# Need your Mary Kay links and sources



## IfMamaAintHappy (Apr 15, 2002)

I am deep in discussion with people at Medical Relations at Mary Kay about any former use of human foreskins or testing on them in the past or currently.

Please please please, if you have a link or a source to share about where you have read that Mary Kay has used or currently uses foreskins or cell line derivatives, please post it here.

I first called this morning and Medical Relations says they absolutely do not test any product on human foreskin, and that they have heard this rumor circulating before. The worker I spoke to at Medical Relations also said that she was not sure she had that in writing, as it was such an obscure thing.

She said that they test products on skin, by way of using the reps and directors as a test market.

If you have specific questions you want me to ask medical relations, I will make a nuisance of myself to get to the bottom of this.

The most compelling info I have read online has been from THIS site right here. The rest are links to obscure places that are not reputable sources. I'd love to read the link about the person on the advisory board at John's Hopkins, but I can't pull up that paragraph, just able to see that the person that supposedly made one statement about it is in fact on the advisory board.

Thanks. Just trying to work the problem here.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

I doubt you are going to find anything. Mary Kay has been alerted to this controversy and any evidence would be carefully hidden. I don't believe foreskin derivatives have been used in the actual product but testing is another question. They don't have to list how they tested on the product label like they do with ingredients. It took almost 40 years for the information that the tobacco industry was controling the nicotine content of their products to make them addictive to become public because access to this documentation was carefully hidden. If MK has used human foreskins in testing, I think the information will have to eventually come from an insider who has an axe to grind.

Frank


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

Have you already done a search of this site to see where it has been discussed? Perhaps people who first brought up the rumor can be PM'd and asked where they heard it.

FWIW, I used to be a consultant. I don't think any of their consultants would know, although there are some higher level sales managers (pink Cadillac types) that might know but would never divulge that kind of info. They all worship Mary Kay Ashe like she's some kind of Saint and I seriously doubt that anyone would speak badly of anything MK related.

I asked my consultant about this once and she said she's heard the same rumor at a sales meeting but no one really had any info. I'm not planning on buying anymore from her. If the rumor becomes proven, I'm throwing out all my stuff and will encourage others to do the same.

I would suspect that if MK did this, Clinique, Lancome, and other upscale cosmetics and skin care companies probably do too. This product absolutely uses foreskins as an INGREDIENT, a rep for them said so on Oprah: http://www.skinmedica.com/smproducts...overy_Complex®.

I hope some of this info is helpful to you.


----------



## IfMamaAintHappy (Apr 15, 2002)

still hoping for sources and links.

Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it is an urban legend, and it offends me that people are allowed to trash my business all over this website (in more forums than this one) by making huge massive unsubstantiated claims.

It is in fact a horrific idea. And until someone can prove that the Timewise complex is made from groundup foreskin or that there are vials of foreskin tissue in the MK headquarter labs in Dallas to be used for testing products, I'd appreciate it if people just quit dragging it through the mud.

I mean, you're just gonna tell me I am naive and that MK HQ is lying, that its a big cover up.... because now that people have latched onto the idea that someone said MK uses foreskins, and said it on Mothering, it must be true, because women on mothering know the truth about all things terrible and horrific concerning business practices of large companies. I mean, they said stuff about fast food and there it is in the book Fast Food Nation, after all. And the stuff in Milk Money and Madness. If all those disgusting things are true, then Mary Kay and all the big companies must use foreskins in production and/or testing because this one flake small potatoes company said they used in their anti aging stuff on Oprah.

Really, people. Give me some links. I would be THRILLED to get to the bottom of this. Because Im disgusted at the trashing of my job on this subject.


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

I am searching and searching right now. I've found some people's web pages that state the same theory and I've emailed them to ask what their sources were on it. I'm waiting for 3 responses so when I get them, I will let you know what they said.

ETA - O.K. So I'm doing a google search and found something that is very confusing to read but what it looks like is some kind of research or experiment done using foreskin to test on. The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation helped fund the study. If anyone can decipher this, it might be helpful.

http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2002/volume.../1137-1143.pdf

Here's something from the Society of Cosmetic Chemists:
"The Student Poster Showcase is held annually to promote student research in the Cosmetic Industry.....Second Place was awarded to Radhika Utturkar, University of Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, for her poster entitled "Measurement of Natural Moisturizing Factors (NMF) in Neonatal Infant Foreskin and Vernix Caseosas". If you look at their contributors, Mary Kay Inc. is one of them.
http://www.scconline.org/members/newsletter.shtml

Maybe these links are just shots in the dark. What do yall think?


----------



## Nathan1097 (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

Second Place was awarded to Radhika Utturkar, University of Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, for her poster entitled "Measurement of Natural Moisturizing Factors (NMF) in Neonatal Infant Foreskin and Vernix Caseosas". If you look at their contributors, Mary Kay Inc. is one of them.
Speaking of "cheesey substances"... :LOL Vernix caseosa, huh? Gosh... I could've sold it! My kids all had tons of it!


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Enough proof for me:

On the advisory board of the John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing:
Y.H. Laurie Pan, PhD, DABT (Mary Kay, Inc.)
http://caat.jhsph.edu/about-us/board.htm

Do a search for the word "foreskin"

http://caat.jhsph.edu/


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Which leads me to believe that it's an industry-wide problem, similar to animal testing.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ging-ging*

If you have specific questions you want me to ask medical relations, I will make a nuisance of myself to get to the bottom of this.


Ask them if they test on human fibroblasts, and, if so, from what those human fibroblasts are derived.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Thank you Jenni for looking into this!

Love Sarah


----------



## karlatrx (Sep 23, 2004)

I knew that foreskin was used for testing but I hadn't heard of the MaryKay connection before. I enjoy researching so I took a look around.

Quote:

Several companies are pursuing skin replacement, both for in vitro
toxicology testing and, farther down the line, as graft material for burn
patients. The human cells in the Skin2 Dermal Model, from the La Jolla,
Calif.-based Marrow-Tech Inc., come from the dermis of a newborn's foreskin
tissue discarded after circumcision, seeded onto inert medical-grade nylon
mesh. Here, the cells divide and metabolize, secreting a collagen matrix
and growth factors, as they normally would. The Skin2 "Full-Thickness"
model caps the dermis with an epidermis. The company's next product will be
a stratum corneum (skin surface) model, which mimics the lipid barrier
function of skin and is expected to be useful for evaluating penetration of
skin-care products.

Organogenesis Inc. of Cambridge, Mass., uses a variation on the foreskin
theme for *its Testskin by seeding human foreskin tissue* into a bovine
collagen gel. Nutrients are added, the cells secrete collagen and growth
factors, and an epidermal layer is placed on top. *Manufacturers now using
Testskin include Est'e Lauder Inc., Mary Kay Cosmetics Inc.,* Avon Products
Inc., and Amway Corp. Next from Organogenesis will be a skin model
containing pigment-producing melanocytes useful for testing sunscreens and
makeup for dark-complexioned people, says John Burger, director of investor
relations for the company.
http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1991/...ar_910722.html

Here's some info on Testskin

Quote:

TESTSKIN II is a living skin equivalent model that is comprised of fibroblasts and keratinocytes (derived from human neonatal foreskin)
http://www.organogenesis.com/product...n/physical.asp

Here's a quote from Discover Magazine from 1991.

Quote:

"Organogenesis, a biotech firm in Massachusetts, has come up with a safe and cruelty-free alternative for these tests [cosmetic tests on animals]: a lab-grown piece of human skin... Testskin is already being used by laboratories at Helene Curtis, Estee Lauder, and Mary Kay Cosmetics."
Discover Magazine, August, 1991
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/...xperiment.html

So Testskin is made from foreskins and apparently MaryKay has used it in the past. Do they still use it?

