Eric Clopper

  • commented on Foregen Presents at The World Stem Cell Summit 2017-06-05 09:43:15 -0400
    Hi Jack,

    Thanks for sharing your comments. We agree that Foregen addresses a huge and obvious problem that will do well once this problem is acknowledged, but we have not reached that level of awareness yet in our culture.

    We’ve been able to make partnerships with some of the industry’s leaders in regenerative medicine – this is no small feat considering we are challenging and changing the US’s genital cutting culture. But, until we have peer-reviewed published research, which we are working on now, professional investors cannot touch us because they have their own reputations to protect and they see us as too risky.

    I encourage you to recruit the CEO of Mozilla to our management team; we would love to have him.


  • commented on Update from the Foregen Labs on our Human Tissue Experiments: August 2016 2016-09-18 13:50:59 -0400
    We love to see your guys’ support. Thank you so much for being a part of our success.

    Our next update will likely be in October, but maybe November. We are making progress towards our first publication on human tissue, so no worries there.

  • donated 2016-06-28 14:14:27 -0400

  • commented on Foregen Pitch at Draper University 2016-05-02 11:36:52 -0400
    Thanks Andreas!

  • published Supporter Outreach and Human Tissue Experiments in Blog 2016-04-11 19:46:38 -0400

    Supporter Outreach and Human Tissue Experiments


    Over the last few months, we’ve been busily working away at our plans to accelerate our progress towards the goal of regrowing foreskin through tissue regeneration. You will be pleased to know that we have everything in place and are about to start our first experiments on human tissue, a critical first step before we can move on to human clinical trials. More updates on this will follow soon.

    Additionally, we’ve started early negotiations with professional investors, with the ultimate goal of acquiring sufficient funds to form a new for-profit organization. These partnerships will bring our planned foreskin regrowth procedure to our supporters around the world and to the public at large.

    In the meantime, we’ve been conducting our biggest outreach effort to date. We’re contacting all of our existing supporters in order to figure out what we do well, what we could do better, and to directly answer any questions that you have.

    Read more

  • commented on Funding Foregen 2016-04-04 13:44:46 -0400
    To answer your question Tim, to be a “professional investor” you need to be an accredited investor, which just means you have a certain net worth and income. As an early investor, and part owner of the company, perks may come with that beyond just the potential to make a large return on your initial investment.
    Andrzej, using a donor’s extracellular matrix does not use their DNA. These ECMs will act as the scaffolding for the patient’s cells to populate. That doesn’t preclude us from exploring other options that are more amenable to mass production down the line.

  • published World Stem Cell Summit Recap in Blog 2016-03-08 16:51:31 -0500

    World Stem Cell Summit Recap

    I’ve been meaning to write a recap from the World Stem Cell Summit for quite some time now; it has been too long since my last blog post. We’ve been very busy in the interim. Personally I’ve been in Silicon Valley at an entrepreneur accelerator called Draper University building a great network for future funding opportunities. Now that I’m back working with Foregen full-time, expect far more regular updates.

    Read more

  • commented on Video Update from Chinese-American Investment Video: XTecher 2016-03-07 01:06:02 -0500
    Thanks Vincent! We’ve made a lot of progress recently. I’ll be updating the blog weekly/bi-weekly from here on out with our developments.

  • Foregen to be in the upcoming Intactivist Documentary & Crowdfunding Campaign: Pigs Without Blankets

    In the middle of last year I had reached out to the producers of a successful Kickstarter called Pigs Without Blankets. The premise of this Kickstarter was to create a PSA to describe what the foreskin actually is, i.e. a normal part of the male's sexual anatomy, in a somewhat humorous way to start a dialogue about circumcision.

    If you watch the video in this link, Kenny Shults, the star, is actually quite funny, even with such an unfunny topic. 

    Read more

  • published Foregen in San Fran and Toronto Pride in Blog 2015-07-06 09:33:11 -0400

    Foregen in San Fran and Toronto Pride

    Foregen at San Francisco Pride

    By Peter Benson Foregen_booth.jpg

    Life changing is the only way to describe our Foregen booth experience at SF PRIDE. Celebrating the recent Supreme Court victory, the city was buzzing with a vitality reinforced by the notion that anything is possible. After all, that is why Foregen is here. We seek to open doors previously sealed with permanence and give people back a greater sense of self-dignity, choice, and satisfaction. Likewise, the limitlessness derived from medical regeneration was the most consistent point of amazement for passersby, especially as it pertains to the body part most culturally synonymous with irreversibility, the Foreskin. Our task was to bring people to the booth, showing them that together we can achieve the impossible.


