MBP UPDATE 5-26-2006
A little update on recent facts:
The NY times finally got around to publishing an article titled For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap that was already dealt with in a 1998 book. The subject is the lack of credibility of scientific journals. The book review was published after the NYT's article.
Cited, was an October 1972 PEDIATRICS article claiming that deaths of five children to one mother showed SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) was hereditary. The mother was ultimately convicted of murder. A January 1997 Pediatrics article mentions this, along with the fact that the erroneous data has been quoted in medical journals 404 times between 1974 and 1996. PEDIATRICS you may recall, is the journal that published the August 2004 Tendler, et al's, article on herpes and MBP. For the record, the article NEVER says that any of the mohelim gave herpes to a baby. Instead it resorts to suggestive language, the following are direct quotes:
"may" be hazardous to the neonate / "most probably" as a consequence of / "it is likely" that other infants were infected/ "We suspect", therefore / "it was most likely" that the infection was transmitted / represents a "potential source" of orogenital transmission / however, "the possibility" that some previous cases were not reported / this "potentially" life-threatening medical complication / oral metzitzah "may" cause oral-genital transmission/ oral suction "may" not only endanger the child / which "might" endanger the newborns/
The facts: The article does not attempt to find the source of infection. Not all the Mohelim were tested. The mothers were not tested for herpes but rather for anti-bodies. Follow up testing was not done on all the mothers to verify they were still negative for anti-bodies and hence, not the source of infection at birth. The article twice slurs the chareidi community by stating: "we suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg," without giving any plausible explanation how these diseases requiring prescriptions and hospitalization could be concealed. Despite the fact that 7 out of 8 cases were in Israel, the article shifts the story to the US, "This procedure is widely accepted, and 60% to 90% of newborn boys of the Jewish population in the United States undergo this procedure." even though not one single U.S. case was cited. The article claims to expect many many cases in the future, yet does not discuss warning signs (symptoms) that parents should watch for. It makes no mention whatsoever of the incubation period of the disease, there is no discussion of the best or most recommended treatment. The article is so sloppily written that even the average weights and presentations of the babies do not coincide with the chart. Six months after the publication Pediatrics, the same authors re-published much of the same article in the Israeli Medical Associations publication "HaRefuah". The article was republished without all the medical details instead stating:
"In light of the reports in the medical literature about complications in the wake of metzitza by mouth, some of the halakhic rulings regarding circumcision should be reconsidered."
The authors fail to mention they are the ones who published the report. Despite the fact that the original report DOES NOT SAY THE INFANTS GOT HERPES FROM THE MOHEL, this does not stop the authors from writing:
"A recent study relates to eight infants who became infected with herpes virus as a result of the procedure."
Just because a doctor creates a department of medical ethics and then appoints himself to head it, does not make him an ethical person, especially if he has a decades old reputation to the contrary.
