@sleepless4201 wow, your intelligence and maturity are overwhelming...not sure what me getting laid has to do with anything, but judging by the fact that i have conceived 4 children...hmm...
@WHIREAS You should thank them. Plenty of women think it is cleaner and looks better :) Plus almost all of the sensitive nerve endings are in the head of the penis, not extra skin.
@sleepless4201 Incorrect. There are 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin, far more than in the glans. The foreskin is not "extra skin" but serves an indisputable purpose during sex. Your opinions are no substitute for actual facts.
@sleepless4201 The original intent behind circumcision was to reduce sexual pleasure. That is the anthropological consensus.
cleanliness may have been a valid reason at one point, but this is the twenty-first century. We have easy and cheap access to warm water and soap. It's not difficult at all to keep a foreskin clean. It makes no sense to cut off a body part when it can easily be washed.
@Mystoksor The foreskin interferes with the pleasure during sex because it COVERS the glans. Either way women and men have their own preferences when it comes to this subject. Whats worse is I have A WOMAN below trying telling me how MY penis operates.
@sleepless4201 That woman knows more about sex than you do. The foreskin covering the glans does not interfere with sex. The foreskin keeps the glans sensitive. Without foreskin, the glans becomes dried, cracked, and less sensitive. The foreskin is also meant to be mobile during sex, which provides pleasure for both partners. It's depressing how many people are oblivious to the functions of the intact penis.
@Mystoksor Its also depressing we have a cab driver for president running our country into the dirt. I get plenty of pleasure from sex and I don't need someone telling me they are depressed for my penis. Dry and cracked? I don't know who you have had in bed lately but be careful with that.
@sleepless4201 You've been circumcised all your life. You don't know any better. I was circumcised as a teenager. The sensitivity drop is immense. You can still feel pleasure from sex, but it's nowhere near as much.
@Mystoksor See, if you would have had it done as a baby you wouldn't have had complications later in life. Its like our wisdom teeth, we just don't need it anymore.
@Mystoksor Also, women like a dude who can last in bed for more than 5 minutes. So the lowered sensitivity can actually come in handy in that aspect. All the women I have known prefer cut men, maybe that is why.
@sleepless4201 what happened is not a complication. Every single circumcised man has reduced sexual sensitivity and pleasure. There is also no evidence that circumcision gives you any more lasting power. Prematurity occurs at the same rate for both circumcised and intact men
@Mystoksor With circumcission you have far less chaces of getting infected such as protection from urinatary infection, genital herpes, HIV and many more
Research has shown that half of uncircumcised men will catch one or more infection because of their foreskin during there lifetime
So basically getting circumcised is all about being safe. and nothing is wrong with that.
I'm not making this up this is actually research done by doctors and i can send you links if you want to know more
@324582782 I'm familiar with the claims you're referring to, and they simply are not compelling. Why do you think it makes sense to amputate tissue to prevent infection? We haven't done that since the Civil War. It only makes sense to circumcise if the foreskin has developed a tumor and gangrene. HIV prevention has only been professed by two studies, neither of which have any field research to back up their claims. The epidemiology of HIV is too complex to study its transmission in that manner.
@Mystoksor are you serious? some these infection chances are 2 out of 1000 which is alot, No it does not make sese to only cut the foreskin when you are infected cuz then it can be too late and why put yourself in danger?
I dont know what you mean by there isnt any research, I can send you links and those researches are from different doctors.
@324582782 You're not too bright, are you? 1/500 is a seriously low rate of infection, much lower than the rate of serious complications resulting from circumcision itself. Infections are easily treated with antibiotics; have you forgotten what century we live in? Do you realize how rare it is to die of infection? Furthermore, females contract UTIs with much more frequency than males, but surgical alteration of any girl under the age of 18 is illegal in 94% of jurisdictions in the entire world.
@Mystoksor Yes it is indeed between 100 to 200 NOT 300. I can give you the links if you want?
i really don't agree with you that 1/500 is a low rate it is infact a high rate.
They can or cant be cured is another debate but why take the risk? I mean seriously if you can just save yourself from infections its good. Then we shouldn't take the flue shot either or take other kinds of vaccine cuz chances of catching them are pretty much same.
@Mystoksor Exactly thats my point you live in America so you should be more in favor of circumcision. Calling me not bright just shows that you lack in statistics department
And more and more studies are in fact proving that uncircumcision increases the chance of getting HIV. There has not only been 2 studies but infact are more.
And soon i believe that it'll be proven with enough information to back it up.
@324582782 Even if it's 100-200, all of those deaths could be avoided if doctors would stop performing non-essential genital surgery on infants. Compared to the >1% complication rate of circumcision, 1/500 aren't bad ods. Need I remind you that just about every infection you're talking about can be easily cured? Your vaccination argument is a straw-man; vaccination is a hallmark of modern medicine that increases longevity. Circumcision is an archaic practice we should have abandoned long ago.
@324582782 I should be in favor of circumcision because I live in America? What are you talking about?
There is no proof of circumcision preventing AIDS. There are other lab trials done in the same countries that conclude circumcision increases the rate of HIV transmission. I don't put any stock in either conclusion because none of the studies observe the spread of AIDS in a population, which is the only way to draw any meaningful conclusion regarding any alleged prophylaxis.
