Monthly Archives: May 2014

Success stories

We are glad to report that Moreno Valley Urgent Care has been made aware of our report that their website included information about circumcision from a wrong source, and they proceeded to remove the offending information.

We are also glad to report that a Canadian doctor previously profiled on circleaks, contacted us to let us know that he no longer performs circumcisions and opposes infant circumcision now. He wishes to remain anonymous at this time but he may write against circumcision in the future.

Circumcision in Swaziland: your tax dollars working

CNSNews reports that  The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is planning to spend $24.5 million to circumcise an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 male infants and males aged 10 to 49 in the kingdom of Swaziland by 2018, to raise the prevalence of circumcision from 19% (in 2010) to 70% (in 2018) and the prevalence of infant circumcision to 50% in 2018.

A demographic survey for 2006-2007 in Swaziland showed that the prevalence of HIV among circumcised males was 22% vs. 20% for those uncircumcised (see table 14.10, page 235)

Swaziland has the highest rate of HIV (26.5% estimated in 2012).

The United States has already invested over 15.5 million dollars in circumcision programs in Swaziland through the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, PEPFAR in an ambitious and unsuccessful “accelerated saturation initiative” called Soka Uncobe (circumcise and conquer), a campaign that some say, could be interpreted to say that circumcised men no longer need to use condoms.

PEPFAR has particularly targeted infants (as opposed to voluntary adults) by encouraging hospitals to circumcise all male newborns unless the parents opt out.

The country is culturally polygamous. Multiple concurrent sexual partners are common.


15 May 2013, Circumcision plans go awry in Swaziland

July 2012, Why a U.S. circumcision push failed in Swaziland



NEW CIRCUMCISION “STUDY”: Complication Risks May Increase With Age – Does Medical Necessity?

“Circumcision fails to meet the commonly
accepted criteria for the justification of preventive
medical procedures in children. The cardinal
question should be not whether circumcision can
prevent disease, but how can disease best be
Frisch et al, Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012
Technical Report and Policy Statement on
Male Circumcision

Another day, another article. This time, it’s about a study by Charbel El Bcheraoui  published in JAMA Pediatrics, funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study claims that “Male circumcision had a low incidence of AEs (adverse events – a euphemism for complications) overall, especially if the procedure was performed during the first year of life, but rose 10-fold to 20-fold when performed after infancy.

The question that El Bcheraoui circumvents is, however, are those circumcisions necessary? Without medical or clinical necessity, are those circumcisions ethical?

Without those considerations, this is nothing more than a sales pitch. “Circumcision! Buy now, or tomorrow it will be 20 times riskier,” El Bcheraoui seems to urge.

But, what are the chances a child will need to be circumcised later on in his lifetime?

What are the reasons a man would have to be circumcised at a later age? Do they increase with time? (Answer: No, they don’t. The majority of men who are left intact, stay that way.)

El Bcheraoui concludes that “Given the current debate about whether MC should be delayed from infancy to adulthood for autonomy reasons, our results are timely and can help physicians counsel parents about circumcising their sons” but this is nothing more than self-interested hogwash. The argument of bodily autonomy is mentioned but not expanded on. In effect, what the author is saying, without daring to say it, is that bodily autonomy can be violated in order to decrease the risk of complications; a risk the author already considers to be low.

If we were to extrapolate the reasoning behind this conclusion, it would be possible to argue that removing the breast buds from baby girls is easier, less traumatic and has less complications than waiting for breast cancer to develop and then perform mastectomies, where breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women.

The authors did not declare any conflict of interest. But of course it is not surprising that El Bcheroui is affiliated with the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Let’s just quickly remember that in 2009 the CDC was considering promoting universal circumcision to prevent the spread of HIV in the United States, despite pre-existing evidence (from the CDC nonetheless) that the high rates of circumcision in the United States had no effect over transmission of HIV.

