To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

View previous topic View next topic Go down

To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Momma Heathen on Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:45 am

I posted this in response to danielg's idiotic rant on circumcision on the RD blog:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Male Circumcision:

>>You may see this as male genital mutilation, but it is nothing like female genital mutilation:

It's less-worse, but genital mutilation none-the-less.

>>1. It is largely external, and only skin.

15 square inches of skin ripped from the human body. Tell these kids it's only skin: http://www.whale.to/b/male_genital_mutilation_p.html Besides, tearing the 'foreskin' from the glans is akin to ripping a fingernail from the tip of a finger. It's ATTACHED. All of it.

>>2. It does not significantly decrease sexual pleasure.

So removing 15 square inches of flesh and 240 feet of nerves doesn't cause any significant decrease in sexual pleasure?

>>3. It has proven medical benefits.

Really? Like what? This I'd love to see. It doesn't decrease the risk of penile cancers (and following this logic we should just remove the breast tissue from every baby girl who is born 'just in case'), it's isn't 'more clean' (a myth -- smegma is what keeps the area between the 'foreskin' and glans clean when a man is left intact--regardless, the skin doesn't even pull away from the glans until roughly 7-11 years of age--until then it takes no more cleaning than a simple wipe we teach our girls).

>>4. It is not associated with sexual mores.

Elaborate.

>>I am surprised that you would take a weird stand against male circumcision.

I'm surprised you wouldn't, seeing as you (I assume) possess the 'equipment.'

And I use the word 'foreskin' with a grimace. There is no one place where the shaft ends and the 'foreskin' begins, or vice-versa. It's ALL shaft-skin. Asshat.

Too, before you begin to wonder how a woman (yikes!) might know about all of this: I'm a mother. Should I ever have a son I would NEVER remove a piece of his body without his permission.

_________________
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have. - Penn Jillette
avatar
Momma Heathen

Posts : 54
Join date : 2009-09-06
Age : 38
Location : Purgatory -- It's so-so.

http://www.mommaheathen.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  politas on Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:20 am

Hear, hear! Automatic circumcision of babies is a barbaric practice that should be done away with.
avatar
politas

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-09-06
Location : Canberra, Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Nathan Barley on Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:07 pm

My foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of my body, which guards THE most sensitive part. It's absurd to say that removing it makes no difference to sexual pleasure. Ever walked on a pebbly beach? Because you wear shoes most of the time, it is quite painful at first to suddenly start walking on pebbles. But after a day or so on the beach the skin on your feet becomes much less sensitive and you can walk around quite easily.

This is what removing the foreskin does to your penis - it desensitizes what's underneath. Anyone want to volunteer for less sensation in their private parts? Didn't think so.

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  groomporter on Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:35 pm

In recent studies in Africa circumcision has been found to reduce the spread of AIDS in heterosexual men and is backed by the NIH:

"While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse."
-http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/

Two papers in the February 24 (2006) issue of The Lancet provide detailed analyses of these NIAID-funded trials. In the trial of 2,784 HIV-negative men in Kisumu, Kenya, the investigators found the rate of HIV acquisition in circumcised men to be 53 percent lower than in uncircumcised men. Investigators in the trial of 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, report that HIV acquisition was reduced by 51 percent in circumcised men.
-http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2007/lancetcircpapers.htm

groomporter

Posts : 10
Join date : 2009-11-05
Location : Minnesota

http://historicgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Nathan Barley on Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:13 pm

Count me as sceptical on these studies. For decades now, every few years has brought another study claiming health benefits of circumcision, and within another few years the same study is shows to be bunk. None ever stand up very long. Perhaps this one will be different.

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Nicholas on Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:24 pm

Yeah, you know I really don't see how a foreskin could reduce the propagation of the HIV virus; it sounds incidental and not at all related. Have they isolated all other factors? I doubt it.

And really, that's beside the point. You want to reduce the risk of HIV transmission? I have one word for you: CONDOMS (and sex education. Alright, 3 words). Saying everyone should have their penis lanced because a few studies have shown that it might help prevent contraction of AIDS is a pretty fucking weak argument.
avatar
Nicholas

Posts : 84
Join date : 2009-09-07
Age : 36
Location : Scarborough, Maine

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  groomporter on Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:32 pm

Nicholas wrote:Yeah, you know I really don't see how a foreskin could reduce the propagation of the HIV virus; it sounds incidental and not at all related. Have they isolated all other factors? I doubt it.