@Mystoksor ya 1/500 is for alot of infection related to foreskin so its alot more if you take all the infections so Yes they are alot more and the deaths you are talking about can be reduced by professionals. basically you are telling me that chances are not high which i don't agree with.
@324582782 Do you have any understanding of the scientific process? Three studies cannot prove anything. All they can do is disprove a hypothesis or say it was upheld. The researchers who conducted these studies cherry-picked their sample spaces and terminated the studies as soon as they had data, claiming it was inhumane not to offer circumcision to all the men in the trials. These researchers violated hypothesis-based science.
@324582782 Sorry, youtube keeps preventing me from posting. Can you account for why the countries with the highest rate of circumcision have the highest rates of HIV?
look at all the muslim countries, they all circumcise and have the lowest rate of hiv
plus do you know that countries like zimbabwe, zambia, swaziland who don't circumcise and there countries have started the policy of circumcising all men because through their research they found out that circumcision lowers the chances of getting hiv by as high as 60% percent, I am messaging you the links in your email so you know!
@324582782 What about the United States? 90% of adults in 1980 were circumcised, but America was hit the hardest by the HIV epidemic in the 20th century. Western Europe is almost completely intact, but HIV is practically a non-issue in those countries. You're failing to mention that circumcision has only been suggested to prevent HIV transmission in heterosexual intercourse from women to men. That is one of the least common methods of HIV transmission.
@324582782 Do you know what the chance of HIV transmission from a positive female to an uninfected uncircumcised male? 2.4%. Circumcision can only reduce that to 1.6%. That technically reduces your chances to about 60% of what they are without a circumcision, but female-to-male transmission is already uncommon. Is it really worth it to spend hundreds of billions of dollars circumcising men? There are better ways to spend that money fighting AIDS and improving quality of life in those countries.
@324582782 It's not at all "huge". 2.4% to 1.6% is insignificant. Parallel studies to the ones showing that circumcision would reduce circumcision show that soap and water reduce HIV transmission to the exact same degree. Remember: condoms reduce HIV by 100%. We are not providing Africans with food, water, medication, housing, education, infrastructure or employment. How does it make sense to spend billions circumcising them when we can't or refuse to provide them with basic humanitarian aid?
@Mystoksor yes it is huge, again i dont agree with you, and it will save hundred of thousand of people. so yes it makes a diff regardless of what you say
@324582782 The only effect circumcision will have on AIDS in Africa will be to increase its prevalence thanks to the claims of idiots like you that a 0.8% reduction in transmission rate qualifies as a miracle prophylaxis. The money it will take to circumcise hundreds of millions of men could be spent on developing the region, which will do more for quality of life than circumcision ever could.
@Mystoksor you do realise that some of these countries have hiv rate as high as 20 %. Even 60% would lower the HIV rate greatly. I do understand that Africa needs all kind of support but that does not mean that we should leave out the HIV effects. Circumcision is the best way to deal with this problem and research has shown that it will help reduce HIV rate by 3% which is HUGE
I don't know why ur calling me an idiot when all statistics are in favor of circumcision. Cant do anything about ur ego
@324582782 Once again, HIV is rarely transmitted from women to men, which is the only avenue of transmission that circumcision can apparently block. Over 60% of the HIV-positive heterosexual community is women; circumcision does nothing to protect them. It does not stop transmission by blood transfusion, by gay sex, or by breast feeding. If you're serious about stopping AIDS, why not remove every mucous membrane in the body? That would be the only effective surgery, but even that's not 100%.
@324582782 I have no idea what you're talking about there. Like I said, girls' genitals become infected at a much higher rate, but it is illegal to perform any alterations of female genitalia if the patient is younger than 18. Most girls develop a UTI or similar infection at some time in their life. How does the possible avoidance of a mild infection warrant serious genital surgery? The only reason doctors continue to perform circumcision is that it earns them upwards of $1 billion each year.
@324582782 As for AIDS, I didn't say there was no research. What I said was there was no FIELD research. If you're studying HIV on the molecular level, then the lab is the appropriate place to conduct your research. When studying how AIDS spreads throughout a given population, data from the laboratory is largely irrelevant. Studying the effects of circumcision on HIV transmission necessitates field data collection, which neither of the studies you're citing performed.
@Mystoksor I dunno about that i may have to do some research on hiv but your really missing the point here, There are tons of other infection circumcision saves you from.
@324582782 And most of those infections are minor ones that can easily be treated with antibiotics. That's what we do with infection. Cutting off healthy, erogenous tissue from someone's genitals in case they may develop an infection one day is absurd.
@324582782 The rate at which people die from infection of the foreskin is less than the rate who die of circumcision. Each year in the United States alone, 300 boys die as a result of circumcision, either from blood loss, infection of the open wound, anesthesia overdose, or neurogenic shock. There is not a single medical organization in the world that recognizes circumcision as an effective prophylaxis against any known disease. Cutting genitals to prevent infection is a ridiculous concept.
@Mystoksor Its not 300, It's somewhere around 150. Circumcision by professional's is very safe and not dangerous at all, Infact there are more boys who die from infection that could have been avoided by circumcision.