It seems nowadays no circumcision article or “study” is complete without the obligatory “benefits outweigh the risks” soundbite from the 2012 AAP policy statement on circumcision. Of course, what is never mentioned is that this is only part of the statement, which is rarely ever quoted in its entirety:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision” -

Circumcision advocates love to quote the AAP, but they could not recommend circumcision in their last statement because, in their own words “the benefits were not great enough.” How is it lay parents are expected to analyze the same “benefits” which couldn’t convince an entire body of medical professionals, and somehow come to a more reasonable conclusion? Why are doctors expected to act on it, and why is the public purse expected to pay?

The AAP said in their last statement that “The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late)” and catastrophic injuries were excluded from the report because they were reported only as case reports, not as statistics. The statement also indicates that “Financial costs of care, emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery (with the attendant anesthetic risks, family stress, and expense) are unknown.”

In the opening statements of this study, El Bcheraoui estimates that 1.4 million circumcisions are performed in medical settings annually in the United States. This appears to contradict a previous statement by none other than El Bcheraoui himself, claiming a rate of 32.5% in 2009. Perhaps he expects the 2012 AAP Policy Statement to result in the resurgence of circumcision rates.

The study reviewed the medical history of approximately 1.4 million males circumcised between 2001 and 2010, and found that approximately 4,000 infants had suffered complications, leading them to calculate a rate of complications (adverse events) of less than 0.5%

This would mean, using the data they present, that every year, between 5,600 (0.4%) to 7,000 (0.5%) infant males will suffer complications from circumcision; circumcisions that will in all likelihood be medically unnecessary.

This would not include those complications that can be minor or undetected by the parents (skin tags, skin bridges, uneven scarring) or those that will not be detected until much later (pain caused by tight erections, lack of sensitivity).

The researchers note that some complications might not have been picked up because they were reviewing claims data on problems that typically occurred within the first month following the circumcisions.

This would likely exclude meatal stenosis. High prevalence of meatal stenosis has been found in circumcised males (see here and here), possibly as consequence of ischemia (poor blood supply) to the meatus or permanent irritation of the meatus caused by friction with the diaper and resulting in scarring.

A recent ecological analysis by Ann Z. Bauer and David Kriebel found a correlation (but not causation – further studies are needed) between early exposure to paracetamol and other analgesics, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). This took into consideration that most newborn circumcisions before 1995 used no pain relief at all, but with growing awareness of the pain of circumcision and increasing use of paracetamol, a sudden rise on the rates of male ASD occurred.  According to this analysis a change of 10% in the population circumcision rate was associated with an increase in autism/ASD prevalence of 2.01/1000 persons (95% CI: 1.68 to 2.34) ”

These findings of course would not have been included in El Bcheraoui’s paper, as this would be out of existing billing codes and administrative claims within the first month from the procedure.

So, let’s just think for a moment, if these circumcisions are not necessary, if these circumcisions are “elective,” then what is the tolerance for errors and complications? El Bcheraoui claims that a 0.5% complication rate is low. But how low is it when it means 5,600 to 7,000 babies who will suffer complications annually? And what kind of complications are we talking about?

These low rates fail to explain the increasing rates of circumcision revisions as well.

How many cases like the one of David Reimer can we afford to have before it is ethically wrong, morally wrong? How many more like Jacob Sweet?

How many MRSA infections?

How many partial or full ablations of childrens’ penises, like that baby in Memphis and that other baby in Pittsburgh last year?

How many infections with Herpes?

How many deaths?

Catastrophic complications, rare or not, mean destroyed lives. Not numbers. And to destroy lives of innocent babies in the name of “religious, ethical and cultural beliefs” is simply not right. Because there is no medical indication for surgery in healthy, non-consenting minors, any complications above zero is ethically unconscionable.

Judge, keep your hands off my penis

Judge Jeffrey Gillen

Judge Jeffrey Gillen

A Florida judge has ruled that a mother must submit her 3 and 1/2 year old son to circumcision as required by the father, in spite of the mother’s fear of the risk of death related to general anesthesia, and in spite of admitting that the procedure is not medically necessary.