Quote:

Cell culture, retroviral infection and PD determination. BJ
*foreskin fibroblasts* were cultured in DMEM (Gibco-BRL)
with Medium 199 (Gibco-BRL) at a 4:1 ratio with 10% Cosmic
Calf Serum (HyClone Laboratories, Inc.) and gentamicin
(Gibco-BRL), and incubated in 5% CO2. Cells were retrovirally
infected with either pBABE-hTERT, pBABE-hTERT-HA3
(triple hemaglutinin tagged at the C-terminus of hTERT, which
renders the protein unable to act at the telomere despite having
telomerase activity) (15), or vector only (pBABEpuro). As
controls for evaluating p53-mediated DNA damage response
and *for rescuing aged cells from senescence*,

We are grateful to Dr John P. Wise and coworkers (Yale
University, New Haven, CT) for assisting with the colonyforming
efficiency assays conducted in low oxygen. *Funding
for this study was provided by* the Jeffress Memorial Trust, *The
Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation*, and the V Foundation.
http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2002/volume.../1137-1143.pdf
This in English seems to be saying that they took foreskin cells (a fibroblast is a type of cell) did a bunch of technical stuff to it and are using it to test anti-aging products. Mary Kay Ash Foundation is listed as one of three companies paying for the study. It appears to be dated in 2002.


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

I'm trying my best to do thorough research and keep everyone infomed of what I find. I hope you all will do the same.

So I emailed the owner of this site and asked her what her sources were. This is part of the reply that I received back:

"... It was mothering.com that I first heard of foreskins being used...that lead me to do more research, which lead me to these sites and others...
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm
http://www.gettingit.com/article/200
The information I was finding lead me to dig even furthur and see if they are correct... I don't have the information saved...BUT, I will find it again...

How I searched was:
~ emailing the companies and asking them if they used human infant foreskins OR skin cultures/grafts...
~Asked from which companies the skin came...
~searched those companies and discovered those companies DID use human infant foreskins as well as bovine foreskin... Research the actual companies that make this skin FOR other companies to use, kwim?
They can claim that they don't technically test on the actually foreskin necessarily...BUT, cultures/skin grafts made from this "pure skin" is, IMO, the same thing, kwim? Do a search on the benefits of foreskin skin cultures, grafting, tissue engineering, helping burn victims with infant foreskin, etc., and you will come up with all sorts of "technical terms" for "testing on foreskin"....
So, although a company may say, "We don't test on infant foreskin" it may very turn out that the skin grafts they do test on where made FROM infant foreskin..."

So that's what I learned so far. That combined with the links from A&A and the links I provided in my previous post, I think it's safe to say that this is widely practiced by many cosmetic and personal care companies.

Ging-ging, I hope that some of this aides you in your search for solid proof. Perhaps when you are communicating with MK medical, you can ask if they use the various tissues or if they have used products purchased from any of the tissue science corporations.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Early in the afternoon, I wrote a post that urged caution in judging Mary Kay on this issue. At that time, sufficient information had not been presented to assign guilt. I hit the "Submit Reply" button and got a message that the server was busy and my post went into whatever purgatory errant posts go to.

I'm glad it did. I have seen the evidence and now I'm convinced that Mary Kay is guilty and I feel it is appropriate that anyone with an ounce of ethics boycott Mary Kay whether they are a seller or user. Not only have they used fibroblasts in their own laboratories, they have financed the development of the testing products for themselves and other cosmetic companies to use.

Let representatives of Mary Kay come here and defend themselves if they are innocent and tell all you see about this.

Frank


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

So, please help me understand in laymans terms. The take foreskin, use some of the cells to grow new "skin" in a petri dish or whatever, and then test the products on the new "skin". So, perhaps MK is saying that they don't test on foreskins because they aren't technically testing *on* the actual foreskin, but on skin derived from foreskin cells. However, if someone were to ask if the skin was derived from foreskin cells, then they should answer "yes" correct?

I love MK. LOVE it. Was considering becoming a consultant. And I am so sad that I will probably never buy it again. If this is all true, I will be writing a letter to the company telling them why I won't buy anymore.

I believe I've asked this in another post, but what are the skincare companies that ABSOLUTELY don't use this unethical, disgusting practice?

Kristi


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

bellydancer- I think the site owner you quoted had an inadvertent typo- but just to clarify- it's bovine collagen- not bovine foreskin... as far as I know- Bovines don't have a foreskin.

I think the most insiduous aspect of all of this is that this test product is developed as an alternative to animal testing, so the companies who are going to be more likely to use it are the ones which we usually think of as ethical "good guys" If a produce is labeled as "cruelty free" then we should be extra careful to look into it.

Love Sarah


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

So now it's time to find reputable makers of good cosmetics and toiletries. I was planning on looking into this place:

http://www.bodyshop.com

They have a store at a mall over here. I know they vehemently oppose animal testing (read that on the PETA site) so I'm curious what their stance is on foreskins. Anyone else have any ideas?


----------



## SharonAnne (Jul 12, 2004)

Please don't flame me, as I'm kinda new to the foreskin controversy. But....

If the foreskin has already been amputated (ICK), what's the harm in testing on it? This is an honest question, not trying to start a debate or anything. I really want an answer.

Thanks!


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

It makes circumcision a profitable business. Also, in order for the foreskin to be tested on, it needs to contain no anesthetic. Which means a baby was sliced, ripped, and torn at for 10 minutes without pain relief.

Right?


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grisandole*
So, please help me understand in laymans terms. The take foreskin, use some of the cells to grow new "skin" in a petri dish or whatever, and then test the products on the new "skin". So, perhaps MK is saying that they don't test on foreskins because they aren't technically testing *on* the actual foreskin, but on skin derived from foreskin cells. However, if someone were to ask if the skin was derived from foreskin cells, then they should answer "yes" correct?


Think of it as making chicken stock where you boil the bones, cartlage and skin and the result is a gelatinous mass that can be stored and re-used later. The end product will have the "essence" of chicken but not all of the product that is not needed or commonly used.

Infant skin is pure and uncontaminated and the DNA is intact. By "cooking it down" they get a pure product that is not contaminated which could affect test results. As mentioned in the research project, new cells will replicate themselves 50 to 90 times. The other 98%-99.9% of the material is where the original cells have reproduced. It is human foreskin structure but not the original foreskin. Using old cells would result in far fewer replications. This pure product has all of the characteristics (essence) of skin. It is spread on a medium with nutrients where it replicates or "grows" into the laboratory equivalent of human skin. Probably the end result is 1/30th or 1/50th actual human cellular structure that was taken from the actual foreskin. The remaining actual foreskins that provided the material is discarded.

If a company that uses these foreskin products were asked if their laboratories use testing materials that contain components of infant foreskins, the truthful answer is "yes." If you ask if they test on foreskins, the truthful although deceitful answer would be "no" because they are not testing on the actual foreskin but instead, components of actual foreskins. It's a matter of semantics.

From an ethical and human rights standpoint, there is really no difference. The begining point is that a man loses a significant part of his sexuality and his civil and human rights are severely violated.

Frank


----------



## karlatrx (Sep 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SharonAnne*
Please don't flame me, as I'm kinda new to the foreskin controversy. But....

If the foreskin has already been amputated (ICK), what's the harm in testing on it? This is an honest question, not trying to start a debate or anything. I really want an answer.

Thanks!

That's a good question, I didn't understand the problem when I first heard about it either. My first reaction was that if it was already off what difference does it make what they do with it. It might even seem better then wasting it.

To go along with what Sarah said. The Dr makes money from removing the foreskin, then he (or the hospital) makes money from selling it, then some pharmeceutical(sp?) company makes money from creating a testing product that they sell to cosmetics company who then makes money from selling their "cruelty free" cosmetics. If these huge corporations are making money from removing foreskins then it makes it that much harder to put an end to RIC.

It also gives the Dr's an incentive to ignore all the research and tell the parents that babies don't feel pain so they don't use anesthetic. Cruelty free? I don't think so!


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SharonAnne*
Please don't flame me, as I'm kinda new to the foreskin controversy. But....

If the foreskin has already been amputated (ICK), what's the harm in testing on it? This is an honest question, not trying to start a debate or anything. I really want an answer.

Thanks!


Let me turn the tables a little to something identical but slightly different. Your misunderstanding of the issue is common but this is an example I think you can understand.

The genital tissue of baby girls (the labia, clitoris and clotoral hood) could be used exactly the same way and would produce exactly the same material and results. Imagine if these companies were paying $50.00 for the genital "carvings" of little African girls. In actual practice, there would be no difference but our perception would be far different. Americans would be outraged and I can imagine the government would ban the importation of those products into the country as a moral and ethical message to those countries who mutilate the female genitals.

However, since males are regarded totally different in this country even though the damage and ethics are exactly identical, we (some Americans) over look this violation of males bodies and rights.

It's not an issue of whether the mutilation of the male or female genitals has already happened or not, it's that it happens at all. The fact that there is a cash bounty on the male genital parts is the unethical and shameful part. Any one offering a cash bounty on female genital parts in this country would be quickly imprisoned and most likely without bail bond being offered. That would be partly for their own protection because their life would be in danger. However, someone doing the exact same thing except for male genital parts will be interviewed on television, will recieve awards for their work and public recognition. That is sexism at it's purest but because of our conditioning, we not only don't usually recognize it, we even encourage it.

In reality, we could stirp the skin from baby cadavers to use to produce that product and it would be far more humane as there would be no pain or loss to a living, breathing human being. However, we can clearly see that that would be unethical and immoral even if the baby's organs had been donated and the skin system is the body's largest organ. Even at that, you have to give authorization for the organs to be used in this manner and the organs can not be sold. Human infant foreskins are not treated in this same way. They are taken, not given and they are sold for cash but the child or the parents get none of the money. If you donate a dead baby's body, you specify if it is going for organ donation or for medical research. It would be a rare bereaved parent who would donate their child's organs to a cosmetic company for testing cosmetics but this is exactly what is happening in this case and it is done without their knowledge or approval and the harvester is being paid for the "donation" from a live child. As mentioned above, the foreskin is useless if it has been contaminated with anesthetics so these babies suffer tremendous and extreme pain for their "donation" to the cosmetics industry.

Does that shed any light on the issue for you?

Frank


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking*
Think of it as making chicken stock where you boil the bones, cartlage and skin and the result is a gelatinous mass that can be stored and re-used later. The end product will have the "essence" of chicken but not all of the product that is not needed or commonly used.

Infant skin is pure and uncontaminated and the DNA is intact. By "cooking it down" they get a pure product that is not contaminated which could affect test results. As mentioned in the research project, new cells will replicate themselves 50 to 90 times. The other 98%-99.9% of the material is where the original cells have reproduced. It is human foreskin structure but not the original foreskin. Using old cells would result in far fewer replications. This pure product has all of the characteristics (essence) of skin. It is spread on a medium with nutrients where it replicates or "grows" into the laboratory equivalent of human skin. Probably the end result is 1/30th or 1/50th actual human cellular structure that was taken from the actual foreskin. The remaining actual foreskins that provided the material is discarded.

If a company that uses these foreskin products were asked if their laboratories use testing materials that contain components of infant foreskins, the truthful answer is "yes." If you ask if they test on foreskins, the truthful although deceitful answer would be "no" because they are not testing on the actual foreskin but instead, components of actual foreskins. It's a matter of semantics.

From an ethical and human rights standpoint, there is really no difference. The begining point is that a man loses a significant part of his sexuality and his civil and human rights are severely violated.

Frank

Thank you for explaining! I wonder how to really find out if companies do this. From the evidence, it appears that MK, Estee Lauder, etc. do; but how about other companies? Will they answer truthfully? Probably not









Kristi


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

I suspect every company that you would contact knows the controversy and would attempt a duck and weave or outright deny it if confronted by an individual. Now, if you were an investigator for 20/20 or 60 Minutes and identified yourself as such, you would be put in touch with their public relations department and would be given a carefully crafted statement that while they tried to put the best face on it, would admit it. At that point, they would know they had been caught and were about to be "outted" and would shift into damage control mode.

However, as we have seen, there is some pretty damning evidence from reliable sources that certain companies have participated in this. I would assess the reliability of the sources in making a decision about whether or not to buy a particular company's products.

Frank


----------



## karlatrx (Sep 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grisandole*
Thank you for explaining! I wonder how to really find out if companies do this. From the evidence, it appears that MK, Estee Lauder, etc. do; but how about other companies? Will they answer truthfully? Probably not









Kristi

I was thinking that maybe asking if the company uses a skinlike product (there must be a technical term for it, manufactured skin?) for it's testing. If so, what is the name brand and manufacturer? You could then do some research and find out how that fake skin is produced. You wouldn't be giving them the chance to confirm or deny foreskin use.

We learned that Testskin produced by Organogenisis is made with foreskins.


----------



## IfMamaAintHappy (Apr 15, 2002)

Mary Kay corporate is mailing me hard copies of information they have. With any luck, words like fibroblasts will show up in the information I will receive. If I think the information will help anyone make an informed decision from this thread, I'd be happy to mail it to you.

Once again, it was stated to me that Mary Kay uses no human byproducts in testing or manufacturing of their skincare and cosmetics. But I dont guess anyone cares to hear that now, so until I have the hard copies of the research and development information, I will keep quiet.

Keep posting what you find.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Jeni:

From the links above, it is apparent that The Mary Kay Ashe Foundation has bankrolled this research. To me, it doesn't matter if it is The Mary Kay Corporation or The Mary Kay Ashe Foundation, it's basically all the same. The sites I have seen (and copied to disk, just in case) all appear to be recipients of grants from either the corporation or the foundation to investigate the use of human foreskin materials in cosmetic testing and the information there appeared to be recognition of the support of either the foundation or the corporation. It appears that the recognition was given innocently in gratitude and not in malice so these organizations would have no reason to lie to implicate Mary Kay. I would have to see some extremely convincing information to the contrary not to believe what I have seen with my own eyes from what appears to be unimpeachably reliable sources.

Frank


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
It makes circumcision a profitable business. Also, in order for the foreskin to be tested on, it needs to contain no anesthetic. Which means a baby was sliced, ripped, and torn at for 10 minutes without pain relief.

Right?


Right. It makes circ a conflict of interest.......if hospitals and docs are making money (not only from charging parents and insurance companies, but selling foreskins to biomed companies), then it makes it THAT MUCH HARDER for them to refuse to circ.


----------



## hummingbear (Apr 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ging-ging*
Mary Kay corporate is mailing me hard copies of information they have. With any luck, words like fibroblasts will show up in the information I will receive. If I think the information will help anyone make an informed decision from this thread, I'd be happy to mail it to you.

Once again, it was stated to me that Mary Kay uses no human byproducts in testing or manufacturing of their skincare and cosmetics. But I dont guess anyone cares to hear that now, so until I have the hard copies of the research and development information, I will keep quiet.

Keep posting what you find.

I am confused by your posts.......With all due respect ...... Your first post benevolently asks for help researching whether or not MK has any associations with technology using foreskin. Your second post is quite defensive and is posted only 4 hours after you first pose your plea for assistance. (Not really enough time for anyone to read your first post, do some research and then respond to such an issue?) And your third post shows no indication that you actually looked into the information that others dug up. It seems that you are going to rely solely on what MK has to say about themselves. This seems a rather naive approach with something so controversial.

I do hope that you post what MK has to say about their own practices.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarrieBeary77*
She pointed out to me that the foreskins would be cut ANYWAY. Those parents don't give a rip about their sons genital integrity and so they would be cut ANYWAY. The foreskins would end up in the trash ANYWAY. So the cosmetics companies buy them up and test on them. So what? It's extremely unfortunate that these babies are being mutilated, but the cosmetics companies aren't asking parents to go out and cut their sons for their research and testing. The parents are cutting because they don't care and the companies are using a product that is otherwise unwanted - at least by the powers that be.


