Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[ddt]

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.

Then why didn't God design man without a foreskin to prevent those UTIs? And why did he design the HIV and those other STD viruses? That reasoning is completely illogical, but then it's religion.

 

[The Big Dog]

Basic application of the scientific method would require that you compare circumcised v.s non-circularized in the same population so as to isolate the variable being tested as much as possible.

I've pointed this out before.

You did not do that.

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?

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.

Slightly expanded and bumped.

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

it appears that in response to my objection regarding the invalidity of the analysis he cited and my question regarding why he didn't use intra population studies comparing circ v. non-circ, the response is:

"You want to mutilate baby boys." Yep, that is the response to my pointing out his cited comparison between finland and the usa is flawed.

Anyone else wish to weigh in, or are we just gonna leave it with spin's appeal to emotion/ad hominem/personal attack?

Because I'm all good with spin's white flag response.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Kindly point out where I appealed to the "biggest argument" for circumcision is because it is a religious tradition.

Do it quickly, it is windy today and your strawmen might get blown over.

 

[Baylor]

What exactly is a "USEFUL analysis?"

 

[Darat]

One that gives the answer I want!

 

[The Big Dog]

What exactly is a "USEFUL analysis?"

An analysis that is, unlike spin's, not absolutely worthless because it violates basic principles of the scientific method.

 

[ddt]

it appears that in response to my objection regarding the invalidity of the analysis he cited and my question regarding why he didn't use intra population studies comparing circ v. non-circ, the response is:

"You want to mutilate baby boys." Yep, that is the response to my pointing out his cited comparison between finland and the usa is flawed.

Anyone else wish to weigh in, or are we just gonna leave it with spin's appeal to emotion/ad hominem/personal attack?

Because I'm all good with spin's white flag response consistently ignoring every post made in response to mine.

FTFY.

Does 16.5 have me on ignore? He hasn't reacted to my post #730 nor read my post #800 nor my post #801.

 

[spin0]

it appears that in response to my objection regarding the invalidity of the analysis he cited and my question regarding why he didn't use intra population studies comparing circ v. non-circ, the response is

Let's see the record then, shall we.

Claimant claims:

Yeah because the many-fold reduction in UTI's observed in serval large-sample meta-analyses entails cicrumcision's "being justified by nebulous medical reasons after the fact".

Which rises a legitimate question:

If you honestly believe that could you please explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?

Despite having very different rates and attitudes regarding infant genital mutilation Finland doesn't seem to suffer from an epidemic of UTI among children. Which leads me to suspect that your universal oilment for every ailment doesn't actually work as you claim.

And that question still goes without an actual answer, mind you, despite your efforts of objecting to it and avoiding answering it with an actual answer. So far you have come up with this:

No I can't because there are far to many variables to isolate just one.

You claim such variables exist yet you haven't specified any actually relevant ones even when asked to do so, which means you don't actually know any despite claiming them. Therefore: to the very good question "could you please explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?" your answers essentially boil down that you don't know, and you have been trying to direct the thread away from that question ever since with your trollish objections to just about everything.

Yet the fact remains that the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland, which casts serious doubts that infant genital mutilation as a universal cure for just about every ailment doesn't actually work as you guys claim.

 

[The Big Dog]

Let's see the record then, shall we.

Claimant claims:
Which rises a legitimate question:

And that question still goes without an actual answer, mind you, despite your efforts of objecting to it and avoiding answering it with an actual answer. So far you have come up with this:

You claim such variables exist yet you haven't specified any actually relevant ones even when asked to do so, which means you don't actually know any despite claiming them. Therefore: to the very good question "could you please explain why the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland?" your answers essentially boil down that you don't know, and you have been trying to direct the thread away from that question ever since with your trollish objections to just about everything.

Yet the fact remains that the prevalence of childhood UTI is about the same in the US and Finland, which casts serious doubts that infant genital mutilation as a universal cure for just about every ailment doesn't actually work as you guys claim.

And I mentioned immigration, didn't I? Do you know that the rate of legal and illegal immigration to the USA every two years exceeds the entire population of Finland? Finland is homogeneous, the USA is most certainly not.

Your conclusion is that the populations are comparable other than circumcision rates, which is ridiculous er has not been shown.

As such, a fair and accurate comparison that normalizes for the fact the two countries are not similar is to compare the circ v. non-circ within a single population, something that rather than acknowledging you have instead resorted to frivolous claims that I am trolling.

eta: Mexican born individuals in the US both have a lower level of circumcision and a higher level of UTI than American born. Did you normalize for this, spin? And the other uncircumcised people coming to the US? What is the rate of Mexican immigration to Finland anyway?

http://books.google.com/books?id=90...rinary tract infections in immigrants&f=false

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Thank you for being patient enough to post that, spin0.

 

[ddt]

And I mentioned immigration, didn't I? Do you know that the rate of legal and illegal immigration to the USA every two years exceeds the entire population of Finland?