Circwatch has compiled lists of documented catastrophic complications of circumcisions during 2013, and prior to 2013 here.

The mother is currently filing an appeal to the ruling and has setup a GoFundMe page to accept donations towards the protection of her son.

It is important to remember that in Israel, a rabbinical court last year ruled that a mother should submit her son to circumcision or be fined US$140 daily, as part of divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court accepted an appeal and the Attorney General has argued that the rabbinical court overstepped its jurisdiction in this case.

There is a legal precedent in the United States, in the case of Boldt vs. Boldt, where a father wanted to have his 9 year old son circumcised as part of his own conversion to Judaism. The son argued that he did not want to be circumcised, did not want to join judaism, and did not want to live with his father. The court finally recognized that the child’s preferences should be considered.

At 3 and 1/2 years of age, the child will remember. Furthermore, he is already aware of his body, so any irreversible decision that is not medically necessary should be consulted with him.

The circumcision status of the judge is of relevance, as men circumcised during the neonatal stage may fail to recognize the loss and harm of circumcision. If the judge is biased towards circumcision, a different judge should take the case.

Courts have a duty to protect those most vulnerable. In this case, the one more vulnerable is not the father, but the child, who will be faced with a painful disfigurement procedure.

Given the potential risks and the harms of circumcision, a court-mandated circumcision is nothing but legally mandated child endangerment. Should anything go wrong, it is not the judge nor the father who will have to live with the consequences.

Circwatch will keep an eye on this proceeding and sincerely hopes that this Floridian court will see the light and leave the child’s genitals alone.

Update on Rebeca Plank’s circleaks dossier

We updated the circleaks page on Rebeca Plank to include information on the 3 deaths during the 2013 Mogen vs. Plastibell trial, particularly one death from suspected sepsis within 24 hours of the procedure, yet dismissed as most likely not resulting from the procedure – even though no autopsy was performed.

Another fictitious doctor, friend of Brian Morris

Just a few weeks ago, we wrote a post exposing the antics of Brian Morris and his friend Guy Cox, AKA James Badger. Now, we bring you yet another fictitious circumcision promoter, who also happens to be a friend of Brian Morris.

Browsing through the links listed on the links and resources page on Brian Morris’ website, one will run across (the sixth link on the list), a website attributed to one Dr. Pierre LaCock, based in the U.S.A.

Brian Morris' links and resources highlighting Pierre LaCock's website.

Brian Morris’ links and resources highlighting Pierre LaCock’s website.

This website was also listed in an early version of a brochure written by Morris titled “Sex and male circumcision: what every woman should know.” For whatever reason, however, the link does not appear in the most recent version of the brochure.

Old version of Morris' brochure for women, highlighting LaCock's website. Source: circleaks

Old version of Morris’ brochure for women, highlighting LaCock’s website. Source: circleaks

This Dr. Pierre LaCock picked the interests of our investigators, because trying research to see who this Dr. Pierre LaCock was lead to a peculiar problem; you can’t actually find a Dr. Pierre LaCock. In fact, entering “Dr Pierre LaCock” on Google yields exactly two results: Morris’ website, and a PDF of Morris’ website archived a few years ago, found on our old wiki database, circleaks.

Google search for "Dr Pierre LaCock"

Google search for “Dr Pierre LaCock”

Internet records for show that the site is registered to one Pierre Lacock with an address in Germany.

Who Is info for

Who Is info for

The website itself does not provide any more help. There is no “about us” section or attribution, other than an email address.

LaCock's website displaying the only available contact information

LaCock’s website displaying the only available contact information

But herein lie the details;  the website has what appears to be a mistake in the headline. The headline reads “” Now, the term “information,” and its abbreviated form, “info,” are interchangeable in written and spoken English, but not in a url. So our investigators decided to check this lead, and typed on the browser.'s main clue’s main clue

Entering “” in a browser takes the user to a website titled “circumcision information center: all you need to know about circumcision”. At the bottom of the page, one can read “objective information – physician verified”. However the word circumcision is often misspelled as “circimcision” throughout the website.

