Chapter 20

Use of Infant Foreskins in Cosmetics, Skin Grafts and Other Industries (aka “The Smoking Gun”)

“Imagine some weird sci-fi story about a land where they extract cells containing the vibrancy and purity from the body tissue of their newborns. These cells are then mixed with other strange concoctions and applied to their wealthier elderly citizens supposedly to restore their youth and energy. Like soylent green, almost everyone is oblivious to this macabre practice.
Oh … wait a minute!! Where would this possibly happen??”
– R.R.

In 1971 the American Academy of Pediatrics pronounced infant circumcision not medically necessary, i.e. “Not an essential element of total health care.” In 1975 The American Academy of Pediatrics re-stated “There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.” (With much explanation of details.) In 1977 The American Academy of Pediatrics again stated “There are no medical indications for routine circumcisions, and the procedure cannot be considered an essential components of health care.”1984 – The AAP’s pamphlet on intact care stated:“The function of the foreskin and the glans at birth is delicate and easily irritated by urine and feces. The foreskin shields the glans. With circumcision this protection is lost. In such cases, the glans and especially the urinary opening (meatus) may become irritated or infected, causing ulcers, meatitis (inflammation of the meatus) and meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening.) Such problems virtually never occur in uncircumcised penises. The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.

In the 1980’s I personally sent each member of the AAP task force a xeroxed copy of the complications chapter in this book and a complimentary copy of my book to the AAP. This information was never acknowledged. They still claim that the complications of circumcision are “unknown.” In 1990 the AAP removed the above foreskin information with no valid explanation. They then issued their new statement that infant circumcision “may have health benefits as well as disadvantages and risks.” In 1997 The American Academy of Pediatrics issued the following statement: “It is emphasized that newborn circumcision is an elective procedure to be performed at the request of the parents when the infant is physiologically and clinically stable. Because of the lack of hard scientific data, a firm recommendation for appropriate method of pain control was not provided. The AAP has recently convened a task force to review new information available since the writing of the guidelines with the goal of making specific recommendations on this issue.” Their response was identical in 2012. More recent but less official statements acknowledge that other non-medical issues are the more recognized explanations surrounding circumcision, i.e. family expectations, social pressures, etc., which should not be an expected part of the medical realm, especially with non-consenting minors.

Meanwhile, one can only wonder what egotism and sense of elitism must take place within the medical establishment. Certainly anyone’s valid, scholarly efforts deserve respect, both in and outside of official academic establishments. Should a plaque on someone’s wall (which may represent only a sentence or two of knowledge about infant circumcision) outweigh the countless hours and mountains of research done by another?

Is any challenge to their status quo world that threatening because it has come from a collective group, many of whom are doctors, nurses and other medical professionals themselves standing alongside remorseful parents, angry grown men, and countless other concerned citizens that are questioning their protected bubble of “authority.” Do they perceive us as some sub-human species, expected to bow and scrape to their every whim, no matter how much knowledge and wisdom we may have to offer?

While doing research for this chapter I have labeled this investigation “The Smoking Gun” because there is strong evidence of yet another motivation to preserve infant circumcision as a monetary source within the U.S. medical establishment.

As early as 1977 Dr. Fleiss offered us the following warning: “Parents should be wary of anyone who tries to retract their child’s foreskin, and especially wary of anyone who wants to cut it off. Human foreskins are in great demand for any number of commercial enterprises and the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multi million dollar a year industry.1

      A flurry of magazine articles in recent years have brought much more of this to the attention of the public:

According to a “Mail on Line” article: “Dubbed a HydraFacial, the treatment’s key ingredient is stem cells from an infant’s foreskin. Described as a ‘multi-step treatment that promises to erase wrinkles, reverse sun damage, lighten dark spots and prevent acne.” 2

Dr. Gail Naughton, speaking to NY Magazine has said “As we age our cells divide at a slower rate which contribute to the telltale signs of aging such as wrinkles. … Growth factors captured from the donated foreskin of a baby, … when applied topically, spur adult skin cells to regenerate.” 3

