The selling of circumcision.

[Touchdown]

The ballooning of the practice in 20th century America was the work of pediatricians and obstetricians who gave it new status as a "medical" procedure. Circumcision also received a big lift from a wealthy layman, John Harvey Kellogg, founder of the cereal company, who was obsessed with the evils of masterbation and advocated circumcision as the solution. Kellogg's book, Plain Facts for Old and Young urged parents to have their boys circumcised without anesthesia--because the pain would have a "salutory effect upon the mind." The book was as common as his corn flakes in American homes at the time.
-snip-
Medical circumcision became a uniquely American phenomenon. About 80% of the world's population never adopted the practice: This includes most of Europe, and populous countries like Japan, China, and Russia. Researcher Edward Wallerstein (1995) refers to circumcision as an American medical "enigma." A urologist estimates that 90% of American males currently living were initiated into life in this violent way. Significantly, for men, circumcision is where sex and violence first meet. Swiss psychoanalyst Alice Miller (1983) sees in this kind of cruelty the roots of social violence.
-snip-
Leading the crusade for circumcision over a century ago, the physician P. C. Remondino (1891) called the prepuce "a malign influence causing all manner of ills, unfitting a man for marriage or business and likely to land him in jail or a lunatic asylum." According to him, "circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity; every year of life you draw the benefit....Parents cannot make a better investment for their little boys, as it assures them better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills" (Cited in Speert 1953:165). Dr. Remondino claimed that circumcision would cure about a hundred ailments, among them asthma, alcoholism, enuresis, and rheumatism (Wallerstein 1985). People were afraid and gullible.

Another physician of the day (Clifford 1893) enumerated the alleged dangers of the intact foreskin. These included penile irritation, interference with urination, nocturnal incontinence, hernia or prolapse of the rectum (from a tight foreskin!), syphilis, cancer, hysteria, epilepsy, chorea, erotic stimulation, and masterbation. This was the flimsy basis for selling circumcision to America--although none of it turned out to be true. In modern times, dire warnings are still dressed in medical language pointing to the normal foreskin as the source of sexual diseases, cancer, urinary infections, and even AIDS. Yet circumcision neither causes nor cures any of these conditions. The medical compulsion to perform the operation--usually without anesthesia--continues this long legacy of pain as many physicians are still turning a deaf ear to rational arguments from within their own profession (e.g. Grimes, 1978; Wallerstein 1985; Winberg et al. 1989; and Ritter 1992). The American record is unique.

http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/circ.html#three

Another interesting one is the history of the practice...

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual8,10,15,18 and preserved this prehistoric practice into modern times.10,16,18 The circumcision of Abraham removed only the very tip that extended beyond the glans penis.8,17,22,28 Moses and his sons were not circumcised. (Exodus 4:25) Although Moses apparently prohibited circumcision during the 40 years in the wilderness,15,18 (Joshua 5:5) Joshua reinstituted circumcision at Gilgal after the death of Moses.15,18 (Joshua 5:2-10) It is interesting to note that after the Israelites were circumcised, they immediately became soldiers in Joshua's army for the conquest of Palestine. (Joshua 6:1-3)

In contrast to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans placed a high value on the prepuce.31 The Romans passed several laws to protect the prepuce by prohibiting circumcision.31

Much later in the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25 A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant (See Normal.) In a painful procedure known today as a synechotomy, more foreskin was removed than before and the injury was correspondingly greater. With the introduction of peri'ah, the glans could not easily be recovered, and so no Jewish male would easily be able to appear as an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25

[Atman]

1. Oh, not this again!

Can we start a concurrent thread about the horrors of on-demand cessarians? What's the point here?

[Touchdown]

To see if you'd take the bait.

Can I have my hook back on your way out?

Besides, other threads were talking about this being a slow news day. What purpose is an SUV thread? To TALK ABOUT IT!

[Yupster]

14. Perhaps a thread about

Circumcision in the Confederacy could break the all-time flame record.

[BlackHeart]

2. Kinda wacky idea here...

"Significantly, for men, circumcision is where sex and violence first meet."

I mean who actually remembers getting circumcised?

[Kikosexy2]

3. Well...

I love my foreskin very much--thank you--and so do other gay men...feel naked without it...

[Touchdown]

5. Go to the same top link.

Annd find a study about "Echoes in the Body"... about why circ'd boys can't do yoga properly, because their pelvises can't flatten.