    Read more

  • published Damien's Story in Supporters' Stories 2015-04-12 10:35:00 -0400

    Damien's Story

    Hello everyone i would like you to get to know me a bit better. My name is Damien A Robinson, and i was circumcised as an infant, (neo-natal circumcision), So this kinda struck me one day on wondering why some of the penises i saw had skin on them, so i learned that it was called foreskin (i was 16 at the time when i discovered that) and i was wondering what it would have felt like if i had that skin, so i got upset at my parents for having it done to me, they told me it was cleaner (which is a myth) and that i wouldn’t lose any sexual pleasure (which is also not true) i noticed that my skin on my penis became very dry and not too sensitive, i was not happy at all.

    In-fact i was so upset that i lost hope getting my foreskin back since i did the research, half a year after my 18th birthday i found out about foregen though foreskin restoration and this popped up and i felt so happy that someone was trying this, All these babies that get circumcised scream and cry in agony why would you want to do this to your son? Why would you make him go through the pain that you went through aren’t you supposed to want better for him? But i guess not, here in the united states i’ve heard people say circumcision rates are falling due to awareness which is right ( i hope anyway).

    I want people to understand that it’s not for cleanliness, it’s taking away a natural thing that is supposed to occur and it should not be messed with or cut or sized down, Think of it like the heart, what happens if someone took a chunk away because they thought it would be cleaner? It wouldn’t work if you ask me.

    I hope the medical community realizes that its not some useless piece of skin, Most men here lost 20,000 Nerve endings that would make sex for the guys who were circumcised less pleasurable, without the foreskin that’s where all those issues come in. I would love to see this succeed, the more awareness means more backlash toward the procedure of circumcision. However for me, i’m still very upset that i had no choice, when i found that out i was just so angry i have no words to describe the pain. I felt like i was humiliated, i felt like a piece was missing all my life and i was right!

    I would love to thank this community and the search engine i used to have faith in something that would work for the greater good of humanity, i am honored to be on this website.

    This is my story.

  • published HBO's VICE Features Foregen in Blog 2015-04-12 10:22:20 -0400

    HBO's VICE Features Foregen

    Here's a throwback to our first major press mention written 2 months ago! We'll be collecting all of our media mentions from the past and all our future media events in the future and posting to our blog. Stay tuned for the complete list in the weeks to come. Read the rest:
    How One Company Aims to Help Circumcised Men Grow Their Foreskin Back

  • commented on Circumcision Myths 2015-03-23 21:29:10 -0400
    Thanks Derek! You’re absolutely right that the external biases of these studies, i.e. they were done in a completely foreign social landscape and thus not applicable to a N. American male, invalidates the claims that these studies can be simply mapped to a US population (I address this a little more thoroughly in the history section).
    Even if they could, it shouldn’t matter. What did the WHO do when reliable studies suggested that female circumcision may mitigate the risk of HIV contraction in 2005? They decried female circumcision as a human rights violation, they did not call for mass female circumcision initiatives. This double standard is painfully clear.

  • published History of Circumcision in The Human Foreskin 2015-03-23 09:58:42 -0400

    History of Circumcision

    Abbreviated American History of Circumcision

    In light of all the information presented by the HuFo Project and medical literature, it is fairly common for one to wonder, “If the foreskin is such an integral component of the penis, how did we end up in this mess?” Well, circumcision has a long, sordid history that extends back almost 10,000 years, but we’ll focus on the secular American timeline.


    It is important to note that circumcision has the most extensive literature for a seemingly simple medical procedure. That is because circumcision is not a medical procedure, but rather a cultural one. Many themes contributed to the introduction and then popularization of this prophylactic surgery. Although many of these were distinct justifications, they often built off of each other to amplify circumcision’s appeal.

    The Medicalization of Circumcision

    Circumcision used to be confined to just religious and tribal groups until the mid-19th century. At the time physicians believed that masturbation was not only immoral but unhealthy and caused all manner of physical and mental disease. (1) (2) To combat the evils of masturbation physicians implemented circumcision in both sexes.