@324582782 The so-called professionals will only admit to 150 per year; the actual number is more like 300. They attribute the deaths to some congenital defect, but the fact is those boys would still be alive today if they were left intact. And exactly what infections are you referring to? Do you realize that 99% of infections are quite minor and are remedied with cheap antibiotics? Do you realize that girls contract genital infections more than twice the rate at which males do?
@324582782 With funding to Africa so limited, how does it make sense to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on circumcising men? Do you have any idea how immense and difficult an undertaking that would be? There is no scientific organization that calls circumcision the best method of HIV prevention, that is simply your fantasy. Your 60% claim is only 0.8% and as I have repeatedly said it only blocks one rare avenue of HIV transmission. It simply is not cost-effective.
@324582782 I am telling you what the studies you are citing as your sole base of evidence found. The intact male's chance of contracting HIV in vaginal intercourse with an infected partner is 2.4%. A circumcised man's chances are 1.6%. Even if circumcision reduces HIV in a laboratory, that is not the site to study the complexity of AIDS epidemiology. There is simply no sociological or demographic data to support your spurious claims that circumcision will reduce AIDS in these populations.
@324582782 All you need is a class in high school-level biology to know that research is rarely objective and scientists are prone to perform experiments custom designed to validate their hypothesis. Your belief in the pure objectivity behind these studies is simply naive. The only data on circumcision and HIV prevention is from three laboratory studies in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. No corresponding population studies exist to validate the hypothesis.
@Mystoksor that is your opinion. These test were random and obviously focused on countries where HIV rate is high and there studies are also explaining why is that so.
@324582782 You're saying the rate of circumcision is high because they were not circumcised? It's because of inferior infrastructure and social services. Western Europe is less than 5% circumcised but HIV is a non-issue. How can you explain that?
You might be interested to know that legitimate population studies from USAID and the International AIDS society found zero correlation between circumcision and HIV reduction. In 10 out of 18 countries, circumcised men had a higher incidence of HIV.
@Mystoksor International Aids society research does not hold any value because its not a randomized controlled test.
No one knows what caused such a high rate of HIV in those countries but one thing is proven that circumcision will reduce it and the same law will apply for other countries around the world as well.
go read the research paper by United Nation which is quiet clear on this, In fact they have even started to find new discoveries that prove this point.
@324582782 Hold on a second there. You are asserting that laboratory studies are the only source of reliable data on AIDS. I have news for you: the only way to reliably study AIDS is in the field. You cannot "prove" that circumcision will reduce HIV, especially not with laboratory testing. The only reliable studies on circumcision's effect on epidemiology comes from USAID.
@Mystoksor those are experimental evidence and were randomized so obviously it holds way more value and secondly there have been 40 epidemiology test and most of them support what i said
Secondly the research done by USAID supports what i said as well, Go read the research paper of 2002 it states that circumcised men are less than half likely to be infected by hiv
@324582782 Look up "Risk behaviors and patterns of HIV seroprevalence in countries with generalized epidemics: Results from the Demographic and Health Surveys", "Is male circumcision protective of HIV infection?", and "Levels and Spread of HIV Seroprevalence and Associated Factors." All of them contradict the bullshit conjecture you're trying to pass off as fact.
@Mystoksor you are in denial. I don't need to look anything up nor i give out false information like you. The information i have given you is based on research by thousands of doctors and i believe in it
@324582782 For every study you can find validating your opinion, I can offer you another validating mine. The difference is that the burden of proof rests on you to prove that circumcision is so tremendously beneficial, not on me to demonstrate that we should not be performing cosmetic surgery on infants or wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on circumcision that could be used for more productive efforts.
@324582782 "My points are based on research while your point is based on your ego"
I've given plenty of scientific data validating my point; you just choose to ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Whatever the rest of our budget goes to, only a small amount will go to foreign aid. It's ridiculous to spend what little we have on genital mutilation to prevent a disease that is already 100% preventable with condoms.
@324582782 Based on what? Do you have any scientific grounding? Obviously not, as you thought that controlled lab studies could predict AIDS epidemiology and identify prevention methods. I've given you data from the National Institute of Health and the United States Agency on International Development. Are you saying they are liars? They don't have a pro-circumcision agenda to propagate, nor are they financially invested in promoting circumcision, unlike the researchers on your side.
@Mystoksor USAID support what i said, there report says. Go read the 2002 research paper it says that un circumcised men are half as likely to be infected by HIV
Secondly controlled randomized trial leave no room for any kind of propoganda because no one has no control over it so yes it holds the MOST VALUE.
@324582782 Go read the 2009 report, that says there is no clear correlation. In a majority of the countries worst affected by AIDS, a greater percentage of circumcised men than intact men are HIV-positive.
Look at how quickly the "randomized" study terminated. It was shortly after the recently-circumcised men recovered, during which time they were not allowed to have sex. They terminated data collection before any results could arise that would challenge their hypothesis. That is misconduct.
@324582782 Way to refute my point. Now who's operating on old data? It doesn't matter if they accept the raw data from the trial; that doesn't indicate that they accept circumcision as an effective prophylaxis. By its very own admission:
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
@Mystoksor as i said before i do not take USAID seriously you keep stressing on one of there research paper while I keep telling you that the random controlled testing hold more value and is accepted by every one. Even the new discoveries are supporting the results of random controlled testing while your still stuck on USAID
@324582782 You just quoted USAID to try to refute my point. Now you say it's not a valid source? In Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland as well as most countries in Oceania, circumcised men are more at risk of HIV. At the end of the day, how many men are saved from HIV by circumcision is the deciding factor, and you have failed to come up with any evidence that circumcision will stop AIDS in these vulnerable populations.