What I observed was that the seven boys in the study who had been circumcised did not place their hips on the floor when doing an abdominal-lying-arch posture (the "cobra" pose for those of you familiar with yoga postures). In contrast, the two boys in the study who had not been circumcised did it easily.

[Atman]

7. WHAT?

Oh, yeah, it must be the circ!

I'm not buying that AT ALL!

My uncut friend can't snowboard as well as I can. Obviously it means...

:eyes:

[Touchdown]

8. Well, if you had 1000 uncut friends who can't snowboard...

...then you might have a contradiction. Nothing she says is definitive. She just thought it was interesting.

I thought you were leaving, since there are more important issues for you?

[Atman]

9. Where did I say I was leaving?

Can't I post in two threads at once? You sure are touchy tonight! It's supposed to be GOOD Friday.

Now be GOOD!

;-)

[Touchdown]

11. You said "Oh not this again" didn't you?

or was that your foreskin back from the Oil of Olay jar? If I see South Park on TV, I say "Oh' not this again!" and change the channel. I just assumed. :shrug:

[BlackHeart]

10. That seems wacky too, but

no wackier than this:
"Another physician of the day (Clifford 1893) enumerated the alleged dangers of the intact foreskin. These included penile irritation, interference with urination, nocturnal incontinence, hernia or prolapse of the rectum (from a tight foreskin!), syphilis, cancer, hysteria, epilepsy, chorea, erotic stimulation, and masterbation. This was the flimsy basis for selling circumcision to America"

I should let my intact brothers know, my circumsion hasn't seemed to lessen my desire to masturbate. :)

[Touchdown]

12. Also let them know that all animals in the world

are at risk for Chorea and Epilepsy...whatever chorea is. I always thought it was that peninsula off the China sea.

[Maven]

13. Huh?

So two out of nine boys (the entire sample) couldn't do a yoga posture as well as the others in the eyes of a (biased) observer, therefore circumcision leads to reduced pelvic motion?

[Touchdown]

15. That's not a Harvey Korman avatar.

I don't answer fill ins.:P

[MazeRat7]

4. So what is your point ? Bad, good, indifferent...

Personally, I don't give a rats ass considering all the other crap that is going on in this world.... but I figured I would be polite and ask.

MZr7

[Touchdown]

6. Good. Good to get the info out...

as boys are born every day, and I don't trust doctors who stand to make $600-1000 a slice to give complete info.

[sybylla]

16. Believe it or not, in 1986 the Methodist hospital where I had my 1st child

handed to every expectant couple very complete literature on circumcision, the fact that it wasn't medically necessary, performed without anesthesia and containing a litany of studies that demonstrated the reality of risks of having and not having it performedas well as addressing psychological concerns throughout life.

Very progressive, I thought at the time, and more responsible that most profit-driven-not-for-profit healthcare organizations. Their circumcision rate, with fully informed parents, dropped to about 60% (I asked, wondering what kind of company my son would have whatever our decision.)

I wonder what the rate is now, considering the very strange controversy that seems to have evolved around this.

[Touchdown]

17. The current rate is around 55%

I can't find any newer data than 2003, which it was about 55%. It's been dropping steadily from 90% in the last 25 years. In the US, the midwest is still higher at around 65-70%, and the coasts have dropped to a circ rate of about 35%. Is this a heartland "values" issue, or a medical one?

http://www.lycos.com/info/circumcision--united-states.html

http://www.icgi.org/

The U.S. circumcision rate declined 11.4% over two years, according to figures just released by the National Center for Health Statistics, from 63.1% in 2001 to 55.9% in 2003, following a steady, twenty-five year decline. At this rate, in just 12 years, the US will join other English-speaking countries in abandoning circumcision. Medicalized, mass circumcision of infants is a uniquely English-speaking phenomenon. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom formerly circumcised the majority of infant boys, but have either abandoned the practice, or reduced the rate to about 1 in 10. The United States medical community stands alone is profiting from a non-therapeutic, unnecessary procedure performed on non-consenting minors. The largest decline was in western states where the rate dropped 23%; and seven out of ten boys remained genitally intact. In 2003, 45% of American newborn males left the hospital intact, up from 37% in 2001. Since 1996, it has been illegal to circumcise girls in the US, but thousands are still at risk every year. The law itself is legally questionable because it lacks equal protection, which the Constitution makes mandatory.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Ol' Kellogg sure had his hangups, didn't he?