So what? It's the (neonatal) circumcision that counts, immigrant or not. And you utterly fail on that point. Those rates of UTIs derive from the same statistics as the circumcision rates. Illegal immigrants don't count in that, they don't even have access to health care (except maybe emergency services, but UTIs are not an emergency).

Finland is homogeneous, the USA is most certainly not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_minority_in_Finland
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Your conclusion is that other than circumcision the to populations are comparable, which is ridiculous er has not been shown.

In affluence, level of health care, level of education, etcetera, very comparable indeed.

As such, a fair and accurate comparison that normalizes for the fact the two countries are not similar is to compare the circ v. non-circ within a single population, something that rather than acknowledging you have instead resorted to frivolous claims that I am trolling.

Which you are. You have been told that such studies don't exist, and it's the leaders of your mutilation fan club which have to do such studies. Complain with them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thank you for being patient enough to post that, spin0.

Despite Spin's "patience," he still didn't answer the question why he doesn't cite same population circ v. non-circ.

 

[ddt]

Despite Spin's "patience," he still didn't answer the question why he doesn't cite same population circ v. non-circ.

SUCH STUDIES DON'T EXIST

 

[The Norseman]

Kindly point out where I appealed to the "biggest argument" for circumcision is because it is a religious tradition.

Do it quickly, it is windy today and your strawmen might get blown over.

I didn't quote you, so I didn't attribute any statement to you. I clearly used quotes when I did so. Do you deny it has been said in this thread by proponents of circumcision and my statement is accurate?

Now, how about answering these questions?

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?

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?​

 

[The Big Dog]

I didn't quote you, so I didn't attribute any statement to you. I clearly used quotes when I did so. Do you deny it has been said in this thread by proponents of circumcision and my statement is accurate?

Now, how about answering these questions?

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?

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?​

The question is whether circumcision has beneficial medical effects. "third world" medical associations have shown that it does. Why exactly do you think I should reject that?

Other than Africa? What is wrong with their studies?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[ddt]

The question is whether circumcision has beneficial medical effects. "third world" medical associations have shown that it does. Why exactly do you think I should reject that?

Yes, I agree that the USA in this regard counts as a third world country. With respect to circumcision, Americans, medical scientist included, get their wisdom from the side of a cereal box.

Other than Africa? What is wrong with their studies?

Absolutely nothing.

You have not been paying attention in this thread.

 

[ddt]

The question is whether circumcision has beneficial medical effects. "third world" medical associations have shown that it does. Why exactly do you think I should reject that?

Other than Africa? What is wrong with their studies?

Absolutely nothing.

You may have missed spin0's post #592:

Study: Circumcision Does Not Prevent Sexually-Transmitted Infections
A new study by urologists shows no link between circumcision and sexually-transmitted infections.

A 2012 study of Caribbean men in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that "compared with uncircumcised men, circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection."

Siegried et al. (2003) surveyed 35 observational studies relating to HIV and circumcision: 16 conducted in the general population and 19 in high-risk populations. "We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."

Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men: study
Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. "We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners"

A 2008 meta-analysis of 15 observational studies, including 53,567 gay and bisexual men from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Taiwan, Peru and the Netherlands (52% circumcised), found that the rate of HIV infection was not significantly lower among men who were circumcised compared with those who were uncircumcised.

The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

And in Botswana there's an upsurge in the number of circumcised men infected by the HIV.

And Bensley & Boyle (2001)found that circumcised men were significantly more likely to be reluctant to use condoms than genitally intact men. The finding that intact men used condoms more consistently was recently confirmed by Crosby & Charnigo (2013) among men attending sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics.

ETA: no, you didn't miss it but only reacted by saying "anything on cancer". Which goes to show how desperate the mutilation fan club tries to find a single benefit to indulge their preoccupation and is prepared to go through the whole ABC of all possible diseases.

 

[jdp]

The question is whether circumcision has beneficial medical effects. "third world" medical associations have shown that it does. Why exactly do you think I should reject that?

Because context matters.

 

[Loss Leader]

Which goes to show how desperate the mutilation fan club tries to find a single benefit to indulge their preoccupation and is prepared to go through the whole ABC of all possible diseases.

Once again, it seems a touch uncivil to refer to me as a member of "the mutilation fan club" or to claim that I am preoocupied with the subject.

In any case, I support the rights of children to make decisions about bodily integrity through their parents, but I do not feel any need to find any medical benefits. I acknowledge that whatever benefit might theoretically come from neonatal circumcision, they are about equal to the benefit that might theoretically come from not doing a circumcision. And I acknowledge that the risks of both decision are equivalent.

In fact, this forum has caused me to change my opinion. I now believe children should not be routinely circumcised based on general medical reasons.

I would, of course, still circumcise my children and I support the ability of parents to make that choice. Please don't ascribe to me beliefs which I do not hold.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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?

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?

Quoted here because 16.5 "missed" it the last time he replied.