I assume use mean you don't see how the absence of a foreskin could reduce propagation.

Smegma normally has anti-bacterial and antiviral properties, but perhaps the HIV virus is able to over come those properties, allowing the virus to live longer outside the body in the warm environment under the foreskin. (Just speculation, but perhaps a warmer climate and less access to western hygiene conveniences/sanitation could contribute as well??)

There's this study that might be related.
Foreskin inflammation is increased with HIV and HSV-2 infections, higher HIV viral load and presence of smegma. Foreskin inflammation may have implications for HIV transmission and acquisition in uncircumcised men.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19584700?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

groomporter

Posts : 10
Join date : 2009-11-05
Location : Minnesota

http://historicgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  groomporter on Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:47 pm

I admit I don't know what we would have decided if the wife and I had spawned a male child, but for myself I just don't feel mutilated, chafed or otherwise discomforted... Rolling Eyes

groomporter

Posts : 10
Join date : 2009-11-05
Location : Minnesota

http://historicgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Momma Heathen on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:39 am

First of all, the source being quoted is using the term 'uncircumcised.' There's no such thing. Once you're circumcised, it's not undone. (Except in Canada! Yay!)

Unprotected sex carries a risk of AIDS. Men in Africa happen to be intact. Ta-da.

_________________
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have. - Penn Jillette
avatar
Momma Heathen

Posts : 54
Join date : 2009-09-06
Age : 38
Location : Purgatory -- It's so-so.

http://www.mommaheathen.blogspot.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  cleanwillie on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:51 am

groomporter wrote:I admit I don't know what we would have decided if the wife and I had spawned a male child, but for myself I just don't feel mutilated, chafed or otherwise discomforted... Rolling Eyes

Me neither. I've never had any problems because I was circumcised and I've never been angry at my parents for the choice they made. On the other hand, I'm positive that if I ever have a male child, I will not have him circumcised. It is a useless, irreversible operation that can cause nasty complications.
avatar
cleanwillie

Posts : 34
Join date : 2009-09-11
Location : Helsinki, Finland

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  groomporter on Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:06 am

Momma Heathen wrote:First of all, the source being quoted is using the term 'uncircumcised.' There's no such thing. Once you're circumcised, it's not undone. (Except in Canada! Yay!)

Unprotected sex carries a risk of AIDS. Men in Africa happen to be intact. Ta-da.

Merely semantics, for decades the term 'uncircumcised,' has commonly been used to refer to men who are intact.

For the men in Africa who were not intact the rate of HIV acquisition was reduced by 50 percent. I agree that education and condoms are the long-term solution, but for a 50% reduction it may be worth balancing the risks as a personal decision. It has been in the news that, as a result of this study, adult men in parts of Africa are seeking out circumcisions and some clinics have a backlog of patients.

To see if there was more current info on the study I just asked a friend who is working on her masters in microbiology if she had heard about any challenges to it and she replied

from what I understand, it was so clearly protective to circumcise that they stopped the study early because it was unethical to withhold it from the men in the study. It has to do with they types of cells that are vulnerable to infection and where they are in the tissue. foreskin can be irritated and will bring in more immune cells to the area because of the inflammation. That's why its easier to contract HIV when you haven't been circumcised.

I just looked up the latest literature on that article. Lots of people thought that the way that the study was designed was unethical (risk to participants sexual partners). No one really disagrees with the actual outcome of the study.

groomporter

Posts : 10
Join date : 2009-11-05
Location : Minnesota

http://historicgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Nathan Barley on Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:30 am

"it was so clearly protective to circumcise that they stopped the study early because it was unethical to withhold it from the men in the study"

Actually, I heard something similar to this, and almost posted this earlier on the board as evidence AGAINST the study. I only didn't because I feared I'd be accused of citing hearsay as evidence. I imagined myself then defending this hearsay as 'backing up my existing hypothesis'. Realising that this wasn't particularly scientific, I deleted it from my post.

But now you've cited it too, we can discuss it. They cut short the study because they'd already reached their conclusion? We've seen this before in dodgy tests meant to discover the validity of vitamin supplements designed to boost child learning. "The test was never completed because it seemed unethical to deny the supplements to the control group of kids."