Again, there appears to be no attribution, no “about us” page, and no contact information.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, we can observe the evolution of In September of 2013 it was just an empty WordPress website.

Snapshot of on September 2013

Snapshot of on September 2013

Before that, all the way until February of 2011, the website was a mere title.

Snapshot of on Feb. 2011

Snapshot of on Feb. 2011

But, BINGO! Until February of 2009, had all the information that is currently found on!

Snapshot of on Feb. of 2009 - the same content and layout as has now.

Snapshot of on Feb. of 2009 – the same content and layout as has now.

What does this finding mean?

It means that that the information was originally on, and it was later transferred to (LaCock’s website), most likely with intentions of redesigning, only the web designers forgot to update the head title.

Internet records reveal that belongs to Alex Shteynshlyuger, from Acclaim Urology, with an address in Brooklyn.



Acclaim Urology has a website,, which uses the same template as, with only slightly different colors. One of the links on the left side navigation of Acclaim Urology is: Alex Shteynshlyuger MD, and yet, mysteriously, this leads to a blank page.

Acclaim Urology

Acclaim Urology

Acclaim Urology’s website shows a list of urologists with their addresses (but no Alex Shteynshlyuger besides that blank page). The about us page is also blank. There is a password protected “Affiliate Area” – registration closed, and the contact us page has no information other than a contact form. The domain was privately registered.

Alex Shteynshlyuger MD - Board Certified Urologist in NYC

Alex Shteynshlyuger MD – Board Certified Urologist in NYC

Finally, Google searches for Alex Shteynshlyuger MD lead to, which is also a WordPress website with a similar, yet more elaborate template.

Dr. Alex Shteynshlyuger's website

Dr. Alex Shteynshlyuger’s website

The website shows that Dr. Shteynshlyuger is located at:

New York Urology Specialists
330 W. 58th St. #401
New York, N.Y. 10019
Phone: (646) 663-5544

This address is also visible on his Google+ profile.

Dr. Alex Shteynshlyuger's Google+ Profile

Dr. Alex Shteynshlyuger’s Google+ Profile

There is almost no mention of circumcision on this website, other than it being listed as one of the procedures performed by Dr. Shteynshlyuger.

The domain was registered by one Roman Shteynshlyuger with an address in Hollywood, Florida.

Who.Is Dr. Alex

Who.Is Dr. Alex

Our conclusion is that Pierre LaCock is most likely an alias for Dr. Alex Shteynshlyuger, with the specific purpose of promoting circumcision. The main evidence is the similitude in the two domains (circumcisioninformation vs. circumcisioninfo), the fact that the content from circumcisioninfo was transferred to circumcisioninformation in order to redesign circumcisioninfo, the strikingly similar templates used on the  circumcisioninfo, acclaimurology and dralexurology websites, and the domain circumcisioninfo being registered to Dr. Shteynshlyuger since at least 2009.

It seems, however, a little pointless to create a website to promote a surgical procedure under a pretend name, particularly when his own line of work (urology) is consistent with the practice of that procedure. Could it be that the purpose is to provide information beyond what he can, as a licensed doctor, legally and ethically, say?

Additionally, one has to wonder why Brian Morris promotes websites written by fictitious personas (aboutcirc, circumcisioninfo), as well as circumfetish websites.

But… who is Mike Cormier from Moncton, New Brunswick?

Mike who?

As we were capturing the screenshots, the page for offered us another name. The website info tab identified the owner of the site as one Mike Cormier from Moncton, NB. The registrant was still Dr. Alex Shteynshlyuger. Hmm, the plot thickens.

Mike Cormier, owner of

Mike Cormier, owner of

The previously listed brochure by Brian Morris still had more information for us! The list of authors who endorsed the content did include Mike Cormier from New Brunswick, Canada. The 8th link listed on the brochure (right after LaCock’s website) was a Geocities website attributed to Mike Cormier.