@324582782 There is no proof that circumcision will reduce HIV rates by 3%, that is purely wishful thinking. A controlled trial is fine for investigating HIV on the molecular level and suggesting preventative measures, but the ONLY definitive data on whether those measures work has to come from vulnerable populations. As the 2009 USAID study clearly demonstrates, circumcision has no clear effect on HIV transmission. It's time to find a new hypothesis, as your current one is flawed.
@324582782 You first cited USAID as evidence for your argument, then claimed it wasn't a trustworthy source after I offered newer data from the same source contradicting your argument. I'm not the one in denial. Controlled lab trials are useful at identifying possible preventative tools, but it's up to field research to verify their utility. Population studies show no correlation between circumcision and HIV, thereby disproving the hypothesis of the studies you cite.
@324582782 The "real evidence" does not come from the randomized trials. Those tests yielded data suggesting that circumcision would reduce HIV infections. Not one resulting population study, however, was able to support that hypothesis. You cannot continue to clutch at the clinical trials when data needed to support their conclusions fails to materialize. UNAIDS/WHO state circumcision can't replace known prevention methods, contradicting your assertion that it's the best measure against AIDS.
@324582782 I don't agree with their experimental design, but it makes sense that removing a mucous membrane reduces the risk of AIDS. So why not remove all penile tissue? That's the only way to make sure a man won't get HIV through heterosexual intercourse. Or they could just use condoms. It's entirely different to say that introducing circumcision to a population will reduce HIV rates. The data I've offered refutes that assertion and you have failed to find any sources to counter it.
@Mystoksor Not really losing forekin does not effect person's sexual life at all. Foreksin and pennis can't be compared. I'm not trying to find any sources because i have looked at almost all of them already. I can go back and show you but its just a waste of time. As i said already 90% of lab test actually back up what i said.
Anyway just chill out. It's perfectly fine to have a foreskin. and fine to be circumcised. Be happy with what you are and I'm happy with being circumcised
@324582782 The foreskin is part of the penis, and the most sensitive part of it at that. But my point was that to reduce the risk to 0, you need to remove all epithelium. It doesn't matter how many lab trials support your opinion; no other data supports you. By falling back on those lab trials when presented with data that contradicts their conclusion, you are grasping at straws. If you can come up with some valid statistical studies of vulnerable populations, I would really like to see them.
@Mystoksor Yes you are right. It's not been proven practically. Many countries have recently started following the circumcision practice. Lets see if it lowers the HIV rate or not. In some years well know forsure
@Mystoksor A two-year cohort study of male partners of HIV-positive women in Rakai, Uganda, in which 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected, compared with 0 of 50 circumcised men
A review that analyzed the findings of 38 studies, mostly in Africa, and found that circumcised men appear to be less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men. A sub-analysis of 16 of these studies found an estimated 70 percent reduction in HIV infection among higher-risk men
@324582782 I'm very familiar with the randomized study you just quoted. As I already stated, the study was terminated as soon as the circumcised men were able to have sex. Every part of that study was a violation of scientific conduct. I would forgive that violation if their hypothesis were supported by research outside of the lab, but the raw data gathered from these exact countries fail to show that circumcision can prevent HIV to any degree of statistical significance.
Comment removed
Mystoksor 9 months ago
Sleepless, you should be called Clueless. You couldn't be more wrong.
tinawoman 11 months ago
Comment removed
sleepless4201 11 months ago
@sleepless4201 wow, your intelligence and maturity are overwhelming...not sure what me getting laid has to do with anything, but judging by the fact that i have conceived 4 children...hmm...
tinawoman 11 months ago
Well Done!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mindofown 1 year ago
If I'm ever fortunate enough to be a father, my intent is to keep them whole.
Phrotus76 1 year ago 6
I will never, ever, ever, ever, fucking ever, forgive my stupid fuckface parents for circumcising me ..
WHIREAS 1 year ago 6
@WHIREAS You should thank them. Plenty of women think it is cleaner and looks better :) Plus almost all of the sensitive nerve endings are in the head of the penis, not extra skin.
sleepless4201 1 year ago
@sleepless4201 Incorrect. There are 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin, far more than in the glans. The foreskin is not "extra skin" but serves an indisputable purpose during sex. Your opinions are no substitute for actual facts.
Mystoksor 11 months ago
@Mystoksor Its about cleanliness. That is a fact.
sleepless4201 11 months ago
@sleepless4201 The original intent behind circumcision was to reduce sexual pleasure. That is the anthropological consensus.
cleanliness may have been a valid reason at one point, but this is the twenty-first century. We have easy and cheap access to warm water and soap. It's not difficult at all to keep a foreskin clean. It makes no sense to cut off a body part when it can easily be washed.