It strikes me as a warning sign that the tests were not being carried out properly. The people carrying out the tests generally WANT to 'prove' that circumcision protects people from infection. They WANT this to be an alternative to education on condom use.

"It was unethical to withhold it from men" - well why not just give all these men condoms then if they care so much about the men's health?

EDITED TO ADD: googling this research throws up all sorts:

"I think "top researchers" is big spin. At least Mr. Halprin is a big pusher of circumcison. The people that did the African studies were pushing it too. They don't talk much about the companion study where circumcised men passed HIV at a higher rate than intact men."

"It is the same few "top researchers" - Daniel Halperin among them - who did the human experiments in order to claim that circumcision protects against HIV, who multiplied the small numbers of men involved by hundreds of thousands to claim that millions would be protected, and who now push for funding to be diverted from condoms - which work - toward circumcision.
In the Kenyan experiment, a greater proportion of the circumcised men got HIV than the non-circumcised men in Uganda, where there was a "Zero grazing" campaign.
These experiments were not (and maybe could not have been) double-blinded or placebo-controlled, and both experimenters and experimentees very much wanted circumcision to be effective, so bias is likely. Many more men dropped out, their HIV status unknown to the researchers, than were known to be infected, so circumcision could easily have had no effect at all. Evidence of non-sexual transmission was ignored.
For thousands of years people have believed that cutting men's and boy's foreskins off will have magical benefits. This is just one more."


Last edited by Nathan Barley on Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Nathan Barley on Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:04 pm

I've never been convinced by the argument that "It hasn't hurt me at all" and "I want my son to be like me".

I've heard both these arguments offered by deaf people who say that if they could choose they would want their kids to be deaf too. They claim that it doesn't handicap them in any way, and that if their child was deaf it would be able to take part in 'deaf culture' like their parents.

It also makes me think of the 'Mistakes Were Made' book's report on the tribe in Saharan Africa that remove the front two teeth of children when they reach puberty. It probably began decades earlier as a way of preventing lock-jaw, but is now perpetuated by each new generation of parents simply to justify the fact that it was done to them by their own parents. If you point out the damage it does, they reply that they don't see themselves as missing out, they don't want their kids to be the only ones with front teeth, and besides, it's obviously MUCH more aesthetically pleasing to have the teeth removed. It shows you have become an adult.

"
"The Nuer and the Dinka tribes of southern Sudan share an unusual custom. Both of these cattle-herding societies remove several of their kids' permanent front teeth as soon as they sprout: two on the top and four to six on the bottom. It's a very painful procedure, done with a fish hook, and it leaves all tribe members with a distinctive slack-jawed look and speech impediments.

This practice probably started long ago, when tetanus was rampant in central Africa. Tetanus causes "lockjaw," but the tooth removal would have allowed children afflicted by this infectious disease to drink liquids even when their jaw muscles clamped shut. Although there has been no tetanus or lockjaw in the southern Sudan for ages, both the Nuer and the Dinka continue the custom of extracting the front teeth. Indeed, they believe the sunken jaw and lower lip are beautiful. People with front teeth, they say, look like jackals."

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  groomporter on Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:18 pm

Nathan Barley wrote:
"For thousands of years people have believed that cutting men's and boy's foreskins off will have magical benefits. This is just one more."

I have a problem with whoever made that statement. Even if these studies were faulty or biased, there's no "magic" involved.

Even if it turns out to be BS, the idea for the study was clearly based on a rational hypothesis: "Could this envelope of skin, which is connected to an organ which expels bodily fluids, provide an environment which can harbor and help spread certain infectious microbes?" -That seems like a pretty common sense question to ask -especially for sexually transmitted diseases.

In any case, even if the studies stand up over time it's still not an argument for universal circumcision when proper education, hygiene and safe sex practices are effective, non-invasive long term solutions.

groomporter

Posts : 10
Join date : 2009-11-05
Location : Minnesota

http://historicgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Nathan Barley on Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:25 pm

I get your point, but I'd phrase the question more as:
"Would removing a functioning* part of a man's genitals, that evolved for millions of years to lubricate and protect the penis, have negative consequences or positive consequences?"

I don't see anyone doing any studies to see if removing teeth or fingernails or ear skin has positive consequences, and I'd hesitate to view any such studies as being reasonable or even particularly ethical.

* Click here: Functions of the foreskin

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  groomporter on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:02 pm

Nathan Barley wrote:I get your point, but I'd phrase the question more as:
"Would removing a functioning* part of a man's genitals, that evolved for millions of years to lubricate and protect the penis, have negative consequences or positive consequences?"

I don't see anyone doing any studies to see if removing teeth or fingernails or ear skin has positive consequences, and I'd hesitate to view any such studies as being reasonable or even particularly ethical.

* Click here: Functions of the foreskin

yeah that's more accurate. I should probably have made it a two part question: Can it harbor/spread disease microbes, and if so, does removing it provide enough benefits to outweigh the consequences?

They do remove otherwise "healthy" wisdom teeth to prevent jaw problems such as crowding of the other teeth as they come in. Perhaps not exactly the kind of example your are talking about, but surely they had to "experiment" with the procedure first to see if it would help. And women are choosing to remove breasts to minimize their genetic cancer risks. Obviously the possible consequences/risks vs benefits balance partially determines the ethics in any medical procedure.

Wait a minute... did I miss something? Were these studies looking at men who were already circumcised, or were they actually providing the procedure to them as part of the study?

On a lighter note from PZ Myers' blog: Very Happy
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/penis_envy.php

Anyway off to get some work done for a change TTFN

groomporter

Posts : 10
Join date : 2009-11-05
Location : Minnesota

http://historicgames.com

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  politas on Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:10 am

They provided the procedure as part of the study, along with some education about sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDs.

So the men who didn't get HIV as often as the control group were nursing a freshly-mutilated penis for part of the study.

There are so many flaws in the process, it's absurd to claim it as meaning anything. They had a pet theory, and they got some slight beneficial effects.

So, for people living in a country where sex education is non-existent, where rape is common, and where AIDs is rampant, adult circumcision will slightly lower your chances of acquiring HIV (for a while, at least).

That is not in any way a justification to perform ritual mutilation to any child born in western society.
avatar
politas

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-09-06
Location : Canberra, Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  JFett on Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:33 am

So, I'm new to the forum. I'm a med student here in GR and we recently brought up the subject with the AMA debating the research concerning circumcision. I, for one, do not see enough evidence to suggest that circumcision is medically beneficial in the US. What the majority of people have been saying is correct: it desensitizes the penis, it is a very painful procedure for the infant (thankfully standard of care is administration of local anesthesia, but there is still wound/healing pain), and there seem to be no medical benefits in our culture (more on this later).

As a medical professional, I plan to conscientiously abstain from performing circumcision during my pediatric rounds. In addition, I did support a resolution (that was opposed by the majority) to adjust standard of care so that physicians could discourage circumcision as a plausible medical benefit.

That being said, groomporter has a point. He posted some links to medical literature. I'll address each of your responses in turn, but the literature he posted is (like it or not) the best that we've seen in a LONG time on the subject for a few reasons:
1.The type of research being done was Randomized Clinical Trials. Now, unlike the other two major types of research structures (Case Control Studies and Cohort Studies) Randomized Clinical Trials are easily the best scientific tool at minimizing biases and error. I really can't emphasize this point enough. I was stunned when I checked a review of the literature: http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003362/frame.html
I was convinced that these would be CCS, due to ethical considerations (there is no way a review board would let something like this happen in the US).
2.The study methods for each of these trials are valid. You can check them yourself. Big sample sizes (reducing a lot of confounding variables), etc.
3.Two of them are published in Lancet. That's big-league. And all of these studies have been under intense scrutiny and peer-review.
4.You can review one of the studies here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262556/?tool=pubmed
The two others are abstracts (unless you have a library/university access to Lancet):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321310
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321311

So an evidence-based guy like me actually couldn't be happier. Not only is the evidence statistically confirmed, the trials are great in their quality, and there are THREE of them!

That being said, I was a little disappointed in the response.
Nathan Barley wrote:Count me as sceptical on these studies. For decades now, every few years has brought another study claiming health benefits of circumcision, and within another few years the same study is shows to be bunk. None ever stand up very long. Perhaps this one will be different.
Sure, this may have happened. But do you have any evidence to support this position? Also, the history has more typically been this: doctors have supported the religious and cultural mores with hypotheses (e.g. “circumcision helps keep it cleaner, etc”). Hypotheses that have been dis-confirmed through study.
These are some of the first big studies that actually show a positive effect of male circumcision.

Nicholas wrote:Yeah, you know I really don't see how a foreskin could reduce the propagation of the HIV virus; it sounds incidental and not at all related. Have they isolated all other factors? I doubt it.

And really, that's beside the point. You want to reduce the risk of HIV transmission? I have one word for you: CONDOMS (and sex education. Alright, 3 words). Saying everyone should have their penis lanced because a few studies have shown that it might help prevent contraction of AIDS is a pretty fucking weak argument.
Yes, making sure that there is a causal explanation for the correlation is very important. And to remain as intellectually honest as possible, I also wonder if there is another confounding variable that isn't being considered: maybe it is a social stigma to be circumcised, and that's preventing these guys from being laid (and therefore, less likely to be exposed)?
I could think of more, and perhaps you can suggest something that might better account for the results. The problem with your statement is that the study design for these three trials really protected against the “other factors” you mention. They used large sample sizes, randomized the groups, blinded the study design from the subjects (both control and treatment groups), and had great follow-up. All of this is pretty technical, but the general gist of it is that the study was very good at preventing “other factors” from affecting it.

So, we know that HIV incidence is reduced 38% to 66% with circumcision (in these trials). You speculate as to why. That's a good question. The hypothesis is that keratinization of the glans. So after circumcision, several new layers of skin cover both the glans and furthest shaft after the protective foreskin is removed. This means that the glans of a circumcised penis is inherently drier and HIV is more likely to desiccate on the dry skin. This is discussed further in this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/?tool=pubmed

Nathan Barley wrote:"it was so clearly protective to circumcise that they stopped the study early because it was unethical to withhold it from the men in the study"

Actually, I heard something similar to this, and almost posted this earlier on the board as evidence AGAINST the study. I only didn't because I feared I'd be accused of citing hearsay as evidence. I imagined myself then defending this hearsay as 'backing up my existing hypothesis'. Realising that this wasn't particularly scientific, I deleted it from my post.

But now you've cited it too, we can discuss it. They cut short the study because they'd already reached their conclusion? We've seen this before in dodgy tests meant to discover the validity of vitamin supplements designed to boost child learning. "The test was never completed because it seemed unethical to deny the supplements to the control group of kids."

Well, it's actually not uncommon in a risk-benefit study to either STOP a treatment if we find its effects are particularly deleterious or if the benefits are so remarkable to permit a premature end in order to permit the control group access to treatment. Imagine a single-blind trial of a cancer drug that is discovered to completely cure a fatal cancer. How many control group patients do you let die on the placebo before deciding to stop the study? I'm not saying there is a clear-cut answer, but the fact that the consideration is made does not, by any means, weaken the study. (This is one reason why drug trials are double blinded and why considerations like this often mean a study will not be reviewed and published until CCS or retrospective Cohort Studies also confirm the relationship).

More importantly, none of the three major trials were stopped prematurely.
Nathan Barley wrote:
It strikes me as a warning sign that the tests were not being carried out properly. The people carrying out the tests generally WANT to 'prove' that circumcision protects people from infection. They WANT this to be an alternative to education on condom use.

"It was unethical to withhold it from men" - well why not just give all these men condoms then if they care so much about the men's health?

Who cares what the researchers want? Look at the methods, look at the data, let the numbers speak for themselves. Is it possible that you are trying to point out the bias of the researchers because of your biases? I mean, at least they have research to support their arguments...

If you actually read the research you would find that they did account for condom use. They found that neither group used condoms more frequently than the other.

Nathan Barley wrote:
EDITED TO ADD: googling this research throws up all sorts:

"I think "top researchers" is big spin. At least Mr. Halprin is a big pusher of circumcison. The people that did the African studies were pushing it too. They don't talk much about the companion study where circumcised men passed HIV at a higher rate than intact men."

"It is the same few "top researchers" - Daniel Halperin among them - who did the human experiments in order to claim that circumcision protects against HIV, who multiplied the small numbers of men involved by hundreds of thousands to claim that millions would be protected, and who now push for funding to be diverted from condoms - which work - toward circumcision.
In the Kenyan experiment, a greater proportion of the circumcised men got HIV than the non-circumcised men in Uganda, where there was a "Zero grazing" campaign.
These experiments were not (and maybe could not have been) double-blinded or placebo-controlled, and both experimenters and experimentees very much wanted circumcision to be effective, so bias is likely. Many more men dropped out, their HIV status unknown to the researchers, than were known to be infected, so circumcision could easily have had no effect at all. Evidence of non-sexual transmission was ignored.
For thousands of years people have believed that cutting men's and boy's foreskins off will have magical benefits. This is just one more."

I'd be interested in the companion study. I ran a search of the literature and found nothing. I'm not necessarily doubting that it exists, I just can't find it. If you could cite it, I'd appreciate it.

Daniel Halperin is a non-sequitor. He didn't do the studies. He is not listed among the researchers. The study was blinded (control group didn't know they were not receiving the surgery AND neither party was informed of exactly what was being measured). It is impossible to double-blind the study (you can't exactly hide from the clinicians who is and isn't circumcised and part of the design necessarily included genital exams). It has been mentioned before that the desires of the researchers are irrelevant, unless they are implying that the data is fraudulent.

politas wrote:They provided the procedure as part of the study, along with some education about sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDs.

You didn't read the studies, did you?
politas wrote:
So the men who didn't get HIV as often as the control group were nursing a freshly-mutilated penis for part of the study.

You really, really didn't read the studies, did you? The methods accounted for post-op.
politas wrote:
There are so many flaws in the process, it's absurd to claim it as meaning anything. They had a pet theory, and they got some slight beneficial effects.

What flaws? I was skeptical of the research, too! But there don't appear to be any overt flaws.
politas wrote:
So, for people living in a country where sex education is non-existent, where rape is common, and where AIDs is rampant, adult circumcision will slightly lower your chances of acquiring HIV (for a while, at least).

That is not in any way a justification to perform ritual mutilation to any child born in western society.

Everyone on the study received one-on-one counseling about the risks of STI transmission and condom use. All of the participants were provided access to condoms. It's very unlikely that the presence or absence of foreskin had anything to do with predisposition to rape (so it couldn't have effected the study results, presumably). Lastly, the effect wasn't “slight”. The risk reduction was 38-66%. That's huge.

So does this research make me change my position concerning circumcision in US hospitals? No.
Why? Because the populations are very different. For one, education and birth control is more widely accepted in the US. Additionally, the prevalence of the disease is MUCH lower here than in Africa and those with the disease (because of anti-retroviral therapy) have a much lower amount of circulating virus (so it's less easily spread). Lastly, where the treatment benefits far outweigh the risks in Africa, the reality remains that this is a surgical procedure with real risks. The chances of an infection or adverse effect do not outweigh the benefits of reduced HIV transmission if you look at the numbers.
For more info on this position check out this kickass article from U of M: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2678848/?tool=pubmed

-JFett

JFett

Posts : 6
Join date : 2009-11-08

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  LonghWynn on Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:00 am

All of this is grand and dandy, but it does beg the question: Where is Danielg in all of this? I would think he'd care to come back and read what we have to say so he might defend himself Twisted Evil

LonghWynn

Posts : 40
Join date : 2009-09-07
Age : 28
Location : Grand Rapids, MI

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=587576124&ref=profile

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Nathan Barley on Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:25 am

He's probably gone back under his bridge.

Nathan Barley

Posts : 41
Join date : 2009-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  politas on Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:44 pm

JFett wrote:You really, really didn't read the studies, did you? The methods accounted for post-op.
Fair enough. No, I didn't read the studies. I am working from second-hand reports, and I will now stop reporting such misinformation.

JFett wrote:So does this research make me change my position concerning circumcision in US hospitals? No.
Why? Because the populations are very different. For one, education and birth control is more widely accepted in the US. Additionally, the prevalence of the disease is MUCH lower here than in Africa and those with the disease (because of anti-retroviral therapy) have a much lower amount of circulating virus (so it's less easily spread). Lastly, where the treatment benefits far outweigh the risks in Africa, the reality remains that this is a surgical procedure with real risks. The chances of an infection or adverse effect do not outweigh the benefits of reduced HIV transmission if you look at the numbers.
Ok, so for Africa, there's a medical justification. What annoys me is when people living in western cultures where infection rates are much, much lower, anti-virals are common, condom use is widespread and education is far greater use these studies to justify mutilating their baby.
avatar
politas

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-09-06
Location : Canberra, Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: To Danielg Re: Circumcision:

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum