Sexual Medicine is publishing an article by Brian Morris, Guy Cox and John Krieger, titled “Histological Correlates of Penile Sexual Sensation: Does Circumcision Make a Difference?“. 2 years ago Morris and Krieger had published “Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity or satisfaction”, in which they said they would soon review the histological studies, so this must be their follow up.
(Please note, in this particular post we evaluate the “no conflict of interest” disclosure of the paper – we will soon take the time to actually respond to the paper).
The appearance of Guy Cox as coauthor is most interesting for us, and particularly its timing. Almost one year ago we posted an expose of Guy Cox, a former coworker of Brian Morris at University of Sydney, and who used the pen-name of James Badger to publish papers about circumcision, to interact in circlist, to write fiction about circumcision, to review his own articles and fiction in a non-credited website, etc.
On March 17th of this year, we received a comment on our article from someone identified as James Badger, accusing us of publishing “a lot of hot air”, acknowledging his identity as Guy Cox, and failing to dispute any of the issues we exposed. You can see the comment – and our response- in the expose.
We responded reiterating some of our questions. One important question was about a very peculiar site that promoted a chastity undergarment for teenagers to prevent masturbation -except with parental permission. This site, boyguard.com, had a contact address which matches lemonred, the hosting company (owned by Guy Cox’s son, Cassian). James Badger had presented this website to circlist as something he found out about. The site also promoted high and tight circumcisions as a way of making masturbation more difficult for the teenagers.
We shared the news that James Badger had commented on our post, and waited to see if he would respond. He didn’t.
Well, when we saw this new paper by Morris, and realized that Guy Cox (James Badger) was one of the coauthors, we were certainly intrigued. And just a couple of nights ago as we were talking with friends about this mess, we went to check the boyguard site and found it down!
Of course this deserved attention, so the first thing we did was check ownership of the domain. One year ago, the registrar for boyguard was private, but the DNS records showed that it was hosted by lemonred (Cassian Cox, Guy’s son). Well, today, the registrar is “SYNERGY WHOLESALE PTY LTD” but the DNS records are still managed by lemonred. The DNS records are simply not pointing to an active website right now.
So who is Synergy Wholesale? It’s a company who resells domains. In other words, Guy Cox/James Badger is trying to get rid of the boyguard domain. Of course, after ignoring our questions regarding this website.
So, now, back to this new paper. It says:
“Conflict of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.”
Really? No conflict of interest whatsoever?
How about Brian Morris’ book, “In favour of circumcision”?
How about Brian Morris’ website, circinfo.net?
How about the interesting details in Brian Morris’ website, such as his link #16 (to a password protected circumfetish fiction website)? Or his links to fictitious doctors’ websites (James Badger, Pierre Lacock)?
How about “James Badger”‘s website, aboutcirc.info, linked by Brian Morris and credited to a pen-name?
How about “James Badger”‘s constant interaction in circlist?
How about “James Badger”‘s erotic fiction including the topic of circumcision, such as his “Airport Encounter” book?
How about Brian Morris and Guy Cox’s cooperation on text for “The surgical guide to circumcision”? – Especially considering that neither Brian Morris nor Guy Cox are licensed physicians or have ever performed a circumcision?
How about Guy Cox’s article, “De Virginibus Puerisque: The Function of the Human Foreskin Considered from an Evolutionary Perspective” – where he hypothesizes that the function of the human foreskin is to “form an obstacle to early coitus”?
How about the constant promotion of circumcision by the authors?
Are we sure there is no conflict of interest? None whatsoever?
I simply don’t understand how anyone in the medical community can give any credibility to these individuals.