He was the inpiration for "The Road to Welville". For some reason he became convinced that hot breakfast cereals (oatmeal, farina, etc.) were unhealthy and developed cold breakfast cereals as an alternative. (All that's IIRC -- I can't remember exactly what it was he objected to.)

[sybylla]

19. I believe he was also the inventor of the graham cracker

He believed certain grains were healthier for you, including graham flour, and developed foods he thought were better. So graham crackers started out as health food.

It's funny. He's one of those people in history who was clearly psychologically messed up. Though many of his ideas were downright silly, IIRC, he did get several things right when it came to diet and exercise.

[Warpy]

20. The law of unintended consequences kicked in

and his vegetarian diet foods turned into a breakfast food industry. He was one of those guys in history who did the right things for the wrong reasons, a visionary who saw through cracked glasses.

I remember seeing graham flour in markets when I was a kid. I wish I could still find it, I imagine it would make great fruit breads. It spoils practically overnight, though, so that's why it fell out of favor.

As for circumcision, it never stopped a little boy from playing with his willie nor did it stop a grown man from being a horndog. It's easier to keep clean and slightly reduces the transmission of diseases, so it may be worth the risk in the long run, who knows? Let Daddy have the last say.

Kellogg was a crazy guy who proves the adage, "Blessed be the crackpots, for they shall allow in the light."

[Touchdown]

21. Eh' no.

It's easier to keep clean and slightly reduces the transmission of diseases, so it may be worth the risk in the long run, who knows? Let Daddy have the last say.

Woefully uninformed. It is not easier to keep clean in a society where bathing daily is the norm. It might take serious effort to get a boy to take the trash out or mow the lawn, but I doubt that much effort is needed to get him to play with his cock in the shower.

There's actually a higher risk of disease, because the glans skin is not protected from abrasion, which a foreskin provides. Studies have also shown that circumcised men engage in riskier behavior than men who weren't, as the lowered sensitivity makes condom use a controversy. Nature didn't make a mistake. Lose the wive's tales, these have been around longer than the "liberal media" myth. Read and explore some of the links.

[Warpy]

22. Woefully uninformed

The studies have been done, and they've proven you wrong.

Again, it's up to the parents, mostly the daddy, IMO, whether or not to risk the surgery for the slight benefits.

Not your choice. Not mine, either.

[HuckleB]

23. Actually...

the studies you are noting refer to nations where daily bathing is not the norm. They have no correlation to areas where daily bathing is the norm. I know that some docs are trying to use those studies to justify their longstanding, unjustified recommendations for circumcision, but they are doing a disservice to science and to their patients.

[Touchdown]

24. Eh' No.

Some studies have been proven inconclusive, to be charitable. Other studies have been exposed as utter bullshit, and hyped justifications for this continued cultural practice.

To wit; let's use the latest justification for mutilation, the risk of HIV infection, and the supposed lower risk in circumcised men.

"Self-reporting is an unreliable means of collecting data on sexual behavior. For instance, Baeten et al.72 relied on self-reporting of sexual behavior in a group of 745 truck drivers in Kenya. This study was designed to investigate female-to-male HIV transmission. Over the study duration, none (0) of the subjects reported having had a sexual contact with another man. As this is rather implausible, given the size of the study group, studies based on self-reporting must be seen as questionable at best.

Demographic assumptions. Many of the African studies did not directly verify the circumcision status of the study subjects. The circumcision status was guessed based on tribal or religious affiliation. Without actually examining the patients to determine their circumcision status, obviously, it is impossible to get valid results.

Statistical significance. Most of those studies that claimed a positive correlation between circumcision and reduced HIV incidence had a small sample size. If there had been only a small number of misclassifications of circumcision status (Demographic assumptions), the results of those studies are not statistically significant.

Publication bias. Studies claiming a positive link between circumcision and reduced HIV incidence are more likely to be published than studies that found no correlation. Publication bias is a common phenomenon across the medical literature: Studies finding a positive result are "more interesting" to journals and therefore more likely to be published. Publication bias unfairly distorts the true significance of circumcision vis-à-vis HIV infection.