Mystoksor 11 months ago
@Mystoksor The foreskin interferes with the pleasure during sex because it COVERS the glans. Either way women and men have their own preferences when it comes to this subject. Whats worse is I have A WOMAN below trying telling me how MY penis operates.
sleepless4201 11 months ago
@sleepless4201 That woman knows more about sex than you do. The foreskin covering the glans does not interfere with sex. The foreskin keeps the glans sensitive. Without foreskin, the glans becomes dried, cracked, and less sensitive. The foreskin is also meant to be mobile during sex, which provides pleasure for both partners. It's depressing how many people are oblivious to the functions of the intact penis.
Mystoksor 11 months ago
@Mystoksor Its also depressing we have a cab driver for president running our country into the dirt. I get plenty of pleasure from sex and I don't need someone telling me they are depressed for my penis. Dry and cracked? I don't know who you have had in bed lately but be careful with that.
sleepless4201 11 months ago
@sleepless4201 You've been circumcised all your life. You don't know any better. I was circumcised as a teenager. The sensitivity drop is immense. You can still feel pleasure from sex, but it's nowhere near as much.
Mystoksor 11 months ago
@Mystoksor See, if you would have had it done as a baby you wouldn't have had complications later in life. Its like our wisdom teeth, we just don't need it anymore.
sleepless4201 11 months ago
@Mystoksor Also, women like a dude who can last in bed for more than 5 minutes. So the lowered sensitivity can actually come in handy in that aspect. All the women I have known prefer cut men, maybe that is why.
sleepless4201 11 months ago
@sleepless4201 what happened is not a complication. Every single circumcised man has reduced sexual sensitivity and pleasure. There is also no evidence that circumcision gives you any more lasting power. Prematurity occurs at the same rate for both circumcised and intact men
Mystoksor 11 months ago
@Mystoksor With circumcission you have far less chaces of getting infected such as protection from urinatary infection, genital herpes, HIV and many more
Research has shown that half of uncircumcised men will catch one or more infection because of their foreskin during there lifetime
So basically getting circumcised is all about being safe. and nothing is wrong with that.
I'm not making this up this is actually research done by doctors and i can send you links if you want to know more
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 I'm familiar with the claims you're referring to, and they simply are not compelling. Why do you think it makes sense to amputate tissue to prevent infection? We haven't done that since the Civil War. It only makes sense to circumcise if the foreskin has developed a tumor and gangrene. HIV prevention has only been professed by two studies, neither of which have any field research to back up their claims. The epidemiology of HIV is too complex to study its transmission in that manner.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor are you serious? some these infection chances are 2 out of 1000 which is alot, No it does not make sese to only cut the foreskin when you are infected cuz then it can be too late and why put yourself in danger?
I dont know what you mean by there isnt any research, I can send you links and those researches are from different doctors.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 You're not too bright, are you? 1/500 is a seriously low rate of infection, much lower than the rate of serious complications resulting from circumcision itself. Infections are easily treated with antibiotics; have you forgotten what century we live in? Do you realize how rare it is to die of infection? Furthermore, females contract UTIs with much more frequency than males, but surgical alteration of any girl under the age of 18 is illegal in 94% of jurisdictions in the entire world.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Yes it is indeed between 100 to 200 NOT 300. I can give you the links if you want?
i really don't agree with you that 1/500 is a low rate it is infact a high rate.
They can or cant be cured is another debate but why take the risk? I mean seriously if you can just save yourself from infections its good. Then we shouldn't take the flue shot either or take other kinds of vaccine cuz chances of catching them are pretty much same.
324582782 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Exactly thats my point you live in America so you should be more in favor of circumcision. Calling me not bright just shows that you lack in statistics department
And more and more studies are in fact proving that uncircumcision increases the chance of getting HIV. There has not only been 2 studies but infact are more.
And soon i believe that it'll be proven with enough information to back it up.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Even if it's 100-200, all of those deaths could be avoided if doctors would stop performing non-essential genital surgery on infants. Compared to the >1% complication rate of circumcision, 1/500 aren't bad ods. Need I remind you that just about every infection you're talking about can be easily cured? Your vaccination argument is a straw-man; vaccination is a hallmark of modern medicine that increases longevity. Circumcision is an archaic practice we should have abandoned long ago.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Yah all researches do indicate that uncircumcised men are more likely to catch HIV and it will soon be proved so you believe you want
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 I should be in favor of circumcision because I live in America? What are you talking about?
There is no proof of circumcision preventing AIDS. There are other lab trials done in the same countries that conclude circumcision increases the rate of HIV transmission. I don't put any stock in either conclusion because none of the studies observe the spread of AIDS in a population, which is the only way to draw any meaningful conclusion regarding any alleged prophylaxis.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor ya 1/500 is for alot of infection related to foreskin so its alot more if you take all the infections so Yes they are alot more and the deaths you are talking about can be reduced by professionals. basically you are telling me that chances are not high which i don't agree with.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Do you have any understanding of the scientific process? Three studies cannot prove anything. All they can do is disprove a hypothesis or say it was upheld. The researchers who conducted these studies cherry-picked their sample spaces and terminated the studies as soon as they had data, claiming it was inhumane not to offer circumcision to all the men in the trials. These researchers violated hypothesis-based science.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Ya you are right the researchers are making everything up. And im lindsey lohan and i'm playing with my pussy right now lol
324582782 9 months ago
Comment removed
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@324582782 Sorry, youtube keeps preventing me from posting. Can you account for why the countries with the highest rate of circumcision have the highest rates of HIV?
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor are you kidding me
look at all the muslim countries, they all circumcise and have the lowest rate of hiv
plus do you know that countries like zimbabwe, zambia, swaziland who don't circumcise and there countries have started the policy of circumcising all men because through their research they found out that circumcision lowers the chances of getting hiv by as high as 60% percent, I am messaging you the links in your email so you know!
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 What about the United States? 90% of adults in 1980 were circumcised, but America was hit the hardest by the HIV epidemic in the 20th century. Western Europe is almost completely intact, but HIV is practically a non-issue in those countries. You're failing to mention that circumcision has only been suggested to prevent HIV transmission in heterosexual intercourse from women to men. That is one of the least common methods of HIV transmission.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor ya HIV that hit america is nothing compared to zimbabwe, Zambia and sawiland and those countries do not practice circumcision
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Do you know what the chance of HIV transmission from a positive female to an uninfected uncircumcised male? 2.4%. Circumcision can only reduce that to 1.6%. That technically reduces your chances to about 60% of what they are without a circumcision, but female-to-male transmission is already uncommon. Is it really worth it to spend hundreds of billions of dollars circumcising men? There are better ways to spend that money fighting AIDS and improving quality of life in those countries.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor yes 1.6 % is hugee what are you talking about
yes its worth spending billions of dollars OMG wow
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 It's not at all "huge". 2.4% to 1.6% is insignificant. Parallel studies to the ones showing that circumcision would reduce circumcision show that soap and water reduce HIV transmission to the exact same degree. Remember: condoms reduce HIV by 100%. We are not providing Africans with food, water, medication, housing, education, infrastructure or employment. How does it make sense to spend billions circumcising them when we can't or refuse to provide them with basic humanitarian aid?
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor yes it is huge, again i dont agree with you, and it will save hundred of thousand of people. so yes it makes a diff regardless of what you say
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 The only effect circumcision will have on AIDS in Africa will be to increase its prevalence thanks to the claims of idiots like you that a 0.8% reduction in transmission rate qualifies as a miracle prophylaxis. The money it will take to circumcise hundreds of millions of men could be spent on developing the region, which will do more for quality of life than circumcision ever could.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor you do realise that some of these countries have hiv rate as high as 20 %. Even 60% would lower the HIV rate greatly. I do understand that Africa needs all kind of support but that does not mean that we should leave out the HIV effects. Circumcision is the best way to deal with this problem and research has shown that it will help reduce HIV rate by 3% which is HUGE
I don't know why ur calling me an idiot when all statistics are in favor of circumcision. Cant do anything about ur ego
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Once again, HIV is rarely transmitted from women to men, which is the only avenue of transmission that circumcision can apparently block. Over 60% of the HIV-positive heterosexual community is women; circumcision does nothing to protect them. It does not stop transmission by blood transfusion, by gay sex, or by breast feeding. If you're serious about stopping AIDS, why not remove every mucous membrane in the body? That would be the only effective surgery, but even that's not 100%.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@324582782 I have no idea what you're talking about there. Like I said, girls' genitals become infected at a much higher rate, but it is illegal to perform any alterations of female genitalia if the patient is younger than 18. Most girls develop a UTI or similar infection at some time in their life. How does the possible avoidance of a mild infection warrant serious genital surgery? The only reason doctors continue to perform circumcision is that it earns them upwards of $1 billion each year.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@324582782 As for AIDS, I didn't say there was no research. What I said was there was no FIELD research. If you're studying HIV on the molecular level, then the lab is the appropriate place to conduct your research. When studying how AIDS spreads throughout a given population, data from the laboratory is largely irrelevant. Studying the effects of circumcision on HIV transmission necessitates field data collection, which neither of the studies you're citing performed.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor I dunno about that i may have to do some research on hiv but your really missing the point here, There are tons of other infection circumcision saves you from.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 And most of those infections are minor ones that can easily be treated with antibiotics. That's what we do with infection. Cutting off healthy, erogenous tissue from someone's genitals in case they may develop an infection one day is absurd.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor but some of these are not like genital herpes etc and in some cases people do die from infection so i find your statement ignorant
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 The rate at which people die from infection of the foreskin is less than the rate who die of circumcision. Each year in the United States alone, 300 boys die as a result of circumcision, either from blood loss, infection of the open wound, anesthesia overdose, or neurogenic shock. There is not a single medical organization in the world that recognizes circumcision as an effective prophylaxis against any known disease. Cutting genitals to prevent infection is a ridiculous concept.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Its not 300, It's somewhere around 150. Circumcision by professional's is very safe and not dangerous at all, Infact there are more boys who die from infection that could have been avoided by circumcision.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 The so-called professionals will only admit to 150 per year; the actual number is more like 300. They attribute the deaths to some congenital defect, but the fact is those boys would still be alive today if they were left intact. And exactly what infections are you referring to? Do you realize that 99% of infections are quite minor and are remedied with cheap antibiotics? Do you realize that girls contract genital infections more than twice the rate at which males do?
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@324582782 With funding to Africa so limited, how does it make sense to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on circumcising men? Do you have any idea how immense and difficult an undertaking that would be? There is no scientific organization that calls circumcision the best method of HIV prevention, that is simply your fantasy. Your 60% claim is only 0.8% and as I have repeatedly said it only blocks one rare avenue of HIV transmission. It simply is not cost-effective.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor No it doesnt researches have shown that it will decrease the HIV rate by 3 %. Stop stressing over .8% to prove your weak point
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 I am telling you what the studies you are citing as your sole base of evidence found. The intact male's chance of contracting HIV in vaginal intercourse with an infected partner is 2.4%. A circumcised man's chances are 1.6%. Even if circumcision reduces HIV in a laboratory, that is not the site to study the complexity of AIDS epidemiology. There is simply no sociological or demographic data to support your spurious claims that circumcision will reduce AIDS in these populations.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor A very weak point again. Your calling scientist wrong. Countries research wrong
Yes they do have enough data to prove that circumcision can reduce HIV rate, Your deluded
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 All you need is a class in high school-level biology to know that research is rarely objective and scientists are prone to perform experiments custom designed to validate their hypothesis. Your belief in the pure objectivity behind these studies is simply naive. The only data on circumcision and HIV prevention is from three laboratory studies in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. No corresponding population studies exist to validate the hypothesis.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor that is your opinion. These test were random and obviously focused on countries where HIV rate is high and there studies are also explaining why is that so.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 You're saying the rate of circumcision is high because they were not circumcised? It's because of inferior infrastructure and social services. Western Europe is less than 5% circumcised but HIV is a non-issue. How can you explain that?
You might be interested to know that legitimate population studies from USAID and the International AIDS society found zero correlation between circumcision and HIV reduction. In 10 out of 18 countries, circumcised men had a higher incidence of HIV.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor International Aids society research does not hold any value because its not a randomized controlled test.
No one knows what caused such a high rate of HIV in those countries but one thing is proven that circumcision will reduce it and the same law will apply for other countries around the world as well.
go read the research paper by United Nation which is quiet clear on this, In fact they have even started to find new discoveries that prove this point.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Hold on a second there. You are asserting that laboratory studies are the only source of reliable data on AIDS. I have news for you: the only way to reliably study AIDS is in the field. You cannot "prove" that circumcision will reduce HIV, especially not with laboratory testing. The only reliable studies on circumcision's effect on epidemiology comes from USAID.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor those are experimental evidence and were randomized so obviously it holds way more value and secondly there have been 40 epidemiology test and most of them support what i said
Secondly the research done by USAID supports what i said as well, Go read the research paper of 2002 it states that circumcised men are less than half likely to be infected by hiv
surprise surprise you are wrong again
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Look up "Risk behaviors and patterns of HIV seroprevalence in countries with generalized epidemics: Results from the Demographic and Health Surveys", "Is male circumcision protective of HIV infection?", and "Levels and Spread of HIV Seroprevalence and Associated Factors." All of them contradict the bullshit conjecture you're trying to pass off as fact.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor you are in denial. I don't need to look anything up nor i give out false information like you. The information i have given you is based on research by thousands of doctors and i believe in it
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 For every study you can find validating your opinion, I can offer you another validating mine. The difference is that the burden of proof rests on you to prove that circumcision is so tremendously beneficial, not on me to demonstrate that we should not be performing cosmetic surgery on infants or wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on circumcision that could be used for more productive efforts.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Oh ya you can but the difference is my points are based on research while your point is based on your ego
I don't think we are wasting any money, Although i do think that we are waisting trillions of dollar on war, space programs and other useless things
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 "My points are based on research while your point is based on your ego"
I've given plenty of scientific data validating my point; you just choose to ignore it. Hypocrite much?
Whatever the rest of our budget goes to, only a small amount will go to foreign aid. It's ridiculous to spend what little we have on genital mutilation to prevent a disease that is already 100% preventable with condoms.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor So many scientific date?
Are you kidding me
your data is either outdated, based on limited research oh and i forgot LIES
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Based on what? Do you have any scientific grounding? Obviously not, as you thought that controlled lab studies could predict AIDS epidemiology and identify prevention methods. I've given you data from the National Institute of Health and the United States Agency on International Development. Are you saying they are liars? They don't have a pro-circumcision agenda to propagate, nor are they financially invested in promoting circumcision, unlike the researchers on your side.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor USAID support what i said, there report says. Go read the 2002 research paper it says that un circumcised men are half as likely to be infected by HIV
Secondly controlled randomized trial leave no room for any kind of propoganda because no one has no control over it so yes it holds the MOST VALUE.
so yes your scientific data is limited
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Go read the 2009 report, that says there is no clear correlation. In a majority of the countries worst affected by AIDS, a greater percentage of circumcised men than intact men are HIV-positive.
Look at how quickly the "randomized" study terminated. It was shortly after the recently-circumcised men recovered, during which time they were not allowed to have sex. They terminated data collection before any results could arise that would challenge their hypothesis. That is misconduct.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Even USAID accepts the randomized control trial so you are in denial
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 Way to refute my point. Now who's operating on old data? It doesn't matter if they accept the raw data from the trial; that doesn't indicate that they accept circumcision as an effective prophylaxis. By its very own admission:
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
What more do you want?