If you'd kindly actually read the entire thread, we have discussed this issue.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarrieBeary77*
I have, thank you.


Then please re-read what Frankly Speaking wrote. He said it most eloquently. (post #22 on this thread.)


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarrieBeary77*

So the cosmetics companies buy them up and test on them. So what?


So, am I to understand that you don't actually *care* whether or not MK tests on foreskins?





















:


----------



## karlatrx (Sep 23, 2004)

Quote:

FURTHER posts have shown otherwise, however. Jeni and I are continuing our research.
I want to clarify what you're saying. Are you saying: "Further posts have shown that MK does (or did) use foreskins in testing"?

Quote:

So the cosmetics companies buy them up and test on them. So what?
There's been several posts addressing that question.

Quote:

The parents are cutting because they don't care and the companies are using a product that is otherwise unwanted - at least by the powers that be.
I really don't believe that most parents that have their child circumcised "don't care". They are doing what they are led to believe is best by people in the medical industry, *the people who are making money* from selling the byproduct of the elective surgery that they either agreed was a good idea or didn't try to dissuade the parents from! We've seen how the pharmaceutical companies have influence over immoral doctors. The pharm companies make big money and are not going to want Dr's to stop providing them with this valuable commodity.

You're also forgetting the no anesthetic part. Do you really think Dr's are explaining to parents the studies showing long and short term effects on infants, or explaining just how painful the procedure is...so painful that infants go into shock or choke on their own vomit? And that the parents then reply that Jr needs to toughen up, go ahead and cut him with no anesthesia? Or are they saying babies don't have pain receptors yet, they sleep right through it, they'll never remember the pain. And the parents trust the doctors because a doctor wouldn't hurt their poor innocent baby. Doctors are misleading people and they get to reap the reward in their pocket books.

Quote:

Our business is being trashed
Being defensive is a totally normal human reaction when we feel we're being attacked. I'm sorry it feels that way.

edited to remove sarcasm


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

re: the inevidability of the cutting... so why not make good use of the "by product"...

because it CREATES a market
it creates a conflict of interest
it creates a profit motive that might harm boys (for example- they may be denied anesthetic or might be cut more agressivly to increase the crop yield)... we don't know and we are NOT getting any answers on this from the people who are running this market.
Who profits?... and is this ethical?

Try this... would it be ethical if this test product was made out of the genital flesh of girls who were going to be circumcised "anyway"?

Or would it be "cruelty free" if we "only" experimented on rabbits who were going to be slaughtered "anyway" I mean... people do eat rabbits. They are going to die- why not get some important info first? (spare me the animal testing story- I know why animal testing is crap- this is just an example)

Imagine it was YOUR genital flesh that was being poured out in a visceral soup over the mesh in those petri dishes... would you take solace in the fact that a million dollar biotech firm had slipped someone a greased palm before your genital flesh hit the landfill? Managed to turn your own personal tragedy and violation into a little bit of corporate profit? It's not philanthropy... it's rape. It does not need a mesh structure of millionaire investors in the highest positions to ensure the stability of the "culture".

I met a nurse who worked at one of these hospitals which sells foreskins. She was FURIOUS about it. She knew there was a conflict of interest and she felt that parents were being intentionally denied information they needed because someone had a deal to sell foreskins... as many as possible.

Love Sarah


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sarah*
bellydancer- It's bovine collagen- not bovine foreskin... as far as I know- Bovines don't have a foreskin.

Somewhat







T, but of course bulls have foreskins. All mammals have foreskins. Have you ever seen a bull (or a dog, or a horse) with an erection, where the glans comes out of the sheath? Foreskin/glans. Same thing.

That's why circ makes no sense evolutionarily speaking. All mammals evolved a foreskin for a reason, and it's stupid to cut it off.


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

I don't agree with the "they are already cut off so why not use them" arguement at all, for the reasons stated. No one should make a profit from circumcision.

I will not buy from a company that profits or uses foreskins in their testing, or funds such testings. I'm eliminating not only MK, but other companies.

I think MK has been spoken about more on this board because there are many mamas here that love the products, so it concerns us more.........it keeps getting brought up because mamas use it and want to know the truth.

Kristi


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarrieBeary77*
Jeni is researching on behalf of herself and me. I'm also a MK consultant. Her 2nd post shows how irritated and upset we are that people continue to perpetuate a rumor with no factual basis up to that point.

What you don't realize is that this issue has been discussed here in great detail in months and years past in many different threads and on other discussion boards as well. To us it is not rumor. We have seen the facts and evidence. Now, I did not remember the details or the companies involved. That doesn't mean that others didn't. I suspect that all of the initial posts were done from memory and when we were challenged, we were quickly able to provide the evidence that we had seen in the previous discussions. You are falsely accusing us here.

Quote:

Her 2nd posts illustrates our upset at feeling picked apart. Our business is being trashed and up to that point (her 2nd post) there had been no substantial PROOF that MK admitted to testing on foreskins or adding it to product.

But it is not your business that is being picked apart. It's Mary Kay's business practices. You are taking on guilt that you don't deserve unless you do nothing about it. However, you do appear to be ready and quite willing to condone and approve of this business practice simply to protect your own pocket book. I certainly hope that is not the case.

Quote:

I tlkaed it over w/ my sil, also against circ. She pointed out to me that the foreskins would be cut ANYWAY. Those parents don't give a rip about their sons genital integrity and so they would be cut ANYWAY. The foreskins would end up in the trash ANYWAY. So the cosmetics companies buy them up and test on them. So what? It's extremely unfortunate that these babies are being mutilated, but the cosmetics companies aren't asking parents to go out and cut their sons for their research and testing. The parents are cutting because they don't care and the companies are using a product that is otherwise unwanted - at least by the powers that be.

Read Sarah's post above. These cosmetic companies and the pharma companies are wealthy beyond belief and they have deep pockets and advertising budgets. If they teamed together to sponsor a dis-information campaign on radio, television and news print, they could easily disperse sufficient quantities of wrongful information to put the intactness movement back to the begining of the 20th century. It wouldn't surprise me if they were able to get the 1996 Female Genital Mutilation Law repealed if they found a profit to be made. Remember, cutting little girls parts off was quite common in the early part of the 20th century adn little girl parts could be used exactly the same way boy parts are used now. Would you be able to justify cutting the genitals of little girls for cosmetic companies with the justification that they are already being cut off and thrown away? These companies have the profit motive and means to perpetuate circumcision into the next century. The arguments you are using will be the same ones they would use to justify their theft of men's sexuality and the violation of their body integrity and human and civil rights.

Imagine that there were a new use found for newborn genital tissue that put them in short supply. The first move would be to increase the bounty paid to doctors for the existing supply in an effort to increase the supply. Then there would be pressure put on doctors to provide more foreskins and when that supply ran short, there would be advertisements on television about the wonderful benefits of circumcsion and the horrible dangers of leaving them unmolested. If the supply then ran short, these financial interests would begin to lobby for the repeal of the 1996 FGM law and an advertising campaign about the benefits of female circumcision, what a terrible mistake it was to abandon the practice in the early 20th century and how female circumcison will leave the child cleaner, more attractive, more desirable and better able to fit in with her peers. There would be claims that female circumcision would prevent numerous infections that have plagued women for centuries and eventually after a couple of generations that daughters should look like their mothers to avoid the terrible psychological rammifications of haviing different genitals

Frank


----------



## boingo82 (Feb 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarrieBeary77*
J..I tlkaed it over w/ my sil, also against circ. She pointed out to me that the foreskins would be cut ANYWAY. Those parents don't give a rip about their sons genital integrity and so they would be cut ANYWAY. The foreskins would end up in the trash ANYWAY.

Well that is kind of like saying "So what if we buy ivory, the poachers were going to kill the elephants ANYWAY." Or "So what if I have a 3 carat ring, they were going to force slaves to mine for diamonds ANYWAY."