See Mike Cormier listed both as an author endorsing the content, and link #7

See Mike Cormier listed both as an author endorsing the content, and link #8

Geocities used to be a free hosting service for personal websites, very popular during the 1990s, later purchased by Yahoo, and finally closed. So, the problem is that most Geocities websites are no longer active (some are), and this was not the exception. However, the wayback machine proved to be useful once again in locating snapshots of Cormier’s site.

Snapshot of Mike Cormier's site from 1999

Snapshot of Mike Cormier’s site from 1999

Now, there was something familiar in this website. The text: “If you’ve been surfing the internet to find information on the topic of infant or male circumcision you have probably come across many anti-circumcision web pages and very few that tell the other side of the story.

Compare to (LaCock’s website):

Pierre LaCock's website in 2014 has the same text from Mike Cormier's site in 1999

Pierre LaCock’s website in 2014 has the same text from Mike Cormier’s site in 1999

LaCock’s site has the exact same text in 2014, that Cormier’s Geocities site had 15 years ago!

And as we have already seen, (Shteynshlyuger’s site) content from 5 years ago is the exact same content from (LaCock’s site) today. So, just to verify, we used wayback machine just once more to check LaCock’s site. Another match!

Alex Shteynshlyuger's site in 2009, same content as LaCock today and Cormier in 1999

Alex Shteynshlyuger’s site in 2009, same content as LaCock today and Cormier in 1999

So now we have two names for Pierre LaCock: Alex Shteynshlyuger, an urologist in New York, and Mike Cormier in Moncton, New Brunswick. Could we find more information about this Mike Cormier?

This is where the track became fuzzy. The address listed on the corresponded to a trailer park, nor a medical center, an office building or anything else. We found at least two Mike Cormiers in Moncton, one a veterinary, and one a producer, writer and actor of a puppet TV show called “Cowboy Who?” which aired in Canada between 1990 and 1994.

Could Cormier be one of those two characters? Or, as we have learned to believe, could it just be a convenient name, another fake “doctor” created in those late 20th century’s and early 21st century webrings to increase the presence of circumcision-related websites?

Maybe we will ask Alex Shteynshlyuger about this. Or the veterinarian. Or the TV producer.


CIRCUMCISION: Lies and Fetishism at the University of Sydney

It is generally well-accepted that a researcher or expert that seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation needs to be objective, impartial and dispassionate; an audience can only evaluate information from such a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect its objectivity and credibility. Thus, before  an audience evaluates information from a source, conflicts of interest need to be declared or identified. The personal background and affiliations of researchers can reveal hidden biases and prejudices.

Having eccentric associates does not make one an eccentric, but sometimes friends, coworkers, etc., mutually enable each other by serving as echo chambers to each other. Let’s take a look at Brian Morris, and let’s see how he relates to some friends and fellow researchers, Guy Cox and James Badger. How do they relate?

The characters

Brian Morris

Brian Morris

The University of Sydney staff directory presents Guy Cox as an Honorary Associate Professor, botanist and microscopist, and no mention is made of his interest in circumcision or the role of the foreskin. However some of his interest has managed to creep onto servers at the University of Sydney; one of his papers on circumcision and the foreskin is actually stored in these servers, as will be shown in the next paragraphs.

Guy Cox, University of Sydney honorary associate professor and circumcision advocate

Guy Cox

Brian Morris and Guy Cox are co-authors of chapters 19 and 21 of the book “Surgical Guide to Circumcision” by By David A. Bolnick, Martin Koyle, Assaf Yosha

Text co-authored by Brian Morris and Guy Cox

Text co-authored by Brian Morris and Guy Cox

Guy Cox published an article on Medical Hypothesis called: “De Virginibus Puerisque: The Function of the Human Foreskin Considered from an Evolutionary Perspective” in which he refers to a survey performed by James Badger and thanks Badger for making his data available. A copy of the pdf file is stored on the servers of University of Sydney (url: Is the University of Sydney aware of the existence of this article by Guy Cox stored on their server, outside his particular career path?

Guy Cox's paper

Guy Cox’s paper

Guy Cox thanks James Badger

Guy Cox thanks James Badger

James Badger published a two part circumcision survey on Australian Forum magazine, 1989. Australian Forum is not a peer-reviewed scientific or medical publication.

Badger's survey on circlist

Badger’s survey on circlist

Brian Morris’ website identifies James Badger as a “University of Sydney biomedical scientist” who “used to regard himself as neutral on the issue of circumcision, but would now appear swayed by the evidence into adopting a ‘pro’ stance”.

Morris cites Badger

Morris cites Badger

Circlist (a website and discussion group for men who sexually fantasize about performing and receiving circumcisions) identifies James Badger as one of its members and has 6 surveys by Badger on different aspects of circumcision, such as masturbation, urination, emotions, attitudes, etc.

Circlist identifies Badger as a member

Circlist identifies Badger as a member

A PowerPoint presentation by Brian Morris on the topic of circumcision, which can still be found on the server of University of Sydney, makes reference to the “first ever survey by a USyd academic in 1989″ (slide 35) – the survey by James Badger.

Slide 35 of Brian Morris' PowerPoint presentation

Slide 35 of Brian Morris’ PowerPoint presentation

A curious fact, slide 6 of the same PowerPoint file shows a picture of Morris with a small group of Sub-Saharan boys during the preparation for their circumcisions, with emphasis on the close up of an old razor hanging from the necklace of one of the boys, a razor that will be used to remove his foreskin. Traditional circumcisions in Africa account for many yearly deaths, mutilations (loss of the penis), life threatening infections and other complications, as denounced on the Ulwaluko website.

Slide 6

Slide 6 – Notice the razor

But the existence of James Badger poses a new mystery.

James Badger

James Badger

Morris’ book “In Favour of Circumcision” reveals that James Badger is a pen-name for the purposes of the Forum survey and debate in general. See note 168 on page 93.

Morris identifies Badger as a pen-name

Morris identifies Badger as a pen-name

Searches on the University of Sydney’s staff directory for James Badger return empty. Further searches for a Sydney scientist named James Badger also return empty.

So now that we know something about our characters, let’s develop the story.

Lies and fetishism

Brian Morris’ original website was hosted on the servers of the University of Sydney, where he and Guy Cox were professors. The old url, now inactive, was (archive)

Old Morris site on the server of University of Sydney

Old Morris site on the server of University of Sydney

Brian Morris’ website has a page of links and resources. On 2007, the second link listed was, and, as revealed on the Wayback Machine  (a tool that saves snapshots of websites at different times), between parenthesis it used to read “Dr. Guy Cox, Australia” (see archive).

In 2007 Morris identified aboutcirc as authored by Guy Cox

In 2007 Morris identified aboutcirc as authored by Guy Cox

On December of 2011, the University of Sydney asked Morris to remove his website from their servers.

Message from Chris Coffey announcing the decision to have Brian Morris remove his website from the University of Sydney servers

Message from Chris Coffey announcing the decision to have Brian Morris remove his website from the University of Sydney servers

Morris found a new hosting service, a company called Lemonred, and moved his website there. (Before Lemonred, Morris’ site moved temporarily to Trinidad and Tobago).

Currently, the first link on the page of links and resources remains However the parenthesis now read “James Badger, Australia”.

Currently Morris attributes aboutcirc to James Badger

Currently Morris attributes aboutcirc to James Badger

According to Robert Darby, historian interested on the topic of circumcision, James Badger is really Guy Cox. This seems to be supported by Morris’ diverging attribution of the author of the website. It seems ironic then, that Guy Cox, on his paper about the function of the foreskin, would quote James Badger’s survey and thank him for authorizing the use of his data. If they are really the same person, this would be disrespectful of the general public.

Robert Darby discusses James Badger

Robert Darby discusses James Badger

Brian Morris is known for self-referencing openly in third person: “researchers have demonstrated”, “experts criticized”, etc. A good example of this is his recent article, coauthored with Tomas Wiswell and Stefan Bailis and published by Mayo Clinic Proceedings, which is said to be a literature review: out of 80 references, 12 are articles and studies co-authored by Brian Morris himself.