-snip-

Female circumcision. Hrdy identified female circumcision as a contributing factor to the spread of HIV in 1987.4 Brady has done the same in 1999.49 However, the effect of female circumcision, common in parts of Africa, on the reception and transmission of HIV has not been studied. Not one study (as far as we are aware) has been done to determine the effect of female circumcision on HIV transmission/reception; although more than 40 African studies of the effects of male circumcision have been carried out. All existing studies of the effects of male circumcision on HIV transmission/reception (as far as we are aware) lacked controls for the effects of female circumcision. Female circumcision is a potential confounding factor of unknown magnitude in the study of the effects of male circumcision on HIV transmission/reception. No published studies control for female circumcision.

Cross-cultural comparisons. Since circumcision status is a cultural marker,6 circumcising and noncircumcising tribes may differ markedly in cultural mores, sexual behavior and in other ways.17 These and other such confounding factors make meaningful cross-cultural comparisons essentially impossible.

Viral load. Recent studies report that viral load is a major factor in the transmission of HIV.50 51 This is in itself a major confounding factor.59 Most studies of HIV infection failed to control for viral load.59 67

High Risk populations. Many of the African studies used unrepresentative high-risk sample populations, such as clients of prostitutes, or visitors to a sexually-transmitted-disease clinic. Unfortunately, such groups do not represent a balanced sample of the population in terms of sexual behavior, general health and other factors.

Male-to-female transmission. Two studies report that partner circumcision is a risk factor for female sero-conversion.21 23

Psycho-cultural factors. The AIDS researchers who propose that circumcision can prevent HIV transmission are overwhelmingly, white, male, and the products of English-speaking nations where male circumcision was once the usual practice. Females are seldom, if ever, represented. Male researchers from nations that do not practice male circumcision are usually not amongst those who advocate circumcision to prevent HIV transmission. There are few, if any, South American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, European, or Scandinavian males amongst those who advocate male circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.

In a comparison of studies performed by European vis-à-vis those performed by white male English-speaking researchers, the studies by white male English-speaking researchers have been more likely to report a protective effect for male circumcision. In the absence of another logical explanation for this effect, it is possible to conclude that the circumcision status of the researcher(s) may influence the conclusions of their studies.67

Male circumcision is common in North America, but uncommon in most of Europe. In a survey, Laumann reported that 77% of adult American men were circumcised.31 Goldman explains why doctors from circumcising cultures may tend to overstate the purported benefits of circumcision.41 Goldman states:

"Among physicians, support for circumcision has been based on supposed 'rational' factors, but as psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich wrote, 'Intellectual activity has often a structure and direction that it impresses one as an extremely clever apparatus precisely for the avoidance of facts, as an activity which distracts from reality.' This appears to have been the case in those advocating circumcision. Science has been adopted as the great arbiter between fact and fiction. This systematic approach to evaluating experience is of value, especially as research has shown that a surprising number of adults do not reason logically. The scientific method is designed to help protect the scientific community and the public against flawed reasoning, but it is the flawed reasoning of supposedly reputable scientific studies that has contributed to the confusion on the circumcision issue.41

"One reason that flawed studies are published is that science is affected by cultural values. A principal method of preserving cultural values is to disguise them as truths that are based on scientific research. This 'research' can then be used to support questionable and harmful cultural values such as circumcision. This explains the claimed medical 'benefits' of circumcision."41

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

It not up to anybody but the owner of the body part to decide what gets sawed off. That includes the Daddy. You and I do not agree on that. It's not even up to you to make such a statement so emphatically, which is the height of arrogance.

[depakid]

26. That is INCORRECT- read the latest research-

Circumcision does IN FACT provide a protective effect against HIV infection to such an extent that its efficacy approaches what might be seen with vaccination.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16231970&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_DocSum

The same holds true (to a lesser extent) for syphilis and possibly for HSV-2 according to a meta-analysis just published in April of 2006.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16581731&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_DocSum

The results are impressive and have been replicated enough times now under randomized conditions that the only real controversy at this point is whether adult circumcision should be used as a widepread intervention in countries with high rates of HIV transmission.

Run a Pub Med search for "HIV" and "circumcision" and you'll get 36 results on point.

[HuckleB]

27. Not conclusive at all...

Said studies not done in the US, or any similar nation, where hygiene factors are very different. Studies done only in culturally bound places. So, there is a lot of question about what those studies say for any parent in this nation.

