Tuesday October 15, 2019
Sep-05-2011 01:47TweetFollow @OregonNews
Circumcision and Cancer of Sexual Organs with a Minority of Ashkenazi JewsMichel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux Salem-News.com
The facts speak for themselves where cancer statistics are concerned.
(PARIS, France) - Ashkenazi Jews represent more than 90% of the Jews1. Several medical enquiries 2,3,4 revealed that a minority of two to four per cent of them (against 0.2% for the general population) inherit a genetic mutation (BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes), occurred 600 years ago5, inducing a very high risk of cancer of the organs of reproduction.
The most important of these enquiries concerns more than 5,300 subjects. It disclosed that in this minority, 56% of women (almost 5 times the average of 12%) develop breast cancer, and 16% (against 1.4% on average) ovarian cancer. But the rate of prostate cancer: 16%, is 40 times the average of 0.4%.
Biologists attribute that phenomenon to the "founder effect": in populations isolated for religious, cultural or geographical reasons, mutations are transmitted with higher frequency, by endogamy.
With the Jews, an additional phenomenon occurs: circumcision. At variance with the Sephardim who mostly lived amongst Muslims, the Ashkenazis have lived in a minority amongst non circumcising populations. On the one hand, they may have been traumatized by the racism automatically provoked by their barbarous custom6.
On the other hand, parents forced to torture their baby boys in the middle of populations respectful of the physical integrity of the child may more easily have become aware of their barbarity and be traumatized by it. As a matter of fact, an anticircumcision reform Jewish movement was born in Frankfurt in 1843. Smothered by the orthodox, it flourished in the USA.
Psychoanalysis and psychosomatic medicine enable to explain the causes of a weakening of the immune system precisely striking the organs of reproduction. For instance, for the breast cancer of Ashkenazi Jewish women, these mothers are very affected by the grasping of their children from their breast for the circumcision.
Forced to be accomplices of a crime that makes them violate as well their duty of protection as the natural process of bonding (some babies refuse the breast after circumcision, they no longer look at their mother in the eyes), it is not astonishing that some should develop a hysterical symptom, apparently autopunitive, but through which they express an unconscious desire not to give life in such a world. That interpretation would not be disavowed by Groddeck8. And for gentlemen, it is the same thing.
So, nature seems to be joining ethics in order to condemn a practice that pro-vokes - or should provoke - universal repulsion and reprobation.
Articles for September 4, 2011 | Articles for September 5, 2011 | Articles for September 6, 2011