    Although the introduction of male and female circumcision seems extreme today, it fit nicely into the historical context of the times. Sexuality, especially male sexuality, was seen as perverse, aggressive and a threat to the social order during the Victorian Era at the turn of the 19th century. Genital surgery was commonplace, whether it be the application of carbolic acid on the clitoris or the insertion of high-voltage electric probes in genital orifices to solve all types of promiscuity, masturbatory insanity (a medical term) being a major one. (3) (4) (5) One can see College Humor’s crude, and comical yet surprisingly accurate depiction of this time here, which is also indicative of the changing mindset in the youthful generation.

    “Evidence” to Support Circumcision

    In addition to stemming the tide of masturbation, doctors had an actual public health crisis on their hands, venereal diseases. At the turn of the century, gonorrhea and syphilis were epidemic in urban populations. Having a tentative grasp on germ theory, physicians postulated that the hardened skin on the circumcised penis was resistant to the microbes that seeped from those infected with VD. (6) To prove this hypothesis, physicians performed population studies of circumcised vs. intact men and "discovered" that circumcised men had significantly lower mortality, morbidity, and STD rates than intact men (7) (8) … the catch? The only circumcised men back then were Jewish men. What the researchers failed to realize was that they were studying the differences in Jewish and Gentile culture, NOT the effects of the presence or absence of a foreskin. Since Jews tend to occupy higher socioeconomic classes, and are often demographically more educated, and sexually more conservative, they enjoyed lower mortality, morbidity, and STD contraction rates. (9) 

    The Mark of High Class

    Lithograph Depicting Angel of Cleanliness From the 1880s onwards, America underwent a cleanliness reform where bathing regularly became a symbol of high class. (10) Simultaneously genitals were classified by default as unclean, especially normal genital secretions, to conform to the prevailing Victorian ideology. (11) Since circumcision made masturbation difficult (genitally intact males don’t need lube to masturbate), removed the presence of smegma (healthy genital secretions all male and female mammals produce), and blunted sexual pleasure (6) it was welcome in sexually repressed 19th century America.

    In the final decade of the 19th century, millions of Europeans began immigrating to the US. Xenophobia was rampant and immigrants were largely classified as unclean; the foreskin becoming the physical symbol of neglect and low-class. (9) Circumcision was seen as a status symbol, confined to the upper-class, to distinguish oneself and one’s offspring from the filth represented by the immigrant population. (12)

    Conflation of Religion and Medicine

    During the institutionalization of circumcision in the US, medical journals relied more on theological and moral tenants rather than scientifically sound studies or ethics. As public opinion started favoring this surgery, many physicians seized the opportunity to bridge the gap between their religious and scientific beliefs. This phenomenon is readily observed in the medical literature, with common sentiments expressed to “follow in the footsteps of Moses” (13) or to follow “Abraham and his contemporaries’ demonstrated knowledge of hygiene.” (14) This religious rhetoric continued throughout the 20th century, especially from some of the more vehement promoters. Abraham Ravich, the man responsible for popularizing the thoroughly discredited carcinogenic smegma, cervical, and prostate cancer myths (15) compared his observations in Brooklyn to that of Moses’ as he poured over Biblical papyri to perform complex epidemiological studies to assess the risk factors of having a foreskin in ancient Egypt. (16)

    Although it may not be surprising that such gross negligence was published in “scientific” journals in a pre-Civil Rights America, this religious rhetoric in secular medical journals still existed as late as the 90s, i.e. when many millennials were born! Gerald N. Weiss, one of the most ardent foreskin fighters of our time, published in two highly respected journals, Clinical Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, articles where he performs biblical exegesis, speculates about biblical characters’ sex lives, and cites religious philosopher’s and Freud’s arguments that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure which was beneficial as it “promoted self-control of the organ” to justify this procedure! (17) (18) Why did these ridiculous assertions end up in respected medical journals? Because many of the peer-editors were elderly, white, circumcised males whose paradigm of the world includes a circumcised penis being a normal one.

    Circumcision Scales Up

    In 1900 less than 5% of all childbirths occurred in a hospital. By 1960 almost all childbirths did. (19) As the number of hospital childbirths scaled up so did the rate of circumcision being about 30% in 1910 to almost 90% throughout the 70s and 80s.[1]  Circumcision became a routine way to process newborn males. How did such an invasive and unnecessary surgery catch on in 20th century America? As explained previously, there are various reasons, but complete ignorance of normal penile development, combined with financial incentives and press complicity allowed this procedure to take hold of our nation.

