foreskin

There is no human foreskin in vaccines — why do I have to write this?

by Michael Simpson
2022-06-03
HPV vaccine, Vaccines, Varicella vaccine

I never know how these tropes start, but I just read an anti-vaxxer claim that vaccines include a bit of human foreskin. I really didn’t want to write about it, but I guess I have to do it, just because I spent time trying to figure out if it were true.

We will discuss how the human foreskin is related to vaccines, and it is fairly interesting. But you can guess that the only reason this is a thing is that there is a huge intersection between the intactivists, those who oppose circumcision, and the anti-vaccine world.

We’re going to ignore the whole circumcision argument, even though there is a lot of scientific evidence supporting it as a medical procedure, as this article is solely about vaccines or at least the use of the human foreskin in developing and producing vaccines. And why the human foreskin in vaccines is another zombie myth.

Human foreskin in vaccines – another anti-vaccine zombie myth

Many of us who write about vaccines point out the zombie myths of the anti-vaccine world. These are myths about vaccines that we successfully debunk, then a few months, even years later, they reappear on the scene. And numerous websites breathlessly report these myths as if they’re new news. The new old zombie myth is that somehow human foreskin ends up in your vaccine.

We will discuss how human foreskin is related to vaccines, and it is fairly interesting. But you can guess that the only reason this is a thing is because there is a huge intersection between the intactivists, those who oppose circumcision, and the anti-vaccine world.

We’re going to ignore the whole circumcision argument, even though there is a lot of scientific evidence supporting it as a medical procedure, as this article is solely about vaccines, or at least the use of human foreskin in developing and producing vaccines. And why human foreskin in vaccines is another zombie myth.

Circumcision–separating science from opinion

by Michael Simpson
2012-09-07
62 Comments
Evidence based medicine, Infectious disease, Religion

Circumcision is one topic that certainly brings up more emotion than just about any medical procedure. In fact, the same level of rhetoric is used for and against circumcision that one hears with regards to vaccines, or even abortion. Recently, the city of San Francisco attempted to ban the practice, but a judge ruled that only the state could regulate medical procedures. During the summer, a German court banned circumcision for religious purposes, though a German court banning a Jewish practice must have blown up irony meters across the world.

In any discussion about circumcision, there is general consensus that female circumcision, or female genital mutilation, is an abhorrent non-medical procedure that is simply an anti-female procedure in many male-dominated societies. We’re not talking about that, and any comparison between male and female circumcision is a strawman argument. It is also clear that part of the anti-circumcision argument centers around secularism and atheism, because male circumcision is integral to both the practice ofJudaism and Islam. That is a valid argument, and there could even be a concern that unskilled individuals performing ritual circumcisions could cause serious complications. I personally could care less about religious rituals as long as they don’t harm anyone, so this is where we need to determine what the evidence tell us. Read More »Circumcision–separating science from opinion