[depakid]

28. That might be true- EXCEPT

and it's a big except- for the randomized trials following the prospective cohorts. Due to their methodology, those are broadly generalizable, and therefore pretty conclusive considering the size of the effects. For obvious reasons, you couldn't enbgage in those kinds of studies in the US, so that's the best and cleanest data we're going to get.

[HuckleB]

29. In other words...

it's not as generalizable as some want to argue. Randomization does not mean something is necessarily generalizable to other populations, with differing situations and factors. It's poor science and poor clinical practice to make recommendations in the US based on these studies.

[depakid]

30. That would depend

on the precise causal pathways that are involved in the protective effect. It seems to me that we're looking at physiological mechanisms (similar to what's seen in the HSV-2 vaccine trials with women) that wouldn't be expected to vary all that much between societies. One of the problems with previous comparative research (which is observational) has been the presence of a lot of cultural confounders that are difficult to control for- even within particular countries or regions like Britian or Europe.

We'll know better after the two large study results (as well as some of the smaller ones that are apparently in the works) have been thoroughly analyzed. That said, knowing what I've seen here, I know which choice that I would opt for.

[Touchdown]

32. "Therefore Carthage must be destroyed"

I quote from Roman Senator Cato I noticed. I think it fits your broad brush advocacy quite well.

A study released in Nairobi compares quite different populations of men. According to CBS: "The study focused on Benin's capital Cotonou and Cameroon's capital Yaounde, where circumcision is a widespread cultural practice, as well as the Zambian town of Ndola and the Kenyan town of Kisumu, where it is not." That is, the men compared lived in different countries, as much as 2300 miles (3600 km) apart!

The Rakei study in Uganda showed no circumcised men contracting HIV during its 30 month course, and this fact has been made much of by the likes of Szabo and Short. They fail to mention that more than a third of the circumcised men were infected before the study started, and hence were not admitted to it. Thus all the men in the study had been selected in advance for less than average susceptibility to HIV.

One study, of gay men who visited STD clinics in Seattle, relied on self-reporting, and also found a significant correlation between being circumcised and intra-venous drug use. This was not commented on (and the parallel conclusion, that circumcision should be discouraged in order to prevent IVDU, was of course not drawn). Again, only a small number of the men (thought they) were intact - 59 out of the 313 HIV+ men and 18 out of the 186 HIV- men.

A study of men visiting STD clinics (which in itself skews the sample) in Pune, India is a classic example of inadvertent sorting by religion. In India, only Muslim (and Jewish) men are circumcised.
Two studies claim to find a mechanism for the proposed correlation, involving the Langerhans cells of the foreskin. However they base their conclusions on diametrically opposed data:

A study much touted in early 2000, that of Szabo and Short, is based on a search of the literature (the other flawed studies just listed) plus a histological examination of the penises of 13 cadavers, all aged over 60, only 6 of them with foreskins. It found Langerhans cells on the inner mucosa and concluded that they facilitated HIV transmission

That of arch-circumcisionist Gerald Weiss of seven years earlier examined the foreskins of a cohort of circumcised babies and found a deficiency of Langerhans cells, and concluded that their absence rendered the foreskin vulnerable to HIV transmission.....This one of your links Depakid

Where circumcision doesn't prevent AIDS - Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, the first AIDS cases were reported in hospitals in 1986. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has increasingly spread among Ethiopians with time and government statistics cite one person out of every 100 was HIV infected in 1989, 3 persons out of every 100 in 1993 and 5 out of 100 in 1996. In 1996 the National HIV/AIDS Control Programme had registered a cumulative total of 21,000 reported AIDS cases. It is acknowledged, however that there is gross under reporting. It is estimated that the cumulative number of AIDS cases was actually 350,000 by December 1997. By the end of 1997, an estimated 2.5 million Ethiopians were living with HIV. ... If effective measures are not undertaken to control the epidemic, one out of every two hospital beds will be occupied by AIDS patients by the year 2001...

- United Nations Development Programme Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia
Situation Report for Ethiopia, April 1999

...circ of boys is more or less universal - including among the Coptic Christians. They do the circ early - usually at one to a few weeks of age. The same applies to the girls - most of them were circ at 1 week of age - which is different from customs in other parts of Africa where it is made much later. When I worked in Addis Ababa as a pediatrician we had a lot of complications with both these types including many deaths from bleeding and infection - and occasionally amputation of the penis.