Quote:

So the cosmetics companies buy them up and test on them. So what? It's extremely unfortunate that these babies are being mutilated, but the cosmetics companies aren't asking parents to go out and cut their sons for their research and testing.
Oh, AREN'T THEY? MY PED ASKED US 6 TIMES TO CIRC.
He asked *6 TIMES*.
I am a first time mother! If I did not know better, I would think it HAD to be done! If my parents had not stopped this cycle, had not left my brothers intact, I COULD HAVE CAVED! I could have BEEN one of the mothers posting in the regrets thread!
You don't think that peds and OBs and hospitals are influenced by the money? You don't think they pressure for cosmetic surgery on babies knowing the $$$$ it brings in? You don't think that parents are influenced by the OB who excitedly says "You're having a BOY, right? Everyone's having boys tonight!! That means a lotta circs tomorrow!!!!" while the 1st time mother is in transition??? You don't think the parents are influenced by the ped who says "When did you want the circ?" "OK...just making sure my chart is correct..NO circ?" "OK...you didn't want to circ. Are you sure?" meanwhile DH and I saying no, NO, *NO!* and nobody freaking listens to us.

The babies are getting cut anyway, HUH? No parents ever got scared into cutting by a ped who warned about the cleaning difficulty, or the high number of boys who "have" to be cut later after he FORCIBLY RETRACTS THEM?

Quote:

The parents are cutting because they don't care and the companies are using a product that is otherwise unwanted - at least by the powers that be.
The PARENTS are cutting because they have been misled by the medical community and the MEDIA (Whom OF COURSE is never influenced by the millions of dollars flowing through the pharmeceutical and cosmetic industries







) into believing that circ is GOOD. The parents are often as innocent as the baby they hand over to be cut! Have you READ the regret thread? IT's stickied at the top of the board! These mommas didn't "not care"!

And I would like to point out that the use of the foreskins is the thing that got my DH's attention the most. This is a man who is not an organ donor because the idea of other people mucking in his body creeps him out. HOW DO YOU THINK *HE* FEELS ABOUT PART OF HIS SEX ORGAN BEING RUBBED ON SOME OLD HAG'S FACE?!?!


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

My circed dh was disgusted when I told him about the testing on foreskin, and how the foreskin is used in that one skin cream (the one Oprah did a show on). It's wrong and creepy on so many levels. And the fact that they claim the products are cruelty free is horrible









Kristi


----------



## Acksiom (Jun 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SharonAnne*
Please don't flame me, as I'm kinda new to the foreskin controversy.

No problem. The disturbing example below is not meant as a flame. It's an attempt at an enlightening what-if.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SharonAnne*
If the foreskin has already been amputated (ICK), what's the harm in testing on it?

Because the foreskin is -- or would be, if the laws were applied equally instead of prejudicially and discriminatorily -- the illegal proceeds of a criminal act, not to mention a fundamental human rights violation.

The harm _is_ that the foreskin has already been wrongfully amputated, which stains everything done with it afterwards.

For example, imagine that we could create a 'useful' medical/cosmetic testing material by terrifying infants, causing their blood generation chemistry to change in a particular subtle way, after which we could then extract, in an excruciatingly painful process, the necessary ingredients for the material from the marrow of one of their long bones. And the limb used would of course be somewhat damaged in several ways by this, for life.

And then imagine that it only works where the blood chemistry of little girls is concerned.

The harm would be that such a thing _is_ done in the first place. And all the things that proceed from that doing are stained by that harm.

If cosmetic companies were using long-bone marrow extracted in an excruciatingly painful process from deliberately terrified baby girls, which damaged the functionality of their limbs for life, for testing purposes, what would the point be to the intellectual separation of that testing from the acquisition process itself?

As far as I can tell, the only reason would be to attempt to evade the responsibility for the harm done that inherently accompanies the proceeds of that harm.

Creating products in a process that includes criminal acts and human rights violations is to become complicit in those criminal acts and human rights violations -- to become an accessory to the crime. And when we pay someone for a product that is partially the result of criminal acts and human rights violations, we too become accountable to those violated, and we too take on a share of the responsibility for their violation, because we too have become accessories.

So that's why the testing is 'harmful'. There's a legal term called 'fruits of a poisonous tree' which (IIRC) refers to prosecutorial evidence which cannot be used because it was acquired illegally, and thus its use would cause a mistrial or forced verdict of innocence, if the conditions of its acquisition were discovered.

That's similar to this situation. The cosmetics testing involved here is like that -- 'fruits of a poisonous tree'. It's fundamentally wrong to permanently remove healthy, functional, nonpathological tissue from nonconsenting innocents, and any trade in that tissue afterwards inherently partakes of the responsibility for the original harm done to the victims.

The attempt to intellectually separate the original harm from the testing itself is fundamentally just an attempt to evade that share of the responsibility for the criminal acts and the human rights violation involved which accompanies the proceeds of that harm.

The harm to the testing is the inherent complicity in criminal acts and human rights violations involved that necessarily accompany the use of tissue itself, because of the nature of how it was obtained.

If we haven't satisfactorily answered your questions, please let us know where and how, and we'll gladly keep trying to explain.


----------



## boingo82 (Feb 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarrieBeary77*
..
All of those people are involved in torture and rape of little boys. It happens ANYWAY. So the cosmetics companies benefit from the result. I don't agree with it. But I also understand that businesses do take advantage of opportunities. It's all part of business.

So I see both sides.


Well nobody is saying that the cosmetics corps are 100% responsible for the mutilation of these innocent babies.

But they ARE contributing to the demand for foreskin. They ARE offering money to hospitals who perform nonconsentual cosmetic surgery on infant genitalia.

*They ARE in the business of recieving stolen goods!*

They may not be the ones standing there holding a knife to the babies! But they are a link in the chain! It does not happen ANYWAY! They are part of the cycle, part of the demand. A lot of parents are being tricked into circumcision by their doctors and the media...the media who has released that same stupid african aids study every 6 months for the last 5 years...but the media never has any connections to cosmetic companies....Oh no, it's not like the media is ever controlled by its sponsors at all.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

CarrieBeary,
It's not JUST the parents' responsibility........it is the responsibility of society.........ALL OF US.........CORPORATIONS INCLUDED......to protect our youngest citizens. Nothing occurs in a vacuum. Circ happens because we let it happen.


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

Well, I'm not using Mary Kay anymore. I went out and bought a Maybelliene mascara and Neutrogena lipstick. That's all the make up I will own soon. I don't know if those companies test on foreskin tissues but if they did, I would give up those too. There are so many companies to research, this could turn into a huge project.

So I'm giving up on all this MK stuff I have. Make up, lotions, perfume, face creams, brushes, etc. I was thinking of boxing it all up and sending it back with a letter about why I am boycotting them. I would hope that ANYONE with ANY of their products would do the same. Don't just throw the stuff away, mail it back.

Should I post this in activism? I'm very tempted to do so but wanted your opinions first. I think it's important that MK knows that this testing and financial support will NOT be tolerated. ANY COMPANY THAT DOES THIS SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS SICK AND WRONG. So should I post this in activism?


----------



## MelissaEvans (Jan 9, 2003)

_Deleted because the point was already made. =)_


----------



## MelissaEvans (Jan 9, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *be11ydancer*
So now it's time to find reputable makers of good cosmetics and toiletries. I was planning on looking into this place:

http://www.bodyshop.com

They have a store at a mall over here. I know they vehemently oppose animal testing (read that on the PETA site) so I'm curious what their stance is on foreskins. Anyone else have any ideas?

I don't have any hard facts about them, but I'm 99% sure they're based in London and England no longer encourages RIC. So chances may be good they don't use foreskin derivitives either. (I hope.)


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *be11ydancer*
Well, I'm not using Mary Kay anymore. I went out and bought a Maybelliene mascara and Neutrogena lipstick. That's all the make up I will own soon. I don't know if those companies test on foreskin tissues but if they did, I would give up those too. There are so many companies to research, this could turn into a huge project.