    Systemic Ignorance of Natural Penile Anatomy and Physiology

    The foreskin has been largely ignored throughout the study of the human body leading to common myths such as “the foreskin is a vestigial flap of skin” or “it’s nothing but a dangerous and dirty appendage.” Many doctors throughout the first half of the 20th century actually diagnosed every man, child, and baby with phimosis! (20) (21) Phimosis in the adult male is a rare treatable condition where the foreskin doesn’t retract. Phimosis does not exist in children since the foreskin is supposed to be fused to the glans until puberty when humans are programmed to reproduce and need to expose that part of their body.[2] Because of their ignorance, doctors were and many continue to diagnose children with a condition they don’t have, to perform a surgery they don’t need, to get money they don’t deserve.

    Historically it has been known that the foreskin is an important source of pleasure, which is why it was amputated! (22) (23) (24). But, as the American medical field began finding all types of miracle cures by way of circumcision, from paralysis to epilepsy, from hernias to cancer, it was forgotten that the foreskin was an important source of sexual sensation. Even if it was, doctors’ primary concern was medical diagnosis and treatment, not healthy sexuality. Consequently, arguments that circumcision damaged natural sexual physiology and sensation were deemed unimportant.

    In 1996, when Dr. John R. Taylor classified the foreskin as primary erogenous tissue, not to be discarded but respected in its own right (25) [3], public opinion about healthy sexuality was changing as well. Recognizing the importance of natural form, function, and feeling, not to mention the right to bodily integrity, Canada and Australia’s pediatric societies’ rightfully condemned circumcision as an unnecessary and invasive violation of the child’s rights. (26) (27)

    Even today, many American physicians remain completely ignorant of the foreskin’s highly erogenous properties and role in natural sexual function. Most practicing urologists were born in the age of mass circumcision, grew up with circumcised peers, and studied from textbooks that omitted the foreskin without explanation or mentioned it as an afterthought. (28) (29) Only having crude exposure to the foreskin at best, American physicians are some of the least qualified doctors, let alone people in the world to provide advice on circumcision.

    Financial Incentives to Continue Circumcision

    Circumcision is a lucrative business. For a relatively simple and low-risk surgery that takes anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes, the circumciser pockets a few hundred dollars, the hospital pockets closer to a thousand dollars, and then more money is made off of the sale of the neonatal tissue to research and cosmetic companies. (30) (31) (32) To give you a sense of scale of the compulsory tissue harvesting industry in America, it’s on the order of 1-2 billion dollars a year! (33) (34) [4]  So the question to ask yourself is, “Would the American-medical complex compromise its ethical integrity to avoid blame of past wrong-doing while making a killing?” (No pun intended although some estimates exceed 100 mortalities in the US every year from surgical complications or infections from this elective surgery) (35)

    Press Complicity

    Throughout the 20th century to current day, American press has been markedly pro-circumcision and primarily responsible for the widespread misinformation surrounding the foreskin and its removal. Indeed, whenever a new justification for circumcision was “discovered” the mainstream press jumped at the opportunity to document it.

    In 1942, when Abraham Ravich published his findings that the (non-existent) carcinogenic properties of preputial secretions infect every body part it came in contact with cancer, primarily penile, prostate, and cervical cancer (36), Newsweek lauded Ravich’s “discoveries” claiming his work may “indirectly shed light on the cause of all cancer.” (37) (my emphasis)

    In 1954, when disciplined researcher Ernst Wydner published his findings that “marital status, number of sexual partners, partner’s circumcision status, socioeconomic class, etc.” may increase risk of cervical cancer (38), Times egregiously misrepresented his research stating “circumcision is an important factor in reducing cervix cancer in years to come,” (39) thus effectively giving women a stake in the circumcision decision. Surprisingly, Times did not retract their unabashed endorsement of circumcision when Wydner himself discredited his 1954 study stating that he cannot conclude circumcision’s preventative effect since people were unable to correctly identify their personal or their partner’s circumcision status. (40) A mistake still prevalent today, considering only 2/3 of adolescents can even correctly identify whether they have a human foreskin or not. (41)

    Although these historical examples may seem extreme, they are only amplified with time.