Self-referencing Morris

Self-referencing Morris

So now let’s go back to the University of Sydney on December of 2011 asking Morris to remove his website, and Morris finding a new hosting service, Lemonred.



Internet records show that Lemonred’s domain is owned by Cassian Cox, who happens to be the son of Guy Cox.

Further investigation reveals that Lemonred also hosts:

  • Guy Cox’s personal website (Guy Cox Software). In a web design section, this site lists two websites as examples of their work: Male Circumcision ( and Claude Cox Old and Rare Books ( – notice the last name.
Guy Cox Website

Guy Cox Website

guycoxpage2 has a section for book reviews, and one of the books is called “airport encounter” by James Badger, described as “a light-hearted story about an Australian choirboy and his friends, this books follows the life and loves of a group of boys and girls as they grow from children into teenagers. Circumcision is a major theme as, naturally, is music. It is quite sexually explicit at times“. The contact to buy this book happens to be, surprise! Claude Cox, the British librarian.

Reviews on Aboutcirc

Reviews on Aboutcirc

Would it also be a surprise that James Badger’s website would make a review of one erotic fiction book which includes circumcision, whose author is also James Badger, who is a “University of Sydney biomedical scientist” and “used to regard himself as neutral on the issue of circumcision” but is also “a circumcision pen-name“? (all italics are literal words by Brian Morris)

The other book reviewed is “The surgical guide to circumcision”, which, as we mentioned earlier, includes two chapters written in collaboration by Brian Morris and Guy Cox!

  • There is another website hosted by lemonred (and most likely owned by Guy Cox himself) which deserves particular attention. The website is called and offers a product for boy chastity. The purpose of the website seems to be to promote this product to control children’s sexuality, aided by “high and tight” circumcisions.

    boyguard website

    boyguard website

The site states: “We are strongly in favour of circumcision for all boys. (…) If you are considering circumcision for your boy, make sure it is done properly, with the foreskin completely removed. The glans (knob) should be completely uncovered and there should be no surplus skin on the shaft of the penis. Otherwise the hygiene benefits may not be fully realized. (…) So the skin will stretch to allow for the firmest erection, and this is the desired outcome – the skin should be stretched tight when the penis is erect.

While we do not subscribe to the 19th century notion that circumcision prevents masturbation, there is no doubt that this type of circumcision makes it more difficult, and so if a boy does get access to his penis in an unguarded moment he is less able to succumb to temptation. In particular, if he has seen an uncircumcised or partly-circumcised boy abusing himself, he will be quite unable to mimic what he has seen.

boyguard - in favour of circumcision

boyguard – in favour of circumcision

(The first sentence almost seems as a direct reference to the title of Brian Morris’ book: “In favour of circumcision”).

It is worthy of note that James Badger (AKA Guy Cox)’s survey includes observations about the difference in masturbation techniques between circumcised and uncircumcised males.

It was also “James Badger” who on April of 2013 announced to the inter-circ Yahoo Group to the existence of the Boyguard website, while pretending not to have any relation to it.

Badger announces Boyguard to the inter-circ Yahoo group

Badger announces Boyguard to the inter-circ Yahoo group

Incidentally, the Inter-circ group is, in its own words, “a global male circumcision appreciation group encouraging discussion of the pros and cons of circumcision as an adult. The group is also for those who feel that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision resulting from religious, cultural, or medical considerations. WE ARE PRO-RIC.” (RIC = Routine Infant Circumcision)

Inter-Circ Group

Inter-Circ Group

Recapping, the administrator for lemonred is Cassian Cox.



The admin for is private, but it doesn’t matter because it’s recognized as Brian Morris’ website

The registrant for James Badger’s websites (, .org and .com) is Guy Cox, with Cassian (his son) being the administrator.



The administrator for is Claude Cox.