So I'm giving up on all this MK stuff I have. Make up, lotions, perfume, face creams, brushes, etc. I was thinking of boxing it all up and sending it back with a letter about why I am boycotting them. I would hope that ANYONE with ANY of their products would do the same. Don't just throw the stuff away, mail it back.

Should I post this in activism? I'm very tempted to do so but wanted your opinions first. I think it's important that MK knows that this testing and financial support will NOT be tolerated. ANY COMPANY THAT DOES THIS SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS SICK AND WRONG. So should I post this in activism?

Love that idea of sending the stuff back! I think I'll do that too.

Kristi


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CarrieBeary77*
All of those people are involved in torture and rape of little boys. It happens ANYWAY. So the cosmetics companies benefit from the result. I don't agree with it. But I also understand that businesses do take advantage of opportunities. It's all part of business.

So I see both sides.


Do you see the legal side? There are several legal issues here.

Probably first and foremost is the rights of the owner of the body and those ownership rights. 20 or 25 years ago, there was a man who went to his doctor. The doctor drew some blood from this man and sent it away to a laboratory for testing. An immunity factor was found in his blood that was taken and sent to a pharmaceutical company who took that factor and replicated it many, many times and sold it as an immunization vaccination. The pharmaceutical company made untold million of dollars of profits from the product of this man's blood. Some years later, another doctor told him of this. He had never heard of it and filed suit to participate in the profits. He won and the legal concept that every individual owns his/her body got a tremendous boost. Look at the parallels here. Just as that man's blood was taken and used for profit, a man's foreskin is taken and used for profit. Now, if a part of your body is used to produce a profit making product, you must be notified of the fact. This doesn't happen to men who give up their foreskins for the profit of these corporations. Mary Kay has a large legal staff and being in the industry they are in, they know this and have decided to ignore this particular law. I imagine they think they will never get caught.

There is also the legal concept of ill gotten gains. This organ is taken and sold for profit and then products are made from the organ for profit. Since this was never clearly explained if explained at all, it constitutes ill gotten gains. Those gains should be sent back to the child.

There is also the legal concept of receiving stolen goods. These companies are taking the property of the child for profit and the profit from those products should be the property of the child because his rights of ownership have been violated as detailed above.

The medical profession is complicit in this theft of course and should also pay the price. This is something they started and even though they now know there is no medical justification for doing it, they continue and profit from it. Most of your argument has to do with the chronological order that it is happening. In other words, because this has already happened, then it is OK that this happens. That's not a legitimate justification.

I think if you consider this very similar example with a slightly different chronological order, it will help you understand

Imagine that a cosmetic company and pharmaceutical company found a factor that exists only in newborn fingernails and this factor could be used in commercial cosmetic products that would make 60 year olds look 35 years old. The thing that got me thinking this way was that I saw the newborn pictures of a baby girl yesterday. She had some tiny mitts tied on her hands. Well, I had never seen this before and asked what they were all about. It was explained to me that newborn fingernails are very sharp and they can cut themselves with them. My thoughts were that it would be like having boxing gloves tied on my hands and not be able to get them off. That would be infuriating! But I digress . . . Baby fingernails are dangerous! Children's fingernails are dangerous and adult fingernails are dangerous! Babies can cut themselves with them and children can get sick from dirt under their fingernails and lord knows, it's difficult to clean properly under fingernails and it's almost impossible to get kids to properly clean under fingernails. Those things are a health problem just waiting to happen. Fingernails can also be used as weapons for gawd sakes! I've seen it happen. The obvious answer is to just get rid of them at birth to save the world from this omnipotent danger.

Well, the pharmaceutical company and the cosmetic company recognize this danger and start airing public service announcements aimed at saving the world by advocating the removal of fingernails at birth. Of course, we know this is an altruistic campaign and that the billions of dollars they will make in profit from the processing of these fingernails into face cream is no motivation to them at all. Anyway, fingernails are not needed. Sure, they are nice to have to scratch an itch but scratching itchy insect bites with dirty fingernails can cause infections. A public health danger.

Of course, there are going to be some parents who resist so it is important to this campaign that the resistance be neutralized. One way to do it is to connect nailless fingers with the upper class. Something that the wealthy parents do that everyone should emulate. They should also make every attempt to connect it with religion. Cleanliness is next to godliness after all. It is also important that no one know just exactly who does and who doesn't have fingernails so we will advocate that everyone wear gloves except when showering. That way, they can say that everyone has had their fingernails removed and everyone should follow suit. They will make it a obscene thing to show the fingers in public and make it shameful that poor people have not had their fingernails removed to insure that they always hide their fingers in public.

Now that we have everyone removing their baby's fingernails, there is an adequate supply for face cream. The doctors are on board with this and recommend to all parents that they have their baby's fingernails removed for the obvious health and safety reasons. Only an unconcerned and bad parent would even consider leaving the fingernails on. It's almost child abuse!

Now, all of a sudden, we're going to have all of these newborn fingernails piling up in medical waste cans and filling up landfills. Why not put them to good use? Why let them go to waste? It makes no sense when they can benefit someone.

Oh, and by the way, these fingernails can not be contaminated with anesthesia. Of course, we know from circumcision that babies can't feel pain so no anesthesia is needed. It's so quick! Just clamp on one forceps and a quick yank and it's all done. Just wrap some Vaseline impregnated gauze around the tip of each finger and send them home. All of that screaming is just from them being strapped down and as we all know, some of them will sleep right through it. Others will giggle while it's being done. All will be calm and peaceful when they are returned to mother.

You see CarrieBeary, little is changed from the chronological timeline of circumcision and little is different from circumcision. It's fingernails instead of foreskins and it's boys and girls instead of just boys. However the similarities are significant. It's surgery for social reasons masquerading as medically beneficial surgery. It is permanently altering the body without considering the rights of the owner of the body. It's surrounded by myth and superstition. In reality, there are no significant proven medical benefits. If the child never has fingernails, he/she will adapt and won't really miss the fingernails. While there is loss, it wouldn't be believed or considered significant. So, while the procedure would become normalized, it would be at the benefit of the pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. Do you see the ethical correlations here? Do you see how both would be unethical?

Frank


----------



## LaffNowCryLater (May 2, 2003)

Deleting b/c I went back and saw the answer to my question!


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

I would imagine that even if a parent was pro-circ, and had their child circed, they wouldn't want the foreskin sold for profit........unless they got some of the profit! The foreskin selling is wrong on many levels- circ being the first, and then making profit off of it second, and not letting the true owner share in the profit. It's all so gross.

Kristi


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

CarrieBeary:

We don't intend to pick on you. We do intend to pick on your supplier. That's because we think they are doing something wrong. If MK Corp. were to admit what we believe to be a mistake and work with us to end this, we would support them and forgive past transgressions. It's a matter of loving the sinner and hating the sin. We would love MK Corp. if they took up our cause within the cosmetic industry but we would still hate that it's still being done by others.

Let me try another example that may illustrate how we feel: You are going to be naturally defensive if we criticize your husband, parents or child. It's even natural to be defensive about the company you work with if you like the company and it's products. Now, if your son were caught shoplifting a candy bar from a store, we would criticize that action but not you or your husband. We wouldn't even criticize your son because he is just a child, only the action. You would feel defensive simply because it was wrong and your child did it and that's absolutely normal if not totally rational. Now, if your child was 30 years old, we would criticize him because he's old enough to know better. You would probably still be defensive and that's not normal. MK Corp. is like that 30 year old child. They should know better and should act accordingly but they have not. This is not a reflection on you by any means.