    In 1986, vehement pro-circumciser, Aaron Fink, whose previous justifications for circumcision ranged from prevention of streptococcus disease (42) to preventing sand in foreskins that debilitate a solders’ effectiveness in war (43), created a novel new justification: prevention of HIV. Fink erroneously asserted that genitally intact sex is more liable to induce bleeding and thus increases HIV infection risk in heterosexual males. (44) Although he conceded he had no evidence at the time, the press liked his hypothesis and immediately gave Fink coverage to spread his dogma. (45)

    Since Fink proposed circumcision prevented heterosexual HIV contraction at a time when there was conveniently no heterosexual HIV population to study in the US, studies were shifted to Africa. Not only are the African studies outrageously biased (as explained here), but even if they weren’t they’re completely irrelevant in the US. An elementary epidemiologist can identify the overwhelming external bias in these studies, i.e. HIV is spread in a complex social and cultural manner. The vectors of disease in sub-Saharan Africa cannot simply be mapped to a North American population. (46) Especially when the incidence of HIV in Africa is many dozens of times higher and where it is spread mostly through heterosexual sex where other VDs and foreign sexual practices are rampant; this population is not comparable to a primarily homosexual North American population that shares almost nothing in common in the way of sexual practices or the subsequent disease transmission.

    Let us not forget, that HIV studies, like all circumcision studies go both ways, i.e. “prove” that it mitigates or has no effect on the contraction of HIV. The press, however, primarily promotes three studies, all showing circumcision’s prophylactic effect, all conducted in much the same way, and all ended early because they were “too effective”[5] . (47) (48) (49) Studies invalidating this belief enjoyed a virtual media blackout. (50) (51) (52) (53) Not only is this cherry-picking of studies intellectually dishonest, it is important to recognize who conducted these studies. Many of the lead researchers had been promoting circumcision for years (Bertran Auvert, Robert C. Bailey, Stephen Moses, Ronald H. Gray) and the funders of these studies are government institutions, some of the same organizations who have historically promoted circumcision and have a vested interest in continuing to avoid blame for wrong-doing and justifying their own cultural biases: NIAD, HHS[6] , NIH, WHO. Don’t worry though, all three studies assure us “We declare that we have no conflict of interest.”

    Now why would the American press have such a vested interest in misrepresenting circumcision literature to shape public opinion in favor of it? We can only speculate, but the observation that most media outlets are headed by elderly, white men is probably significant in that they would like to normalize their cultural bias and personal circumcision status as well as avoid placing blame on their complicit government entities.

    Circumcision Today & The HuFo Project

    As the press laments the falling circumcision rates in America, rates continue to drop. (54) (55) (56) (57) It is promising that parents can find accurate information on the human foreskin and its role in natural sexuality online. It is Foregen’s hope that HUFO not only devastates the rate of neonatal circumcision in America, by revealing its true cost, but also inspires men to reclaim what they have lost. Although it is much easier to protect one’s ego and find a group of men who have convinced themselves that their foreskin has no effect on their sex life, HUFO viscerally demonstrates otherwise. To give men a sense of what is lost with circumcision, beyond just the physical loss of HUFO, studies have shown that the most erogenous parts of a genitally intact male are the ridged band, the frenulum, and the inner mucosa. The most erogenous part on a circumcised man, which ranked less sensitive than the least sensitive part on the genitally intact, was the circumcision scar, i.e. the most sensitive part of the circumcised man is the scar line where his G-spot along with the rest of his HUFO has been amputated. (58) This is dark; this is not news we enjoy breaking. You’re welcome to align your views with the popular narrative and convince yourself that amputating HUFO has no effect on sexual pleasure, (59) but the evidence to the contrary is right in front of you.


    Click Above to See Foregen's Kickstarter: HUFO - The Missing Piece




    [1] Exact historical rates of circumcision are unavailable as many hospitals did not accurately report on what they deemed a minor and unimportant surgery.

    [2] Doctors still diagnose children with phimosis. Most famously the recent FL case of estranged parents fighting over the circumcision for their 4 year old (who expressly said he does not want to be circumcised). The doctor diagnosed the child with phimosis, an impossible diagnosis for a 4 year-old – thus providing a perfect current-day example of the absolute ignorance of the foreskin that still exists in medicine today.

    [3] Notice this groundbreaking study was published in the British Journal of Urology, even though his findings are far more relevant to a US audience. This was likely out of necessity rather than choice.

    [4] Although more contemporary studies are difficult to find (since the compulsory tissue harvesting industry seems to be of little interest to academics), the number of circumcisions is roughly the same as when these studies were done. Due to rising medical costs, it is likely that the costs of circumcision are greater to the taxpayer and more lucrative to hospitals and circumcisers than stated above.