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor as i said before i do not take USAID seriously you keep stressing on one of there research paper while I keep telling you that the random controlled testing hold more value and is accepted by every one. Even the new discoveries are supporting the results of random controlled testing while your still stuck on USAID
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 You just quoted USAID to try to refute my point. Now you say it's not a valid source? In Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland as well as most countries in Oceania, circumcised men are more at risk of HIV. At the end of the day, how many men are saved from HIV by circumcision is the deciding factor, and you have failed to come up with any evidence that circumcision will stop AIDS in these vulnerable populations.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Yes it will studies have shown that circumcision will reduce the hiv rate by 3 % per year
I think your denial is stopping you from paying attention.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 There is no proof that circumcision will reduce HIV rates by 3%, that is purely wishful thinking. A controlled trial is fine for investigating HIV on the molecular level and suggesting preventative measures, but the ONLY definitive data on whether those measures work has to come from vulnerable populations. As the 2009 USAID study clearly demonstrates, circumcision has no clear effect on HIV transmission. It's time to find a new hypothesis, as your current one is flawed.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor That's why U.N is lying to all of us you get your facts right.
Yes its a proof that circumcision will reduce HIV, You are in denial
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 You first cited USAID as evidence for your argument, then claimed it wasn't a trustworthy source after I offered newer data from the same source contradicting your argument. I'm not the one in denial. Controlled lab trials are useful at identifying possible preventative tools, but it's up to field research to verify their utility. Population studies show no correlation between circumcision and HIV, thereby disproving the hypothesis of the studies you cite.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Yes i mentioned USAID, Out of 40 lab test till now 90% of them support what i said
And i never said that they hold any value.
I said from beginning the real evidence is from those 3 randomized trials which is accepted by every one even USAID.
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 The "real evidence" does not come from the randomized trials. Those tests yielded data suggesting that circumcision would reduce HIV infections. Not one resulting population study, however, was able to support that hypothesis. You cannot continue to clutch at the clinical trials when data needed to support their conclusions fails to materialize. UNAIDS/WHO state circumcision can't replace known prevention methods, contradicting your assertion that it's the best measure against AIDS.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor As i said before 90% of lab test support what What i said
Uganda and other countries have done there own research on this matter and it has helped them fight HIV with circumcision.
And yes those randomized trails are accepted by everyone other than you lol
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 I don't agree with their experimental design, but it makes sense that removing a mucous membrane reduces the risk of AIDS. So why not remove all penile tissue? That's the only way to make sure a man won't get HIV through heterosexual intercourse. Or they could just use condoms. It's entirely different to say that introducing circumcision to a population will reduce HIV rates. The data I've offered refutes that assertion and you have failed to find any sources to counter it.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Not really losing forekin does not effect person's sexual life at all. Foreksin and pennis can't be compared. I'm not trying to find any sources because i have looked at almost all of them already. I can go back and show you but its just a waste of time. As i said already 90% of lab test actually back up what i said.
Anyway just chill out. It's perfectly fine to have a foreskin. and fine to be circumcised. Be happy with what you are and I'm happy with being circumcised
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 The foreskin is part of the penis, and the most sensitive part of it at that. But my point was that to reduce the risk to 0, you need to remove all epithelium. It doesn't matter how many lab trials support your opinion; no other data supports you. By falling back on those lab trials when presented with data that contradicts their conclusion, you are grasping at straws. If you can come up with some valid statistical studies of vulnerable populations, I would really like to see them.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor Yes you are right. It's not been proven practically. Many countries have recently started following the circumcision practice. Lets see if it lowers the HIV rate or not. In some years well know forsure
Thanks
324582782 9 months ago
@Mystoksor A two-year cohort study of male partners of HIV-positive women in Rakai, Uganda, in which 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected, compared with 0 of 50 circumcised men
A review that analyzed the findings of 38 studies, mostly in Africa, and found that circumcised men appear to be less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men. A sub-analysis of 16 of these studies found an estimated 70 percent reduction in HIV infection among higher-risk men
324582782 9 months ago
@324582782 I'm very familiar with the randomized study you just quoted. As I already stated, the study was terminated as soon as the circumcised men were able to have sex. Every part of that study was a violation of scientific conduct. I would forgive that violation if their hypothesis were supported by research outside of the lab, but the raw data gathered from these exact countries fail to show that circumcision can prevent HIV to any degree of statistical significance.
Mystoksor 9 months ago
@Mystoksor exactly this is my point, This just proves my point those randomized control trial hold the most value and this is why its accepted by U.N
324582782 9 months ago
love this! J is so cute too! I posted on my fb! :)
mammabarbof3 1 year ago
Lovely - thank you! Will repost on my Vaccination Information Network' (VINE) on Facebook.
Keep them whole!
Protect them!
But never cut - or inject them!
vaccineshurtbabies 1 year ago 3
Love this! I subscribe to all your online posts. Keep up the good work! Beautiful baby boy!
heddasurfs 1 year ago
Ron is such a great singer with a great message!
Chadolution 1 year ago 3
Thank you!!!!
2live42day 1 year ago 2
very beautiful!, ron. you are SO talented. an engineer who sings like an angel? juneau is such a good movie star.
RapeOfInnocence 1 year ago 2
Tight! Here's to the dramatic decline 32.5% cutting reported by the NYTimes.
kotfrank 1 year ago 12
Circumcision is coming to and end, thank you.
RoseFink 1 year ago 21
Beautiful!
Hugh7777 1 year ago 8
Nice Job, Ron!
Fletch6 1 year ago 4