By the way, as of this past week, MK Corp. still denies that they have used infant foreskin derivatives in any of their products or as testing materials in their laboratory or that they have participated in the development of these products. We know that is not true from the links above. They would do better to heed the advise of Maya Angelou. "When you know better, you do better." Their best course of of action now would be to admit their involvement, resolve to never have any involvement with infant foreskins in the future and make a $50 billion donation to NOCIRC. Well, maybe not $50 billion, but you get the idea. :LOL

Frank


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

By the way, I think what your friend's son has is called "webbed penis." It is a cosmetic defect only and has no functional effect. It is not an indicator for circumcision by any means. I guess it would be the equivalent of a girl having very large labia. She may decide to have them trimmed at some point in her adult life but the vast majority will remain unaltered for the rest of their lives. The vast majority of men with webbed penis also live their entire lives with it and have no intentions of surgery to change it simply for cosmetic appearance. It's just not that big a deal to them. There is danger of complications or unexpected outcomes to any surgical procedure and there is also post op pain and healing to consider. Are these risks and the pain worth it for something that probably won't matter to the child as an adult? My best guess is it won't be worth it.

Frank


----------



## karlatrx (Sep 23, 2004)

Quote:

Now, if a part of your body is used to produce a profit making product, you must be notified of the fact.
Wow, imagine the class action lawsuit! It'd be like, what, 80% of adult men in the US?


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

No, it wouldn't be anything even close to that. First, this is something relatively recent. It appears that this research only begain in the early 1990's so that the first donors would be at most in their early teens and there would be very few of them. Maybe only a few dozen. After the technology was developed into a commercial product for laboratory use, there would be a substantial increase in donor numbers to hundreds or maybe a few thousand. In relationship to the number of boys circumcised, it is still an extremely small percentage but with this type of technology, many new uses will be found for it. One of those uses is for treatment of burn victims to replace missing skin. One of the companies that make the burn replacement says that one foreskin can be used to make a quantity of skin equal to a football field. They also claim that they have already bought all of the foreskins that they ever will because their current supply will last them indefinitely. I don't know if that is true or not.

The other current use is in over the counter wrinkle reducing creams. The prices for these creams I have seen started at $260.00 and went up from there so it is not in wide use. However, as it is with new technology, the price starts out high and competition brings it down as we have seen with computers, cellular phones, etc. I can see that in just a few years these cosmetic products could be available for as little as maybe $30-$40 per container and possibly even less. That would put a huge demand on the foreskin supply and could result in unethical companies trying to increase the supply by a false information campaign to increase the circumcision rate. You only have to look as far as examples like Enron, Adelphia and General Electric to see that these corporations are very willing to compromise their ethics for profit at the expense of their stockholders and customers. They would surely do it to baby boys who are not generally viewed as victims.

Frank


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

http://www.dermatologistrx.com/Cart/...ory=SkinMedica

$123

look for the skin medica TNS


----------



## AmandaBL (Aug 3, 2004)

I know this is an old thread, but I saw it in my subscriptions & am wondering if either of the MK ladies got any response from MK. I see one was waiting on papers from the medical director.... Any update would be great!


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)




----------



## lorelei (Dec 31, 2004)

I think circumcision is wrong. I will never agree with this practice.

That being said, I don't personally have a problem with scientists using discarded healthy tissue to culture more of the same.

If scientists can make things safer without resorting to testing on animals, I'm for it.

I wouldn't have a problem with donating my fingernail clippings.

(I did miss a whole page of posts on this thread, hence the edit.)


----------



## lorelei (Dec 31, 2004)

I think the parents are the ones who deserve your critcism.
It's their children they are torturing.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Lorelei, you don't know what you're talking about. Scientists can take cells from foreskins and grow them in the lab. They are used for testing, for skin grafts, for cosmetic products, for all sorts of stuff. They're not testing on "corpses" or dead tissue, they're testing on living tissue derived from amputated foreskins.

I am not going to post a million links but they're out there. I'll just post one or two:

From the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences article published in 1995 (part of the National Institutes of Health): http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1995/1...novations.html

Quote:

Skin2, developed by Advanced Tissue Sciences in La Jolla, California, is a three-dimensional skin analog made of cells derived from human foreskins seeded onto a nylon mesh support. "The mesh reproduces the microenvironment that the dermal fibroblasts and normal keratinocytes require. They grow in such a way that they are reminiscent of the environment in situ, in the human body," explains Lawrence Rheins, executive director of the Skin2 division.
...

Skin2 is the only skin analog of its kind being marketed in the United States because there is little demand for these products so far. Biotechnology companies say this lack of demand is evidence of the fact that there is still not a major emphasis on developing and applying in vitro methods for toxicology testing. Still, Rheins remains hopeful: "Advanced Tissue Sciences continues to make strong efforts and investments in laboratory toxicology kits. The in vitro market, albeit small at present, will continue to grow with additional recognition and approval from the global regulators. We are also looking at ways to bring costs down while increasing availability across all sectors of the industry, including government and research."
From the Food and Drug Administration, a 1997 article: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/197_skin.html

Quote:

Organogenesis Inc., of Canton, Mass., has developed Apligraf (formerly Graftskin), a two-layer living skin substitute derived from infant foreskins. The upper layer contains keratinocytes, the dominant cell type in the epidermis. The lower layer contains collagen and fibroblasts, the main constituents of dermis. Other cell types that trigger immunological response are absent, and, as a result, this engineered tissue is not rejected. Human trials of Apligraf for treating burns, diabetic ulcers, and for use in other skin surgeries are under way.
Perhaps you should do a little more research and reading.


----------



## hummingbear (Apr 17, 2003)

To the skeptics:

Please go back and read all threads on this topic. It is quite certain that foreskins are used by the cosmetic industry. There is proof listed. Whether or not MK does this may take extreme devotion to finding out the truth and it may not be that easy to uncover.
There seems to be a certain amount of credibility that MK funded processes which are questionable although they may not have a product with any questionable practices.

If you are as devoted to the rights of the newborn male as you are to MK products perhaps instead of saying I know nothing until you can prove it to me, you might be part of the inquiry.


----------



## lorelei (Dec 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *be11ydancer*
I am searching and searching right now. I've found some people's web pages that state the same theory and I've emailed them to ask what their sources were on it. I'm waiting for 3 responses so when I get them, I will let you know what they said.

ETA - O.K. So I'm doing a google search and found something that is very confusing to read but what it looks like is some kind of research or experiment done using foreskin to test on. The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation helped fund the study. If anyone can decipher this, it might be helpful.

http://147.52.72.117/IJO/2002/volume.../1137-1143.pdf

This is by the International Journal of Oncology (Oncology is the medical study and treatment of cancer. A physician who practices oncology is an oncologist. The term is from the Greek onkos (ονκος), meaning bulk, mass or tumor, and the suffix -ology, meaning "study of". wikipedia.com)

This article appears to me to be a study on how once a cell is infected with a retrovirus, telomerase accelerates growth without compromising normal cellular structure. This appears to hold true both early and late in the cellular lifespan of human cells.

So, this is about fighting cancer, not fine lines.

Retrovirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus

Telomerase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomerase

Quote:

Here's something from the Society of Cosmetic Chemists:
"The Student Poster Showcase is held annually to promote student research in the Cosmetic Industry.....Second Place was awarded to Radhika Utturkar, University of Cincinnati College of Pharmacy, for her poster entitled "Measurement of Natural Moisturizing Factors (NMF) in Neonatal Infant Foreskin and Vernix Caseosas". If you look at their contributors, Mary Kay Inc. is one of them.
http://www.scconline.org/members/newsletter.shtml

Maybe these links are just shots in the dark. What do yall think?
I didn't see anything on your second link about that poster, or Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.

Hope my comments on the first article shed some light on this subject.

Wikipedia is great for medical terms if you don't have your Taber's laying around.


----------



## hummingbear (Apr 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lorelei*
I wouldn't have a problem with donating my fingernail clippings.

Please consider the differences.

Your fingernails are dead tissue before clipping and you are giving your consent.

A foreskin is living tissue and the baby is not giving consent.










oh, and fingernails grow back


----------



## MelissaEvans (Jan 9, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lorelei*
That being said, I don't personally have a problem with scientists using discarded healthy tissue to culture more of the same.
If scientists can make things safer without resorting to testing on animals, I'm for it.