    [5] Since a man is unable to have sex for months post-circumcision, he cannot contract the disease. Terminating the studies early drastically biases these studies towards the intended conclusion.

    [6] CDC is a division of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS)


    1. The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Therapeutic Measure. . Montefiore, Moses J. 1871, New York Medical Journal, pp. 368-374.

    2. Kellogg, John Harvey. Treatment for self-abuse and its effects. 1888.

    3. Nervous Diseases Connected with Male Genital Function. Beard, G. M. 1882, Medical Record (New York), pp. 617-621.

    4. Scull, Andrew and Favrean, Diane. 'A Chance to Cut Is a Chance to Cure': Sexual Surgery for Psychosis in Three Nineteeth Century Societies. 1986.

    5. Money, A. Treatment of Disease in Children. Philadelphia : s.n., 1887.

    6. Remondino, Peter Charles. History of Circumcision. 1891.

    7. Vital Statistics of the Jews. Billings, J. S. 1891, North American Review, pp. 70-84.

    8. Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure. Wolbarst, Abraham L. 1914, Journal of the American Medical Association, pp. 92-97.

    9. Gollaher, David L. Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York, NY : Basic Books, 2001.

    10. Bushman, R.L. and Bushman, C.L. The Early History of Cleanliness in America. 1988.

    11. A Practical Suggestion in Regard to the Technique of the Operation of Circumcision. Brown, J. Y. 1890, Medical Mirror (St. Louis).

    12. Tonsillectomy and Circumcision: Comparisons of Two Cohorts. Calnan, M., Douglas, J. W. and Goldstein, H. 1978, International Journal of Epidemiology, pp. 78-85.

    13. Circumcision. Williams, A. U. 1889, Medical Standard (Chicago).

    14. A Plea for Circumcision. Lehman, Mark J. 1893, Medical Review, pp. 64-65.

    15. Prophylaxis of Cancer of the Prostate, Penis, and Cervix by Circumcision. Ravich, Abraham L. and Ravich, R.A. 1951, New York State Journal of Medicine, pp. 519-520.

    16. Ravich, Abraham L. Preventing V.D. and cancer by circumcision. New York : Philosophical Library, 1973.

    17. A Perspective on Controversies over Neonatal Circumcision. Weiss, Gerald N. 1994, Clinical Pediatrics, pp. 726-30.

    18. Prophylactic Neonatal Surgery and Infectious Diseases. Weiss, Gerald N. 1997, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, pp. 727-34.

    19. Wertz, Richard E. and Wertz, Dorothy C. Lying-In: A History of Childbirth in America. New Haven : Yale University Press, 1989.

    20. Immediate circumcision of the newborn male. Miller, R L. and Snyder, D. C. 1953, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, pp. 1-11.

    21. Some practical aspects of circumcision. Gerber, M. L. 1944, US Naval Med Bull, pp. 1147-9.

    22. Philo. The Special Laws (Translated to English 1937). ~25 AD.

    23. Maimonides, Moses. The Guide of the Perplexed. 1190.

    24. On the Advantages of Circumcision. Hutchinson, Jonathan. 1900, Medical News, pp. 707-08.

    25. The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Taylor, J. R., Lockwood, A. P. and Taylor, A. J. 1996, British Journal of Urology, pp. 291-95.

    26. Australian College of Paediatrics. Position Statement: Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and Boys. Parkville, Victoria : s.n., 1996.

    27. Canadian Paediatric Society; Fetus and Newborn Committee. Neonatal circumcision revisited. 1996.

    28. Smith's Urology. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1963, 1975, 1981, 1992, 1995, 2004.

    29. Campbell-Walsh Urology. Philadelphia : Elsevier, 1954, 1963, 1970, 1978, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2002, 2007.

    30. Fletcher, CR. Circumcision in America in 1998: attitudes, beliefs, and charges of American physicians. 1998.

    31. A cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision. Van Howe, R.S. 2004, Medical Decision Making, pp. 584-601.

    32. Circumcision Cost. CostHelper. [Online] 2012.

    33. Pitta, J. Biosynthetics. Forbes. May 10, 1993, pp. 170-1.

    34. Infant Circumcision: The debate over parents' rights, human rights and the right to choose. Fauntleroy, G. 2001, The New Mexican.

    35. Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths. Bollinger, Dan. 2010, THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, pp. 78-90.

