Circumcision

Circumcision predates the religious ceremonies with which it is associated. Are there reasonable cases for and against routine male infant circumcision? I think there are. I don't have a strong position on either side of this discussion. It's one of those intensely personal choices, and I don't think it can be reduced to a simple yes or no answer.

In responding, please observe three requests:
1. No overly emotive language, no pure pathos appeals.
2. Please back claims of fact with citation. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
3. Be creative, not vulgar, in your language. Please.

Citations (and the script) can be found here:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/btt53bgsdjk8w4q/circumcision.txt

Category:

Education

Tags:

• male
• circumcision
• medical
• ethical
• issues
• phimosis
• sexuality
• condoms
• prevention
• c0nc0rdance

[Tandykane]

@TheTradWarrior

It is always amusing to see a "warrior" come so ill-equipped to a battle--reminds me of the "Black knight" skit in the Monty Python movie with the now bleeding, armless, legless black knight telling the victor to come back so he can chew his legs off.

[Tandykane]

@TheTradWarrior

Don't try this pathetic BS on me--refute the real world evidence of the failure of circumcision to reduce HIV in the instances I have supplied.

PROVE that circumcision actually DID reduce HIV in these failed "REALITY" examples.

Talk is cheap, and all you have to offer is cheap TALK!

[TheTradWarrior]

@Tandykane "Reality" (especially your version of it) is highly subjective. You have no evidence.

[Tandykane]

@psandbergnz

"It is very hard to control for confounding factors"

Correct, but it is more correct to say that outside of the laboratory it is IMPOSSIBLE to control for all factors..this is why it is disingenuous to call the African studies "RCT'S".

Sad to see that SCIENCE has been misappropriated by people with an agenda , and that they depend on people being ignorant of real science.

[psandbergnz]

@Tandykane, hence John Loannidis is correct about medical studies, i.e. most are unreliable. It is very hard to control for confounding factors, especially if there is expectation bias on the part of the researchers (this will tend to make them oblivious to the limitations of their study, and not address them). RCT circumcision studies are the HARDEST to do reliably! It's frustrating discussing with people who take medical studies as "reality", and even Concordance succombs to this.

[Tandykane]

@psandbergnz

And to further the argument, the authors did not control for the prevalence of "DRY SEX" which compounds the problems inherent in the study.

Hell, actually they didn't CONTROL for any factors, they just played statistical games with self-reporting, which is notoriously unreliable.

The basic problem with these studies is that they make claims that cannot be supported by REALITY--so unscientific!

[psandbergnz]

@Tandykane, just to qualify: circumcision can protect from HIV in the event that foreskin is DAMAGED - by abrasion, cuts, infections (the same holds true if ANY part of the penis is harmed).That reason alone could account for the RCT results. NB. the men were randomised at the experimental level, NOT at the population level.

The RCT Control group (the "intact") were probably over-represented by foreskin problems - hence the men sought circumcision! That would bias the RCT results.

[Tandykane]

@psandbergnz

The problem is that there is so many BOGUS claims that totally ignores the real world EMPIRICAL evidence that circumcision has not been able to provide any reduction in HIV is still being totally ignored.

People have this silly notion that flawed, questionable studies supersede any and all real world EMPIRICAL evidence that SCIENCE deems the highest form of evidence--that so-called "medical evidence" has more merit than REAL scientific.evidence.

[psandbergnz]

@Tandykane, the South African Medical Asssociation is skeptical of findings that circumcision protects from HIV (being in Africa, it should know!).

It put out a statement in June 2011 expressing "serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcision prevented HIV contraction, and that the public was being influenced by misrepresented information."

It added they "do not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.” (See online).

[Tandykane]

@TheTradWarrior

Sorry, but REALITY is the highest form of evidence.