The 30 minute treatment involves a cleansing process using salicylic and glycolic acid peel and an extraction to remove blackheads and dead skin. This process is followed by a mask packed with hydrating hyaluronic acid and a serum with foreskin extracts and then some light therapy. 4

Another on-line publication has made a similar statement:

“A key ingredient in (“Miracle Wrinkle Cream”) is the foreskin of a circumcised baby. It’s in the antiwrinkle gel called TNS Recovery Complex. Betsy Rubenstone is the aesthetician in the plastic surgery department at the University of Pennsylvania. She knows why the foreskin is used. ‘It’s filled with everything we begin to lose as we age (including) growth factors, amino acids, proteins, collage, elastin and hyaluronic acid.’ … Thomas Jefferson University Hospital dermatologist Paul Bujanauskas says while TNS might have merit, he would not prescribe it for his patients because no scientific research proving its value has been published in medical journals. The cost of one bottle of TNS is about $130 and will last about a month and a half. According to people who have used it (the smell is) … ‘disgusting. It has a sour smell to it that makes you want to gag.’ ” 5

STYLE AND BEAUTY has also announced the following: “Anti-aging products and services is a multi-billion dollar industry. Many women and men are willing to try just about anything in order to achieve a more youthful appearance. … HydraFacial, a facial treatment that uses (cells derived from) baby foreskin to fight acne, treat hyper-pigmentation and reduce wrinkles. The growth factors obtained from the foreskin is at a microscopic level.” 6

Scientific American provides the following explanation of the process:

“Each vial of Vavelta (enough for treating about four square centimeters of skin) … consists of about 20 million live fibroblasts – cells that produce a skin-firming protein collagen. … Fibroblasts also make elastin, a protein that allows the skin to snap back to its original shape, …. as well as hyaluronic acid which locks moisture in the skin. The fibroblasts are isolated from the foreskins taken from baby boys, given several months to grow and multiply in the lab and then packaged into treatment vials that are shipped to a select group of U.K. physicians. Each vial costs approximately 750 pounds or $1,000. 7

Skin cells extracted from baby foreskins have also been used to create artificial skin for various medical applications:

“One educated nurse from San Antonio told me they have to save infants’ amputated foreskins because the hospital’s Department of Oral Surgery uses them for reconstructive surgery of the inner lining of the mouth!” 8

A brief post by Reuters has stated the following: “Apligraf (FDA approved in 1998) is made from human skin cells mixed with collagen from cattle. Made by Organogenesis, Canton, MA. Used to treat venous skin ulcers, Novarti Pharmaceuticals Corp. has global marketing rights to Apligraf, … made with live cells from the foreskin of a newborn’s penis, mixed with tissue from a cow.” 9

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has signed in with their approval: “The U.S. FDA committee recommended approval of Dermagraft, artificial skin made from circumcised baby foreskins to treat diabetic foot ulcers on condition that the manufacturer, Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc., do a post-marketing study. NOCIRC’s attorney was given just five minutes to speak to the committee in defense of the babies whose foreskins are cut off and marketed without their consent. 10

From Business Week: “Into these tubs the workers add skin cells harvested from the foreskins of circumcised newborns (is the beginning of the process done by) Organogenesis, Inc. of Canton, MA & Advanced Tissue Sciences Inc. of La Jolla, CA. One piece of foreskin can produce four acres of engineered skin with a 5 day shelf life. 11

The Latest From the Labs: Human Skin: “The FDA is about to approve commercial use of living tissue grown by (these two) biotech outfits. 12

Adding to this scandal is the usage of baby foreskins being used to create vaccines (which has undergone much misunderstanding.) Variations of one recently published article have showed up repeatedly on the internet and elsewhere.