    36. The Relationship of Circumcision to Cancer of the Prostrate. Ravich, Abraham L. 1942, Journal of Urology, pp. 298-99.

    37. Newsweek. June 28, 1943, p. 110.

    38. A Study of Environmental Factors in Carcinoma of the Cervix. Wydner, Ernst. 1954, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, pp. 1016-52.

    39. Circumcision and Cancer. TIME. April 5, 1954, pp. 96-98.

    40. Statistical Considerations on Circumcision and Cervical Cancer. Wydner, Ernst. 1960, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, pp. 1026-30.

    41. Self-assessment of circumcision status by adolescents. Risser, J. M., et al. 2004, American Journal of Epidemiology, pp. 1095-97.

    42. Is hygiene enough? Circumcision as a possible strategy to prevent neonatal group B streptococcal disease. Fink, Aaron J. 1988, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, pp. 534-5.

    43. Circumcision and Sand. Fink, Aaron J. 1991, Royal Society of Medicine, p. 696.

    44. A Possible Explanation for Heterosexual Male Infection with AIDS. Fink, Aaron J. 1986, New England Journal of Medicine, p. 1167.

    45. Glick, Leonard. Marked In Your Flesh. New York : Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 207.

    46. Do the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks? A critique of the proposed CDC guidelines. Earp, Brian. 2015, Frontiers in Pediatrics.

    47. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. Auvert, B., et al. 2005, PLoS Med.

    48. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Bailey, R.C., et al. 2007, Lancet, pp. 643-56.

    49. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Gray, R. H., et al. 2007, Lancet, pp. 657-66.

    50. Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Van Howe, R. S. 1999, International Journal of STD C& AIDS, pp. 8-16.

    51. Circumcision for HIV Prevention: Failure to Fully Account for Behavioral Risk Compensation. Kalichman, Seth, Eaton, Lisa and Pinkerton, Steven. 2007, PLoS Medicine.

    52. Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalised HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa. Garenne, Michel. 2008, African Journal of AIDS Research, pp. 1-8.

    53. Male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection in South Africa: Results of a national survey in 2002. Connolly, Catherine, et al. 2008, South African Journal of Medicine.

    54. Firger, Jessica. Circumcision rates declining in U.S., study says. CBS News. [Online] April 2, 2014.

    55. Carroll, Linda. Circumcision Rate Falls Despite Health Risks. NBC News. [Online] April 2, 2014.

    56. Sifferlin, Alexandra. If Circumcision Rates Keep Falling, Health Costs and Infections WIll Spike. TIME. [Online] August 21, 2012.

    57. Study: As circumcision rates drop, costs increase. FOX NEWS. [Online] August 21, 2012.

    58. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. Sorrells, Morris L., et al. 2007, BJU International, pp. 864-869.

    59. Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sensitivity, or Satisfaction?—A Systematic Review. Morris, Brian J. and Krieger, John N. 2013, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, pp. 2644-2657.




  • Foregen President, Vincenzo Aiello, shares recent progress and announces KickStarter!

    Foregen president, Vincenzo Aiello, gives a recap of Foregen's huge progress in 2014, touches on some of our large developments in 2015, and reveals his upcoming KickStarter! Click below to find out more:

    Enzo's February 2015 Foregen Update

  • donated 2015-01-15 13:12:36 -0500

    Donate with PayPal

    In order for us to continue research full-time to produce a regenerative therapy for circumcised males, we will need to spend about $20,000 per month for the foreseeable future.

    Here you can send a single, one-time donation to Foregen, Inc. Simply select your contribution amount on the right and the form will guide you.

    Donations made on this page do not count towards our monthly quota as this is a one-time donation. We encourage that you become a monthly donor (click here) to help us move the bar and get one step closer to becoming a full-time research organization.

    Thank you.

    We are a US registered 501(c)3, your contributions are tax deductible.



  • published Michael's Story in Supporters' Stories 2015-01-12 20:52:21 -0500

    Michael's Story

    Foreskin regeneration gives me an opportunity to be uncut again. At age 13 and 9m, I was scheduled to be circumcised. I remember going online, and seeing the ramifications and what things could be excised following circumcision, but my father assured me that it was just a piece of skin. I believed him and got it done with ambivalence. When I no longer felt the pleasure, and the series of burning pains after my head would be abraded with my underwear, I noticed what a big mistake I had just made. I have my faith in these people that foreskin regeneration can become a reality, and that others who've missed out because it was done way early on or unfortunate ones like me who fell for the bait, could have a chance to gain foreskin once more

  • wants to volunteer 2015-01-12 10:12:05 -0500


    Become a Volunteer!

