Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[jdp]

NO. Even I were to accept your claim, it is still imbued with an elitist sentiment.

If the issue is whether circumcision is an efficacious medical procedure, why should I reject the position of "less than first world" medical associations?

Pout about it all you want, it's not a claim, it's a fact that the organizations you're citing, the AMA or the AAP but for simplicity we'll just say the US medical groups, hold an outlier position on the question of whether circumcision is an efficacious medical procedure. And unfortunatly for you, this includes "less than first world" medical associations with the exception of countries where HIV is endemic.

Further, I am getting the strong impression that the Nordic medical associations are infested with non-medical considerations, and a pro-governmental authority leanings.

No thanks.

I am not sure what would be giving you that impression. The European medical associations are privy to the same research that the American associations are, they just don't have the history to defend.

 

[The Big Dog]

Very good. And those other variables are?

I assume you are joking, right? Beyond the fact that it is your experiment and therefore your burden, the question is absurd.

In any event, in the high school district in which I live, over 25 percent of the student were born in other countries, and that number reaches 50 percent if the question is where there parents came from.

Further, immigration both legal and otherwise into the United States every year is substantially higher than Finland.

Imagine if finland's population turned over every five years.

Cripes, man, what are the variables?

By the way, I see that we are not going to get an explanation why the intactavists don't show circumsized v. Non studies rather than the grossly flawed junk science they are relying on.

But they ask ME what the variables are.... Rolls eyes.

 

[ddt]

No I can't because there are far to many variables to isolate just one. Basic scientific method shows that any such comparison is JUNK SCIENCE.

Can you explain why you don't perform an actual USEFUL analysis comparing circumcised v. non?

And I can just about guess your objections if there were an RCT that compared UTIs with circumcision status among Americans. "There's a difference in socio-economic status between those who circumcise and those who don't", and you'd use that to dismiss the study as "junk science" too.

In the meantime, you can perhaps address which variables lead to Americans having a 20 times higher incidence of HIV if we go with the purported efficacy of circumcision on HIV infection of a factor 8.2 as claimed by Cameron et.al. Is the USA a third world country?

 

[ddt]

I assume you are joking, right? Beyond the fact that it is your experiment and therefore your burden, the question is absurd.

No, the onus is on you. You want to mutilate baby boys, you devise the trial which has no confounding variables which may prove your point.

In any event, in the high school district in which I live, over 25 percent of the student were born in other countries, and that number reaches 50 percent if the question is where there parents came from.

Further, immigration both legal and otherwise into the United States every year is substantially higher than Finland.

Yeah, well, I guess it's easier to drown in the Mediterranean (the southern border of Finland) than in the Rio Grande. But still I'm unconvinced, so could you give, you know, actual evidence for that claim?

 

[One Tenth]

I am not sure what would be giving you that impression. The European medical associations are privy to the same research that the American associations are, they just don't have the history to defend.

Note that some of the associations, such as the Canadian and Australian ones, do have a genital cutting history as well.

 

[jdp]

Note that some of the associations, such as the Canadian and Australian ones, do have a genital cutting history as well.

Yes they do. And those two countries also still have relatively high prevalence of circumcision in their adult (say over 30 or so) populations. It is also a fact that their policies are somewhere between the European and US policies. The British have a history too but it's further in the past. I think if you put these things on a spectrum you would see that the more current the history of genital cutting, the softer the stance is on the issue. As the Canadians and Australians move further away from that history I believe we would see their policies drift toward the European stance. Even now, it is increasingly difficult to find a doctor willing to circumcise a child in Australia and Canada (more the former than the latter) that is a trend that I would expect to continue as they move further away from that history as well.

 

[ddt]

Further, I am getting the strong impression that the Nordic medical associations are infested with non-medical considerations, and a pro-governmental authority leanings human rights considerations.

FTFY. You've been corrected on this numerous times. Why don't you use the N-word directly instead of such generalities, while you're trolling away?

Here is the standpoint of the Dutch medical association KNMG:

The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.

You may follow the link to the 20-page report.

(oh, and the Netherlands is not in Scandinavia, but I had the link anyway).

 

[spin0]

First, the author indicates that circumcision is only rarely needed in cases of childhood phimosis. He backs this up with references to the medical literature (refs. 4-10).

Secondly, he signals an apparent lack of awareness of this among the general field. The table shows that around 70% of children who are diagnosed with phimosis are treated with circumcision: around 3,500 out of 5,000 for each of the mentioned years, based on numbers of 2/3rd of the Dutch hospitals. The author himself works at the Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, which is part of Utrecht University.

The relevant medical associations and experts have paid attention to the same thing here in Finland too. More medical circumcisions are done than would be expected by the prevalence of serious pathological phimosis warranting such procedure. They attribute it to possible misdiagnoses and lack of awareness of the applicability of less invasive treatments.

 

[The Big Dog]

Can you explain why you don't perform an actual USEFUL analysis comparing circumcised v. non within the same population group?

Slightly expanded and bumped.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

In certain worlds, USEFUL ANALYSIS is defined as "whatever I agree with".

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Irony!

what is a "personal national medical association"? Seems like an oxymoron. yes?