“Every year some infants are circumcised. During this surgical procedure part of the child’s protective penile tissue is removed. This tissue removed from his penis may be sold to companies and institutions seeking the rich human fibroblast cells and other cells it contains. … Certain microorganisms used by vaccine companies need living human cells to replicate. The cells within foreskin are being used for this purpose. Foreskin cells can be used to turn a wild-type microorganism found in nature into a genetically modified microorganism for use in vaccines.” 13 (This was published by an organizations which is strongly opposed to vaccines of all types.)

Other articles have stressed that the foreskin cells are only used to create cell lines which are used in testing and developing the vaccines. Foreskin cells are not used directly in the vaccines themselves. 14 In any event this does illustrate yet another example of commercial use of body tissue being taken from our babies.

The following article which appeared in The New York Daily News is one which I find curious since infant circumcision is rare in most parts of Europe:

“German scientists have created a machine that manufactures human skin using cells from a baby’s foreskin. The scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute hope the skin they’ve been able to produce will provide a humane (?!) alternative to using animals in testing of cosmetics and other products, a German news service, the Deutsche Presse Agentur reported:
Invented by Teads, the machine has been dubbed the ‘skin factory.’ It is about 22 feet long, 10 feet tall and 10 feet wide. It fosters the growth of skin samples from cells extracted from foreskins of boys 4 years old or younger who are circumcised. … After the cells from the foreskins have multiplied inside the machine, they’re injected into a gel that forces them to grow into a sheet that simulates the epidermis – the outermost layer of human skin. To create a model that simulates human skin, three of these layers are fused together. The process of growing new skin takes about six weeks. At present, the Fraunhofer Institutes is producing about 5,000 new samples per month.” 15

Yet another resource has reported the following: “ICCPR’s (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) UN GA Resolution 2200 A (XXI) slavery, forced labor and traffic in persons includes the industry of a growing number of American medical hospitals and medical professionals colluding with scientific agencies harvesting neonatal foreskins for skin grafts, i.e. as compulsory organ donation.16

According to Forbes: “Advanced Tissue Sciences (La Jolla, CA) retrieves foreskins from hospitals. One foreskin can create 250,000 square feet of dermis. The annual market could be 1-2 Billion $. Advanced Tissue Sciences has sold about $1 million worth of cultured dermis to Proctor & Gamble, Helene Curtis and other businesses. Advanced Tissue Science’s foreskin-derived merchandise held a $32 million stock offering in 1992. (The 32 page Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. 1997 Annual Report refers to “fibroblasts” but does not contain the word “foreskin.”) 17

In the business section of the Boston Globe business section, BioSurface Technology of Cambridge, MA is mentioned. These companies face no shortage of hoarding and retailing foreskins. Dr. Tania Phillips, professor of dermatology at Boston University of Medicine has states “Foreskin gathering and cultivating is scientifically and technologically very promising.” 18

Some of the justifications for harvesting baby foreskins have been quite strange. One example of this has come from the animal rights groups who have been deeply concerned about the use of animal testing in laboratories, including those of various cosmetic companies: The Coriell Institute for Medical Research has stated: “Animal testing is an incredibly outdated method that should be replaced by more modern Institute for in Vitro Sciences’ in vitro process.” 19 This group’s website includes an Outreach section with a page dedicated to the Animal Protection Community saying: “The activities of the animal protection community have had a significant role in driving the search for valid non-animal methods”, but is it really a non-animal method if it depends on the amputation of genital tissue from human babies?20

“Are PETA, the Humane Society of the U.S., and the other listed “animal protection outreach partners aware of the use of genital tissue removed from American babies in this “non-animal method?” or are they so culturally ingrained in the rite of circumcision that they no longer see it as a cruel action? … Protecting animals from testing by using harvested genital tissue forcefully amputated from non-consenting individuals is hypocritical. How does it feel to feed the machine and treat our children as little more than guinea pigs? Why have we allowed the biomedical industry to turn our children’s genitals into a commodity for the cosmetic industry?” 21