These points have been brought up before, but here's a run down:
* How would you feel if they used amputated female genital skin from Africa? Most of us would find that horribly wrong; but it's OK to use boy's skin.
* It has been mentioned that tissue that is used for testing cannot be contaminated with pain relief drugs so this barbaric practice is even worse as the torchured child has nothing for the pain.
* Now take into account that doctors are making money on the procedure twice - how likely are they to tell mom and dad "No, I don't do that because it's unethical"? It perpetuates the practice because now doctors have added incentive to continue mutilating babies.

To be honest, I don't care as much about rabits as I do newborn human beings. Not that I think animal testing is acceptable, but I think it's the lesser of these two evils.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MelissaEvans*
* Now take into account that doctors are making money on the procedure twice - how likely are they to tell mom and dad "No, I don't do that because it's unethical"? It perpetuates the practice because now doctors have added incentive to continue mutilating babies.

Exactly! This is market driven. Those who stand to make money on the technology will promote circumcision of newborns. The genital tissue of girls could be used in the same way but that is not socially acceptable. However, I believe that if the supply of foreskins were to dry up, they would start importing female genital parts from Africa to support their market with the justification "They are thrown away any way. Why not put them to good use?" Of course, where there is money to be made, the pressure on African families to circumcise their daughters would increase just like they talk about all of the "good" things they can do with this "disposable" male part.

Frank


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lorelei*

I didn't see anything on your second link about that poster, or Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.

Hope my comments on the first article shed some light on this subject.

Wikipedia is great for medical terms if you don't have your Taber's laying around.

I went back to the poster link and the newsletter which I got my information from has been updated and doesn't have that info on it. I posted that link over a year ago which is why it's probably outdated. Why is it beyond your scope of belief that a cosmetic company would use foreskin tissue or any such thing to enhance their products? It doesn't just go in the trash. If it did, r.i.c. would have ended a while ago. As long as there is money to be made from foreskins, there will always be circumcision. Just as there is money to be made from vaccinating, there will always be children with vaccine injuries, and so on.


----------



## boingo82 (Feb 19, 2004)

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=288181

Mary Kay foundation supporting a study that used foreskin-derived cells, link in 1st post of that thread.

There is your proof.


----------



## Amydoula (Jun 20, 2004)

I haven't read through all of this yet but for those of you who want a WONDERFUL skin care product that is all natural and a great alternative to MK try www.terressentials.com I have no ownership or anything in the company but LOVE all their products especially their facial care line.

Amy


----------



## lovebug (Nov 2, 2004)

so lets all boycott makeup as a whole. thats what we are saing right? this is a prob (if a prob at all) with most makeup (if this is found to be true). we cant have our cake and eat it too. circ is wrong yes, but i like makeup and if moms and dad all over the world *have a choice* to do it or not and they do that is not my prob. Mary Kay Ash foud. prob did fund a study but i will tell you it was not to benf. herself! and i would rather have it tested on that ( cuz we can learn more then if it is ok for the face or not) then a dog or cat. i feel that this has no truth to it at all.


----------



## hummingbear (Apr 17, 2003)




----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Oh, fer crying all night. It's not as if makeup is a basic human necessity, like food and water, or a fundamental human right, like say NOT HAVING HALF YOUR GENITALS AMPUTATED AT BIRTH.

You think doctors are interested in educating parents when they can make money off amputated foreskins? I don't think so.


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

I know I already said this in the other Mary Kay thread, but the problem is that the market for this needs to be sustained.
IF doctors that are making money by performing circs tell parents the truth about circ not being medically necessary and not recommended by the AAP, they may lose the money they would've made performing the circ if the parents decide not to circ. THEN, the HOSPITAL loses the money they would've made by selling the foreskin to a company/foundation. There may not be a direct passage of money (as it's illegal to sell body parts, but who knows if that applies to foreskin--as nothing else seems to), but I find it hard to believe that there isn't an exchange of funds somehow between the hospital and the enterprise that is obtaining the foreskins.

Don't know about you, but I don't trust doctors OR hospitals OR your average cosmetic company, when money is concerned. Especially given the sorry financial state many hospitals are finding themselves in these days.


----------



## be11ydancer (Dec 2, 2003)

If you love make up that much, and I'll admit that I wear it sometimes and it's usually something cheap from the grocery store, then try one of the several companies that actually states that they don't test on foreskins or animals. Terressentials, like the pp suggested, is one and if I remember right, their web site has a statement regarding that very thing. You can also do a google search for "organic cosmetics" and I'm willing to bet that these companies are less likely to test on foreskin tissues. If I were you, I would email specific companies directly and ask them. It looks like in that same google search that there are many wahms selling cosmetics. I REALLY doubt that they test on foreskins.

Not using Mary Kay cosmetics is not the end all to you wearing make-up. Talk about product loyalty. Wow.


----------



## boingo82 (Feb 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovebug*
so lets all boycott makeup as a whole. thats what we are saing right? this is a prob (if a prob at all) with most makeup (if this is found to be true). we cant have our cake and eat it too. circ is wrong yes, but i like makeup and if moms and dad all over the world *have a choice* to do it or not and they do that is not my prob. Mary Kay Ash foud. prob did fund a study but i will tell you it was not to benf. herself! and i would rather have it tested on that ( cuz we can learn more then if it is ok for the face or not) then a dog or cat. i feel that this has no truth to it at all.

Is it really a choice when you're asked 6 times by your ped to circ your son? Because I was. Why do you think he was pressuring me?


----------



## channelofpeace (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lorelei*
I think the parents are the ones who deserve your critcism.
It's their children they are torturing.

This is for the most part, ridiculous! Absolutely and utterly ridiculous! Because most parents are so culturally diluted that they wouldn't know their head from their a$$ in regards to what is truth and what is myth about RIC. Most parents are so ignorant about it, they don't even know that there is an issue involved. If a parent is informed and still decides to do it, by all means, flame away, but i have not often found this to be the case.

It is about make-up people! Make-up! I would still think it was unethical even if they were doing something really beneficial like a cure for cancer, but this is just make-up! No matter what they used the skin for, it isn't their's to use, but being that it is make-up makes this all the more infuriating. Perspective!


----------



## lovebug (Nov 2, 2004)

i understand what you all are saying. maybe it is just me, but me and dh are just ttc, and our obgyn has already talke to us about circ and told us that is is not something that NEEDS to be done and all the other pros & cons. if you doc does not go over both the pros and cons, and you say no i dont want my son circ and they still ask then find a new doc. i also think that some people would do it weather or not the ped told them the cons. sad but true. i use to work in the hosp. and i know that most of the docs. that worked with, told pts the cons and that is was something that is in todays world done for looks. guess what, they still circ there kids. that there choise right or wrong,there choice not mine, the docs, or anyone elses. and i dont always think that its about the $$$$$$$$$ i think that is how people view non-circ. is that right no, but its the way thing are. with that being said i think this makeup thing is made way bigger then it needs to be.


----------



## MelissaEvans (Jan 9, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovebug*
i understand what you all are saying. maybe it is just me, but me and dh are just ttc, and our obgyn has already talke to us about circ and told us that is is not something that NEEDS to be done and all the other pros & cons.

I have yet to find a single true "pro." If a doctor has presented any "pros", then the doctor is saying it's an acceptable choice, and I disagree.


----------



## MelissaEvans (Jan 9, 2003)

This is a thread I started with letters I wrote and responses I got.
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...t=cruelty+free


----------



## Vito's Mommy (Jan 19, 2005)

>Isn't questioning everything what we natural-minded people are about? Researching everything? <

Just curious. How much research have you done into MK? Do you know what ingredients are in each product? *Are they natural and narurally derived?* Are they safe for the customer. A while back, MK was rewarding their reps w/fur coats. Last I heard, they no longer do that...in America, but are still rewarding reps w/fur coats in ohter countries.
Aside from that, if you are anti-circ then why wouldn't you want to get to the bottom of the question as well instead of waiting for an answer?
Just curious


----------