Yes. You said "personal opinion", Tsukasa pointed, in a sarcastic way, that we're not just talking about "personal" opinions, but also that of professional medical organizations.

Instead of acknowledging this, you chose to make a reply about his choice of wording -- in other words, you missed his point, accidentally or deliberately.

fallacious argument to first world popularity?

Really?

This is like playing Calvinball. We argue our position and you just introduce new rules to avoid having to give serious replies. Now apparently it's fallacious to list sources that happen to be from the first world.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Further, I am getting the strong impression that the Nordic medical associations are infested with non-medical considerations, and a pro-governmental authority leanings.

No thanks.

Would you mind telling us what gives you this strong impression, or is this just another dodge from you?

 

[spin0]

Cripes, man, what are the variables?

Indeed. What are they? There must be some reason as to why the prevalence of UTI is about the same in the US and Finland despite the US having genitally mutilated most of the baby boys for generations in a vain effort to reduce the rate.

But they ask ME what the variables are.... Rolls eyes.

As ddt already said: The onus is on you. You want to mutilate baby boys, you devise the trial which has no confounding variables which may prove your point.

Besides, in the Nordics (and indeed in the most of the western world) the relevant medical associations and experts are not impressed by the US research regarding infant genital mutilation and UTI. And you have just given one reason for that yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

Indeed. What are they? There must be some reason as to why the prevalence of UTI is about the same in the US and Finland despite the US having genitally mutilated most of the baby boys for generations in a vain effort to reduce the rate.

As ddt already said: The onus is on you. You want to mutilate baby boys, you devise the trial which has no confounding variables which may prove your point.

Besides, in the Nordics (and indeed in the most of the western world) the relevant medical associations and experts are not impressed by the US research regarding infant genital mutilation and UTI. And you have just given one reason for that yourself.

Done! Three times asked, three times ducked.

 

[jdp]

Yes. You said "personal opinion", Tsukasa pointed, in a sarcastic way, that we're not just talking about "personal" opinions, but also that of professional medical organizations.

Instead of acknowledging this, you chose to make a reply about his choice of wording -- in other words, you missed his point, accidentally or deliberately.

This is like playing Calvinball. We argue our position and you just introduce new rules to avoid having to give serious replies. Now apparently it's fallacious to list sources that happen to be from the first world.

Now, now, "Similarly situated", we don't want sound elitist when considering context.

 

[spin0]

Done! Three times asked, three times ducked.

k, seems you're out then.

 

[The Big Dog]

k, seems you're out then.

I asked you three times why you did not cite a legitimate analysis comparing circ v. Non and you ducked it three times. And that is after I specifically answered your question.

Instead you respond with bizarre invective

We know that circ v. Non destroys your claims.

Thanks for posting.

 

[spin0]

I asked you three times why you did not cite a legitimate analysis comparing circ v. Non and you ducked it three times. And that is after I specifically answered your question.

With an anecdote and non-sense about an imaginary population turn over every five years:

In any event, in the high school district in which I live, over 25 percent of the student were born in other countries, and that number reaches 50 percent if the question is where there parents came from.
Further, immigration both legal and otherwise into the United States every year is substantially higher than Finland.
Imagine if finland's population turned over every five years.

I take it you lack relevant knowledge to actually answer the legitimate question related to your claim.

Besides, your question has already been answered twice: The onus is on you. You want to mutilate baby boys, you devise the trial which has no confounding variables which may prove your point.

 

[The Norseman]

NO. Even I were to accept your claim, it is still imbued with an elitist sentiment.

"[E]litist sentiment"? So what? How can that possibly affect the numbers as are seen in that report? You're making the claim that this study should be ignored; why should it be ignored? How does "elitist sentiment" adversely affect the study enough that the conclusions drawn are warrantless?

If the issue is whether circumcision is an efficacious medical procedure, why should I reject the position of "less than first world" medical associations?

Other than Africa, do you have other studies done from "less than first world" countries which support the contention that circumcision has all of these numerous benefits?

Further, I am getting the strong impression that the Nordic medical associations are infested with non-medical considerations , and a pro-governmental authority leanings.

No thanks.

A medical association is "infested with non-medical considerations" when the biggest argument for circumcision is because it's a religious tradition.

That's profoundly funny.

No, wait! There are calls of antisemitism being bandied about in this thread precisely because of Jewish medical considerations and not religious ritual! How wrong I am! God proscribed circumcision merely to prevent UTIs and some forms of STD which He knew wouldn't appear for several thousand years.

 

[ddt]

I asked you three times why you did not cite a legitimate analysis comparing circ v. Non and you ducked it three times. And that is after I specifically answered your question.

Do you even read the posts? The answer was already in my post #771:

This is what 38 European experts write in their response "Cultural Bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision" to the AAP's policy recommendation:

According to the literature reviewed, ∼1% of boys will develop a UTI within the first years of life.2 There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) linking UTIs to circumcision status.

I highlighted the operative sentence.

Instead you respond with bizarre invective

We know that circ v. Non destroys your claims.

How can you say that you "know" something when the relevant studies - relevant according to your own wording! - don't exist.

Are you just trolling?