First place in hypocrisy goes to the world famous talk show maven, Oprah Winfrey, who has been an outspoken opponent of female genital mutilation, animal rights and protection of the earth’s resources. According to David Balashinsky: “Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Meatless Mondays, and organization founded for protection of animals, promotion of health and protection of the earth’s resources. … (Yet) Winfrey has also gone on national television for Skin Medica, a company that manufactures anti-wrinkle face cream that is made from a line of fibroblasts harvested from the prepuce of infants who were subjected to non-therapeutic circumcision – a totally unnecessary genital modification surgery that causes infants excruciating pain, violates their right of bodily integrity, permanently removes a normal, sensitive and functional body part, kills over 100 of the (per year) and leaves over one million more scarred for life in the United States every year.” 22

“Winfrey’s hypocrisy has been noted by human rights advocates who have rhetorically questioned whether she would similarly endorse beauty products manufacturers with the excised genital tissue of girls, given Winfrey’s opposition to the practice of female genital mutilation. Winfrey’s double standard regarding the right to bodily integrity of boys is thrown into relief more generally by her robust advocacy on behalf of protecting children.” 23

The late John Erickson posted the following:

      “I wrote to the American Cancer Society May 1, 1987, and asked if it was true that one of the sources of the interferon used in cancer research in this country was the foreskins of circumcised human babies. A few days later, John Stevens at the American Cancer Society called and told me that the answer to my question was ‘yes’.”
      “How much does one infant foreskin sell for? (I received an email January 1997 from someone who prefers to remain anonymous who said that the going rate for infant foreskins at a large hospital in the greater San Diego area was $35 each (certainly much higher than that today – R.R.) — and that “ethical” doctors deducted that amount from their circumcision fees.)
      (Whether or not he received any other answers to the following questions is not stated. – R.R.)
      How many foreskins have been sold?
      Who sells them? Doctors? Midwives? Mohels? Hospitals?
      Who buys them?
      Are there any “middle men,” and if so, who are they?
      Are the foreskins sold “per foreskin” or by weight? (Do circumcisers have a financial incentive to cut off as much skin as possible?)
      Is a foreskin still marketable if it has been covered with or injected with anesthetic? (Do circumcisers have a financial incentive not to use an anesthetic?)
      Are some types of foreskin more in demand than others? (White, Black, Latino, Asian?)
      Are parents told that their baby’s foreskin will be sold? Are they asked if their baby’s foreskin may be sold?
      Who is the legal owner of a baby’s foreskin after it’s been cut off? (Who is the legal owner of a baby’s foreskin before it’s cut off?)
      Is it ethical to cut off a baby’s foreskin, charge his parents for the operation, sell his foreskin without telling his parents, and keep the money? Is it legal?
      Are the foreskins of children and adults being sold too?
      Are other parts of people’s bodies being cut off — or out — and sold without their knowledge or consent?
      If someone cuts part of another person’s body off — or out — and sells it without obtaining signed legal consent from the person cut, and the person who buys it makes money from it, who does that money rightfully belong to?
      Does Diane Sawyer know about this?”  -JAE24

Understandably, virtually everyone who has questioned any aspect of infant circumcision has become up in arms about this scandal.

“Putting a baby’s foreskin on your face might sound more suited to a Satanic ritual. … A fibroblast is a piece of skin used as a culture to grow other skin cells. Baby foreskins are young and unadulterated, untouched by free radicals and environmental toxins. Their identifying proteins haven’t fully developed. They are also used for growing skin for burn victims and diabetics with ulcers, eyelid replacement and skin graft surgeries. Foreskin fibroblasts are thought to secrete large amounts of human growth factor proteins which stimulate cell regeneration and collagen production, making the skin appear younger.” 25

Money has been rightfully dubbed “the root of all evil.” Reports of the going prices paid for freshly amputated baby foreskins, and the costs of ensuing facial treatments bear this out.

