The issue of whether metzitza is an inherent risk factor for herpes and therefore should be banned - has been debated for a while now. See previous post and its comments. The Aguda in its defense of metzitza against the NYC Department of Health cited a metastudy from the U of Penn which analyzed previously done studies and which the Aguda claimed said that no causal relationship was found between metzitza and herpes in infants. Now the U of Penn has issued a statement - bizarrely through the Forward and not directly - criticizing the use of the study which they said in fact concluded the opposite of what the Aguda said it did. They also added the study was not only not published it was not even peer reviewed and was meant purely for internal use at the U of Penn. The study was not released and not even doctors can get copies without some sort of protexia. At this point it is very unclear why the U of Penn did the study in the first place. It is highly unlikely that U of Penn was interested in knowing whether they should allow metziza in their medical facilities - so what purpose did it serve. They are not making the study available - so how did the Aguda get a copy? How could the Aguda conclude the opposite of what the U of Penn claims the study says? At this point all one can conclude from the information funneled through the Forward - is that the U of Penn is claiming that it is possible to get herpes through metzitza - a point that no one contests anyway! The only relevant question is whether metzitza done by a mohel following proper procedures causes herpes. In short the whole incident is weird, makes no sense and even smells funny. It does absolutely nothing to resolve the issue.
Update 4/16/13 Here is an Israeli study of complications in mila IMA 7:368 Ben Chaim et al 2005
Update 4/16/13 New study indicates mohel is significant source of infection
Update 4/16/13 Israeli Rabbinate's directives for metzitza
Update 4/16/13 U of Penn just sent me a copy of the report in response to a simple request for one
Update 4/16/13 Here is an Israeli study of complications in mila IMA 7:368 Ben Chaim et al 2005
Update 4/16/13 New study indicates mohel is significant source of infection
Update 4/16/13 Israeli Rabbinate's directives for metzitza
Update 4/16/13 U of Penn just sent me a copy of the report in response to a simple request for one
=============================
Forward The authors of a research report on metzitzah b’peh say their study
is being distorted by defenders of the controversial ritual circumcision
practice who claim that the procedure poses no risk of neonatal herpes
to infants.
In an April 9 press release headlined “Ivy League Study
Casts Doubt on Claims that Jewish Tradition Leads to Herpes in
Infants,” a public relations agency representing Agudath Israel of
America and several other ultra-Orthodox groups sought to debunk the
public health consensus on metzitzah b’peh, or MBP. The press
announcement claimed that a study conducted at the University of
Pennsylvania “found little evidence to support the claim that
circumcision ritual is infecting infants” with herpes simplex virus.
The announcement noted that the UPenn study was
submitted as evidence in an appeal filed by the ultra-Orthodox groups,
who are plaintiffs in a suit opposing regulation of the practice by New
York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
“We have been saying for years that the evidence attacking this
religious practice is highly dubious, and now we have world class
doctors agreeing with us.” Rabbi Gedaliah Weinberger, chairman emeritus
of the board of trustees of the Aguda, said in the press release.
But in a statement released Monday, the University of
Pennsylvania’s Center for Evidence-based Practice termed it “regrettable
that our evidence review was manipulated for purposes other than
advising physicians of important clinical risk factors for newborns.”
“The unpublished report was used without our knowledge
or consent and importantly, without proper context,” the center’s
statement said. “Further, a subsequent press release mischaracterized
our review by implying that there is no causal relationship between
circumcision performed with oral suction and the transmission of
neonatal herpes simplex virus (HSV) when the full report on the existing
evidence concluded this link does exist.” [...]