    As we expand, were always looking for skilled and dedicated members to recruit to our workforce. If you are a doctor, an artist, a lawyer, or most importantly have a passion for the cause and want to be boots on the ground at future Foregen events, please drop us a line in the volunteer box with the skills you'd like to volunteer and we'll do our best to find you a place!

    Interested in Helping the Cause? Signup Below:

    Become a volunteer

  • signed up on Human Clinical Trials 2015-01-12 13:46:35 -0500

    Participate in Clinical Trials

    Human Clinical Trial

    Hand raised

    Foregen's major objective is to fund a clinical trial of foreskin regeneration in the circumcised adult male.

    The Background

    Medical research has made true dermal regeneration possible to a greater extent than ever before (for more on the science side of things, see our page on The Science of Regeneration). However, foreskin regeneration has not yet been tried, despite our knowledge that foreskin fibroblasts respond extremely well to regenerative technologies which create new skin. Foregen believes that it is time such a trial was undertaken.

    What kind of trial?

    Foregen will conduct a trial to reattach regenerated foreskins to circumcised adult males to restore the vascularity, nerve endings, and function that are excised during circumcision.

    How will we get there?

    Foregen's road map towards our ultimate goal of male foreskin regeneration is as follows:

    1. We will raise funds
    2. We will use our scientific panel to find the facility and recruit the researchers who are most likely to perform research which will lead to a clinical trial
    3. We will complete any necessary laboratory and pilot research and publish these results in a peer-reviewed journal
    4. Finally, we will carry out a clinical trial

    We are currently on step 3 of our journey

    Step 3 consists of fully regenerating animal foreskins and then conducting the same experiments on human foreskin. These results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Of course, this road map is a simplification. There are complexities and uncertainties in such a trial as there are in any clinical trial that pioneers something new. Foregen cannot guarantee the final outcome or predict unforeseen obstacles that may fall in our way. However, Foregen recognizes the need for such a trial. We know how much success dermal regeneration has had in other areas, so we have good reason to believe that it will succeed in ours. While the outcome is not, and cannot, be certain, it is clear that we must try.

    Interested in Participating? Read below...

    The trials will be controlled and have the proper governmental approval. The trials will not be conducted by Foregen personnel, but rather by medical professionals adhering to the highest ethical standards of practice and research.

    Currently we are actively recruiting trial participants who are:

    • Males over the age of 18
    • Circumcised, but not otherwise suffering from other health problems

    A clinical trial is estimated to take up to eight weeks, though not all of that period will be spent under medical supervision.  If you satisfy the above requirements and are interested in volunteering for this trial, we would be happy to hear from you. All medical care will be provided free of charge and you will be able to withdraw from the trial at any stage.

    Volunteering for this clinical trial makes you eligible to benefit first from the most advanced medical technologies available for foreskin regeneration.  However, such participation, like all medical procedures, carries some risk. The medical professionals conducting the trial will discuss with you the full range of options, possibilities, and dangers in order to assess your suitability for a trial. They will also, of course, need to obtain your full informed consent to participate in the trial.
    Any person who indicates an interest is not under any obligation if you lose interest, you will be removed from our list of potential participants upon request. (But we don’t think you’ll want to!) 

    Still Interested? Create an account and signup below!

    * Please note, this does not enroll you in future clinical trials, it simply ensures you receive relavent information regarding those trials as it becomes available.

    Sign up

  • published Randy in Supporters' Stories 2015-01-02 22:38:42 -0500

    Randy's Story

    Being born in 1958 I was circumcised at birth, my father being born in the 30's was uncut. As a child, seeing my fathers penis fully covered and then others my age fully exposed it naturally occurred to me that the difference was a matter of growth. Yes, as a child I thought that the skin would naturally grow to cover my head so that my penis would eventually look just like my dads. With age came the shock and disappointment I still experience today.

Featured Publications

  • The Good Men Project
  • Motherboard at
  • Men's Health
  • The Telegraph
  • Towleroad

Translate Site

Contact Us

PO Box 255024
551 Columbia Rd
Dorchester, MA 02125
Circumcision penis foreskin
Foregen Italy
Via campi flegrei 59,
00141 Rome, Italy