Cate Blanchet told Vogue magazine about a treatment she received at Georgia Louise, an upmarket New York salon. … She gives what we call the ‘penis facial.’ Business insider reports that the treatment costs $650 U.S. dollars and has a two year wait list. 26

Australia based InVitro Technologies sells neonatal foreskin fibroblasts online via ATCC. One milliliter costs $427 US. dollars.27, a parenting magazine and blog network that some hospitals sell foreskins to third parties and that “companies will pay thousands of dollars for a single foreskin”. 28

There is a current worldwide downward trend in the rates of circumcision, but an increasing bio-technological interest in foreskins. According to Dr. Chris Coughran (an anti-circumcision advocate) “The use of newborn baby foreskin cells in biotechnology for various purposes has been a driver of male circumcision since the early 1990’s (interview with VICE). … The commercialization of male circumcision is a much larger story than ‘skincare product X.’ It involves billions of dollars of public and private investment on a transnational, intergovernmental scale.”29

Some readers may have visions of chopped up bits of baby foreskin being mixed in with skin cream ingredients and other substances. The actual process is intricately more complicated than this. The internet is replete with detailed, scientific descriptions of exactly how cells are extracted from infant foreskins and grown into artificial skin or substances to add to skin treatments. Most of this is probably beyond the interest or understanding of most of us outside of the scientific/medical realm. The following is just one example of the descriptions available:

“Foreskins were obtained from newborn babies after circumcision and donated by parents. Foreskins were washed, minced by scissors and dissociated to single cells by trypsinization. The resulting cells were grown in a culture medium of 80% Dulbecco modified Eagle medium, no pyruvate, high glucose formulation, supplemented with either 20% fetal bovine serum or 20% human serum. Foreskin cells were split using trypsin. Feeder layers were later transferred to the human ES cell medium supplemented with 20% SR. Cells were frozen in liquid nitrogen. Human ES cell lines were initially cultured with MEF and then transferred to the foreskin lines.

“All foreskin lines tested gave rise to fibroblast-like lines which were grown and split for more than 25 consecutive passages. … No reduction in the rate of growth or the ability to support human ES growth was noted after using high-passage foreskin cells or after freeze and thaw cycles. When in culture, foreskin fibroblasts are known to grow at least 42 passages before senescence. Human ES cell lines were easily transferred to the foreskin feeders. Each transferred line continued to proliferate and maintained normal ES features.” 30

      For any who are interested in more of the the actual, scientific details of the process, the following are a few links to additional resources:


With the huge profit potential in harvested baby foreskins is it any wonder that the AAP continues to drag its feet about the “benefits versus risks” of infant circumcision? Doctors get paid for doing the procedure (usually through reimbursements from insurance companies.) More profit is made by selling foreskins to the various pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies who benefit widely from the sale of their product. Further money is earned for treating the many complications of circumcision, not to mention the plethora of sexual lubricants and erectile dysfunction medications purchased later in life as a result of lack of the natural gliding function that a foreskin affords.

More recent statements from the AAP appear to be increasingly waffling about any true medical benefits of cutting a baby’s genitals.

      “The AAPs’ task force published in 2012: ‘The health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks.’ … This formulation of the debate, ‘benefits versus risks’ rather than ‘medical necessity’ resulted in wide-ranging ramifications. … This was vigorously criticized by anti-circumcision activists as well as many primarily European physicians and medical societies. Difficulties with this approach included the lack of a universally accepted metric to accurately measure or balance the risks and benefits. …(There has been) insufficient information about the actual incidence and burden of non acute complications. … ‘The procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it,’ and later ‘health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision,’ … What was the task force really saying?

      “The health issues are only one small piece of the puzzle. In much of the world, newborn circumcision is not primarily a medical decision. Most circumcisions are done due to religious and cultural tradition. … Parents choose what they want for a wide variety of non-medical reasons. (It is usually a) non-therapeutic, only partially medical decision. … As physicians, although we claim authority in the medical realm, we have no standing to judge on these other elements. The ethical standard used was “the best interest of the child.”