- Yngve Hofvander, Professor Emeritus
in International Child Health
at Uppsala University,
personal communication

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

[depakid]

34. About the only advocate I see here is you

I'm simply pointing out the rather astounding findings in the latest research.

On the other hand- you seem to have an agenda other than the public health,which looks to be guided by an emotional response. I've noticed this phenomema on other recent threads like this one. Can't say that I understand it yet.

[Touchdown]

37. That's right. I am an advocate.

The difference here is that I'm honest about it. I'm also honestly questioning this research you're pushing. Questions that you've yet to answser. Research by avowed circumcisionists who historically make up their conclusions, then make the facts fit those conclusions, and upon every bit of research like a broken record, the same conclusion is made... "UNIVERSAL CIRCUMCISION IS RECOMMENDED!". Use those abstract words like "phenomena", to make you feel removed from emotion all you want. You are an advocate, in favor of slicing dicks apart, and are desperate to get that word out. This is the third circumcision thread you've been passing this "research" off into, and always you use buzzowrds like "facts", "non-emotional", "science based", etc. to try and hide what you really are.

You're damn right I'm emotional. Damn angry. Some quack in the 1960s ripped a God given body part off of me without my permission, consent, or knowledge. Why? Because it's "useless", it's "cultural", it "prevents masturbation", it's "cleaner", it's "like an appendix". Why don't we all have our appendixes removed at birth? I'd rather have that removed than a functional sexual organ with 70 million nerve endings that has a purpose, not only in coitus, but in other aspects of life, such as disease prevention. 90% of human males, and 100% animal males have foreskins. I see no difference in the rate of infections, diseases, or extinction because of foreskins. Leave my, and everybody else's bodies alone!

The United States is the only inductrialized country left where circumcisions are performed on half of the newborns. The United States also has the largest population of people living with HIV and has the highest HIV contraction rate. It hit the gay male community the hardest in the early 1980s, a time when 90% of 20-30 something Americans were circumcized, based on the data from the 50s and 60s, when post natal circumcision was at its most prevalent. Explain that.

Those FACTS fly in the face of the junk science you are trying to sell here. And selling it you are. It's a phenomena I've noticed whenever you see a circumcision thread. Can't say that I understand it yet.;)

[Touchdown]

33. Your first link made a wild claim worthy of Gary Trudeau

"CONCLUSION: Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. "

Funny how they openly admit that this study is still in the works, and they've already reached this conclusion. Hmm. No bias there I see. And...just like all the other debunked "research" where they are to find justifications for knife on infant penis perversions, they always, and predictably recommend UNIVERSAL circumcision.

"FACTS" indeed.:eyes:

[depakid]

35. Apparently, you don't understand how research is done

When dramatic results appear in the data, they are often and submitted at conferences and/or published for per review.

For example, CML patients responded so well during the clinical trials for Gleevec that in many cases, it wasn't ethical to continue with conventional therapy. Patients crossed over to the new treatment, which was quickly approved, despite not having completed the typical protocol.

[Touchdown]

38. I understand how research is done. It's not done this way.

It's not done by asking subjects who engage in unprotected sex with prostitutes what their experiences were. Some may have engaged in hoomosexual activity, and they, being muslim would never divulge that willingly. It's not sound.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Are you telling me you really believe

that all of the people who disagree with your opinion actually do so because they enjoy circumcising babies and have, as you describe it, "knife on penis" fetishes?

:yoiks:

[Touchdown]

39. Uh, I can't think of any other reason.

Asthetics and cultural practice is the most important reasons which boils down to Anglo-Saxon Fetishism. The health, cleanliness reasons are junk science, so they can't be it.

Is there another one?:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

42. Thanks. n/t

[Touchdown]

43. (_E=mc2_)

:evilgrin:

[depakid]

45. It's always junk science to some people

when they don't like what's in the data.

Personally, I don't have any aesthetic or religious preference one way or another. I just heard about these studies in a healthcare NGO class I took last year. The presentation surprised me, because it contradicted a lot of what I'd heard elsewhere.

Looking at the studies (if you run the pub med searches, you'll see how hot the topic is from the number of 2005 and 2006 entries) I don't see much to question about their validity- although as HuckleB noted, some issues have been raised as to the degree that they are generalizable.

