultures?

enkie said:

However theres one thing you do throw out and im curious about is why is there a limitation of 16 generation of cell division. Does this 16 generation apply to all cell cultures?

Click to expand...

Eukaryotic (non-bacterial) can be broken down into two basic types: primary and secondary (or immortalized) cultures, and these epidermally-derived cells are considered a primary culture. All cells in the body are what they are because of their milieu, i.e. their neighboring cells, autocrine/paracrine and endocrine hormones, growth factors, et cetera. Once you remove these cells from their normal milieu, they begin to change, becoming undifferentiated, i.e. no longer skin cells, or whatever cell type you are culturing. You can force cells to remain differentiated for awhile by using defined growth media and animal serum, but it won't last forever, and the cells will eventually lose their specificity. Another effect of long culturing is loss of mitotic ability, so the cells eventually just stop dividing.

I would assume that 16-generations is the best performance that they have obtained, and it is in keeping with some other prolific cell types under excellent culturing conditions.

Secondary cell cultures have either been obtained from tumors which rendered the cells immortal or have been immortalized by viral infection (such as Epstein-Barr virus). For fairly obvious reasons, cells from secondary cultures would be poor candidates for tissue transplantation.