      “In this setting the well-informed parent was felt to be the best proxy to pass this judgment. Protecting this option was not an idle concern at a time when there are serious efforts in both the U.S. and Europe to ban the procedure outright.

      “In circumcision, what we have is a messy immeasurable choice that we leave to the parents to process and decide.

      “To the anti-circumcision activists … educate and promote the prepuce positively, to win in the court of public opinion, and to change the culture, so as to make having a foreskin be the “popular thing to do.” 31

In my opinion, although the challenge to change public attitudes is an excellent idea, and much of our actions as intactivists include this, Freedman is passing the buck. (Or as the late Edward Wallerstein firmly announced on NBC Magazine’s television article in 1981 “The Casual Cut” – a “cop out.”)

As a seasoned childbirth educator during the 70’s and 80’s decades I have witnessed how parents and activists have struggled to make changes within the birthing scene, especially in hospitals. Parents have pleaded to have immediate access to their babies following birth, only to be forced to accept a waiting period. Mothers have begged not to be given routine episiotomies to no avail. Parents have fought to have their breastfed babies be given no supplementary water or formula. I could continue here with a long list of urgently wanted changes in how birth and infant care is handled. Change has been steady but sometimes much too slow, while hospital personnel have stubbornly fought against suggested challenges to their long established system, as if non-medical people were some sort of ignorant sub-species.

Now, as to circumcision, suddenly we’re asked to make our own choice? This may be a good idea on paper, yet we hear countless stories of parents wishing to leave their sons intact being harassed and bullied by hospital personnel during their stay. Parents have had to say no repeatedly as one nurse after another asks them about circumcision. As intactivists we have had to provide parents with infant t-shirts, wrist or leg bands and signs to attach to the baby isolettes or incubators which say “Do Not Circumcise” and “Do Not Retract Foreskin.” Sadly, some parents who have wished to leave their sons intact have been heavily pressured by doctors or other personnel until they finally agreed to it.

The medical system is challenged to take a positive, ethical stand against circumcision. Freedman has clearly stated, most of the considerations surrounding circumcision are not medical concerns, hence outside of the medical arena. No other body part is treated this way, as if slated for destruction over the slightest problem or at the whims of the adults involved. If a parent were to ask for the amputation of any other normal body part of their infant, such as chopping off his feet or hands, no sane doctor would agree and the parents would at least be slated for mental health evaluation if not imprisonment. A sane and ethical society would quickly recognize amputation of normal genital tissue from a non-consenting infant as preposterous. But endless craving for money and cultural/religious conformity blinds our sensibilities while positions of authority bloats our egos. Sadly this has serious hampered American doctors and other medical personnel – people whose role is supposed to be one of caring and service to all of humanity.

As Concerned Consumers What Can We Do?

We are often asked if there are certain products we should boycott. The facial substances and treatments derived from infant foreskins are quite expensive and appear to be primarily available at high priced salons catering to celebrities and other wealthy people. To the best of my knowledge foreskin based concoctions are not available on the shelves at ordinary drug stores or other outlets. (Hopefully this will not become an omen for products of the future.) As of now it appears that we are not harming boys by purchasing reasonably priced products or making our own recipes for facial care. At one time someone advised me that “pentapeptides” was the code word to look for in the fine print details of product ingredients. This left me dismayed as I found this word listed on various low priced skin care substances. Later, another person told me that pentapeptides can come from a variety of protein sources, so apparently these easily purchased items under suspect were now off the hook.

If we become medical patients in need of any type of skin graft, it is hoped that we or our caretakers can know of our wishes and insist that no product derived from infant foreskin be used. (Dedicated vegans make similar stipulations to avoid use of any animal sourced product when medical intervention is needed.)

The overall rates of newborn circumcision are continually dropping while commercial demand for infant foreskins continues to increase. Therefore our hope is that alternative substances can be found for their “miracle cream” and other products. Hospital maternity wards are replete with placentas and umbilical cords which are not normally needed after birth. (Use of animal based products is a separate “can of worms.” Other groups are avidly voicing their objection to this. Some have suggested use of body tissue from miscarriages, still births or neonatal deaths could be used. Undoubtedly many parents would find this objectionable. Use of fetal cells and body parts from deliberate abortions is yet another scandal, regardless of what personal circumstance or tragedy may have led any woman to the abortionist.)

As I am writing this, I am now in my 70’s. I’m a proud grandma of four beautiful grandchildren and have many memories of my sparkling days of youth. I’m now going for a “not too bad for my age” appearance. Us “70 somethings” cannot expect to look like 20 year olds. Some would say “we’ve earned our age lines.”

There are many ways to keep our skin vibrant and healthy well into our later years without spending a fortune or extracting cells from non-consenting infants. I’ve obtained many ideas from my own use and from suggestions given by friends:

  1. Abstain from smoking, especially tobacco cigarettes which are well known to contribute to aging, health hazards and skin damage.
  2. Limit sun exposure, especially in tropical environments. There are healthy and environmentally safe sunscreens available. Sun hats and loose but body covering clothing can be helpful. There are also “rash guard” types of long sleeved or long legged clothing which are specially made for swimming while protecting the body from sun damage.
  3. Follow a healthy and moderate diet. Fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and healthy grains like brown or black rice and whole wheat breads are almost always advisable (barring personal allergies.) I’ve heard from carnivore advocates who recommend copious amounts of meats, eggs and other animal based products. I’ve also heard from vegans and vegetarians who have expounded on the cruelty of animal slaughtering and the dangers of meat eating. I am not making any stand on either extreme. One can be extremely healthy and long lived without the use of animal products, but for those who choose not to be a total vegan or vegetarian, I would recommend keeping such products down to a minimum. Also we all know that sugar and other junk foods offer no nutritional value. Either abstain from them, or at least keep such things down to a minimum (which is what I do.)
  4. Over use of alcohol can exacerbate aging. Some of this may be related to the overall lifestyle and diet of a heavy drinker. Abstaining from alcohol or limiting it to occasional social events is the better choice. Most alcoholic drinks can be classified along with empty calories and junk food, although some people laud the health benefits of wine with meals.
  5. Do use ample moisturizer. There are many, inexpensive and beneficial oils and healthfully based skin products on the market that contain no human cell based products (some also have no animal products or animal cruelty used in testing.) There are also recipes available for making ones own skin moisturizers from household products or substances available from health food stores.
  6. Stay hydrated. The best substance for this is water. Drink plenty of water or other healthy liquids, especially in hot weather or when physically active.
  7. Vitamins and other nutritional supplements are purported to be of help to retaining our youth. If possible, supplements should be pure and organic. (The many that have been suggested by others have included multivitamins, vitamins C, B, D & E, calcium, collagen, turmeric, cranberry oil, fish oil and flax seed oil.)
  8. Get adequate sleep. No one looks or feels their best when overly fatigued or sleep deprived.

Skin care suggestions from others have included lemon essential oil and coconut oil (applied directly or in the bath water), essential oils such as frankincense and lavender, carrot seed oil, olive oil, tea tree oil, hemp oil, argan oil, jojoba oil, almond oil, vitamin E oil, aloe vera, red light therapy, urine therapy (!), avocados (as face cream), water cleansing, oil cleansing, barley water, banana peels, and even semen as a facial emollient. Fasting, bone broth, saunas and avoiding petro-chemical products have also been suggested.

As a final consideration: Why the fixation on youth? The progression of age only goes forward. Should age be considered shameful? Age-ism has never made sense. There is a season to every phase of life. Should wrinkled skin or graying hair be considered ugly or something to be disguised? As a child I never understood why adults acted ashamed of telling their age. (After all, the number of years we have been on this planet is beyond our control.) I vowed to myself in early childhood that when I grew up I would never hide my age. (As of this writing I am now 71 years old.) What we may have lost in energy and physical strength we gain in wisdom and the long term perspective of a life that continually changes. There are other measure of beauty besides the taut skin of youth. Those of us who have reached our senior years are experiencing a privilege that not everyone attains.

(Skin care suggestions have been provided by Mary Minshall, Douglas Pythagoria, Sandy Gerstner, Madeline Gill, Christoph Dollis, Kim Helm Kevin Hoffman, Eliza Bryan Tropez, Karl Remmen, Neely Murphy, Marla May, Daniel Rold & R. Van Den Kerkhof. )


Cut Foreskins

Cutting Foreskins

Microscopic view of foreskin cells

Microscopic view of foreskin cells

Foreskin Facials
Facial creams from foreskins
Money main focus
Evidence of Coverup
Is AAp Circ Policy a Fraud


  1. Foreskins For Sale – Fleiss, Paul M., M.D. – “Where is My Foreskin? The Case Against Circumcision” – Mothering (The Magazine of Natural Family Living) – Winter 1977, p. 39
  2. Is This the Most Disgusting Beauty Trend Yet? – Salons in New York are Using FORESKIN in their Facials … and Fans Say Treatment Gives Them ‘Beyonce Level Confidence’ – Mail on Line, April 23, 2015, Daily Mail –
  3. ibid.
  4. ibid.
  5. The Skinny On ‘Miracle’ Wrinkle Cream – E-Mail News alerts, November 2002 – – Related resource: (Discounted seller of face cream)
  6. Is Baby Foreskin The Key to Youthful Skin? – Oliver, Dana – STYLE AND BEAUTY – April 10, 2015 –
  7. A Cut Above The Rest?: Wrinkle Treatment Uses Babies’ Foreskins – Ballantine, Coco – Health – Scientific American, 2/12/09 –
  8. Report on the 1995 American Academy of Pediatrics, San Francisco Convention – DeSeabra, R. – Intact Network Newsletter, 11/1/1995
  9. Reuters, 29, May 1998
  10. NOCIRC Annual Report, Spring 1998, La Jolla, CA.
  11. Business Week, – Science and Technology, p. 118-122. – May 1988
  12. Ibid.
  13. Baby Foreskin is Being Used to Make Vaccines – Ursino, Augustina –, September 28, 2017 –
  14. Human Foreskins in Vaccines – Another Anti Vaccine Zombie Myth – The Original Skeptical Raptor, October 9, 2017 –
  15. German Scientists Grow Artificial Skin Using Cells From Babies’ Foreskins,994464
  16. New Skin Twin Life – and Look Saver – Brewer, Stephen – Longevity, Sept. 1992.
  17. Biosynthetics – Pitta, Julie – Forbes, 10, May 1992: 170-171
  18. Companies See $1.5b Market in Replacement Skin Products – Rosenberg, Ronald – The Boston Globe – October 19, 1992, p. 22-23
  19. Animal Testing Versus Human Animal Testing. The Profits of Circumcision! – from Coriell Institute for Medical Research: – Circwatch, on line source, June 3, 2016 –
  20. ibid.
  21. ibid.
  22. Meatless Mondays, Oprah Winfrey and the Humane Society of the United States – Balashinsky, David – Balablog, 8/29/2016 –
  23. ibid.
  24. Erickson, John A. – Link to Erickson’s website:
  25. Originally published on VICE AU
  26. ibid.
  27. ibid.
  28. ibid.
  29. ibid.
  30. Human Feeder Layers for Human Embryonic Stem Cells – M. Amit, V.; Margulets, H.; Segev, K.; Shariki, I.; Laevsky, R.; Coleman, J.; and Itskovitz,, Eldor – Biology of Reproduction, Volume 68, Issue 6, June 1, 2003, p. 2150-2156 –
  31. The Circumcision Debate: Beyond Benefits and Risks – Freedman, Andrew, M.D., FAAP – Pediatrics, Vol. 137, No. 5, May 2016: e20160594 –


Informational Resources$$$.html…/foreskins-in-oprahs-facecream…–261032021.html…/circumcision-who-profits…