[beam me up scottie]

46. I've read a bit about it as well,

and was interested in the new studies.

I was just testing the waters and trying to decide if I wanted to participate in this thread.

I'll have to decline.

I'm busy being accused of wanting to destroy christianity right now.

Hey, everyone's gotta have a hobby, right?

[varkam]

49. What do you mean "accused"?

:)

[Touchdown]

47. If you don't see much to question, then you don't know much

about HIV. There are many factors that your researchers didn't take into account.

Viral load: the most important factor in HIV contraction.
Genital Ulcers
Open sores
IV drug use
Other STDs; which contribute to a weakened immune system. Herpres leaves open sores, etc.
Condom use
Location of study
Culture of subjects
Religion of subjects
Female circumcision (which places FGM females at higher risk of HIV)
Un-sanitary medical practices.

My aim is not to question actual science, but to question the motives, and drive of these particular researchers, and why they just pulled circumcision and matched it with HIV, as if they pulled it out of a hat with a hypothesis. Every bit of research has a political motive, and with every political motive, a certain outcome is either assured, or it's fixed to make sure it's assured.

What is the history of these researchers?
What are their motivations in doing this study?
Are they circumcised themselves (Drs who are generally advocate circumsicions much more often)?
Do they regularly advocate for circumcision on any other research?
How many in circumcision related research to prove it's good for society?
Are they from an english speaking and heritage country, where the cultural norm was circumcision? (Aurtralia, US, Canada, UK, NZ, etc.)

See historically, circumcision has always been the cure in an eternal search for a disease, so when "new data" that makes an irresponsible claim such as the one beating out the efficacy of a vaccine, it's immediately suspect. Not because of it's methodology (which is still questionable), but because of all of the other since disproven studies that came before it, and drew the same cure-all conclusions.


Answer my question about The US, and why it's got more HIV infections and more circumcisions than anywhere else in the developed world. You read it, and knowing that you respond quickly, I should hope that you won't shy away from that. After all, you are just looking at it on a "clinical, non-emotional level".;)

[HuckleB]

44. Not just Anglo-Saxon fetishism.

It's a religious superstition that rounds the globe and touches a great variety of cultures.

http://www.circlist.com/rites/rites.html

[Touchdown]

48. I read a link that it's going down in Isreal as well.

Sorry I can't find it now, but I'll do a search in a bit.

[HuckleB]

40. Not to butt in...

but, alas, I have known too many friends who have decided to circumsize their boys because a) they think that the kid will be ostracized somehow, if they don't (note: I and the friends in question, all live on the west coast, where circumsized boys are now the minority), b) because they boy should look like his father, and/or c) because they feel very strongly about it (despite having no religious affiliation related to the decision). My suspicion is that most people don't circumsize their kids based on logic, even if there are logical reasons to do so.

[Touchdown]

41. Sorry. That's Kevin Trudeau. The indicted snake oil salesman.

:dunce:

[Touchdown]

31. "The latest research" is debateable at best.

Read my post below on their questionable methodology. The results are "impressive" if you don't look into how their pushed by advocates, such as yourself. Why are you so bent on butchering every last male on Earth? This is more than just "getting facts out" like you wish us to believe, as in the last thread you invaded with these bullshit studies. You got a knife on penis fetish with this.

I'm not suprised you didn't reply to my post 24, which puts into serious question this "research" you're trying to sell.

[progdonkey]

50. No, Rev. Sylvester Graham invented the Graham cracker...

You're correct in that it was meant as a special health food, though in a slightly indirect way: he believed poor nutrition (defined by him as eating meat and not enough fiber) increased carnal lust, which caused stresses in the body that were to blame for all sorts of health problems.

He then formulated vegetarian, high-fiber crackers which he publicized as a way of hindering lustful thoughts. (He wasn't that crazy, though: I know if all I had to eat was graham crackers and water, I wouldn't be feeling that horny.)

More at Snopes.

Kellog believed extremely frequent enemas would cure all sorts of ailments. He wasn't some sort of nut like Graham. How could you be so stupid to confuse the two? :smoke:

[Trillo]

25. Not directly related,

but I wonder about the correlation (my guess is negative), of pro-lifers who object to a fetuses pain during abortion who are also for circumcision.

I've also wondered about the long-term psychological effects of the pain, and if it at all relates to male aggressiveness, but never really investigated the issue.