The registrant for Guy Cox’s personal website,, is Guy Cox, with Cassian Cox as administrator.



The registrant for is private, however the contact us page has a P.O. Box which corresponds to the P.O. Box of Guy Cox Software (see previous screenshot).

boyguard-contact info

boyguard-contact info


Considering that James Badger appears to be a fictitious character, identified as a scientist at University of Sydney (but impossible to find through the staff directory), who owns three websites, who really published a survey on an Australian magazine in 1989, who is said to be neutral on the topic of circumcision, who is a member of circlist -a mailing list that accepts circumfetish-, who authored one erotic fiction book that includes the topic of circumcision, who then used his website to publish a review of said book speaking in third person, whose surveys have been used as reference by Brian Morris and Guy Cox, and who comments on internet articles about circumcision… We have to say, quite a talented and busy fictitious character!

If James Badger is a fictitious character, Brian Morris is lying by currently identifying him as the owner/author of and a scientist at University of Sydney, and by using his surveys as references; but if James Badger is not fictitious, then Brian Morris lied on his book by identifying him as a pen-name, and by attributing the website to Guy Cox back in 2007.

If James Badger is a fictitious character, Guy Cox lies by using his survey as reference and thanking him for allowing him to use the data; particularly if James Badger and Guy Cox are the same person.

If James Badger is a fictitious character, then it is incredibly ironic that Brian Morris, circlist, Guy Cox, and Badger himself behave as if James Badger really existed.

But if James Badger does exist, we would love to see more information on his work: publications, work story, bio, or at least one photo!


The association between Brian Morris and Lemonred is not as casual as looking for hosting companies in the yellow pages and shopping for prices and hosting packages. The owner of Lemonred, Guy Cox, happened to be a co-worker of Brian Morris at Sydney University, and also happens to be an independent researcher/author on topics of circumcision, outside his career path. Both of them have referenced each other on their papers and publications and coauthored at least one publication. Both have been known to participate on circumcision related mailing lists such as circlist and the Gilgal Society, funded by now convicted pedophile Vernon Quaintance.

Our investigation reveals that Cox also happens to be interested in interference in the sexual lives of children through chastity devices and circumcision . As our readers may remember, the very beginning of “medical” circumcision during the late 19th century was caused by a desire to prevent children from masturbating, and included chastity devices, infibulation of the penis (sewing the foreskin shut with a silver thread), circumcision without anesthesia and other similar barbarities, and included genital mutilation as a way of dealing with female masturbation (clitoridectomy, rubbing carbolic acid on the clitoris, removal of the labia, etc). The dynamic of power involved in controlling children’s sexuality opens the door for potential child abuse.

Both Morris and Cox are now retired professors but continue to participate in the debate over circumcision, with Morris particularly having a very active role in the public eye.

The media in general and particularly medical journals such as Mayo Clinic Proceedings; the University of Sydney, and the general public should be informed that Brian Morris lacks medical credentials to be speaking on the matter of circumcision; he is not a pediatrician, urologist, sexologist or physician in any capacity; Brian Morris is known to interact with individuals who openly practice circumfetishism or identify as “circumsexuals” and his website links to at least one circumfetish website. While he may outwardly portray an interest in child well-being and public health, this conflicts with the perverted interest in the forced circumcision of minors and/or sexual control and chastity of minors.


Thanks to all the anonymous individuals who in one way or another collaborated with this investigation from different corners of the world.

Zimbabwe: Clinic cuts off boy’s little manhood during circumcision

12-year-old Bulawayo boy’s penis was cut off during circumcision. Although the boy was under local anaesthetic, he screamed as blood gushed out of his organ. The boy was admitted at the United Bulawayo Hospitals (UBH) where the cut off organ has been sewn back on. A source at UBH said while he was in stable condition, it was too early to know if his penis would be normal again. Population Services International (PSI) spokesperson Paidamoyo Magaya was unreachable for comment. PSI sponsors the circumcision drive in Zimbabwe.

Complete article: