An Article I Read Today, Any Truth To It??

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Magic 8, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. Magic 8

    Magic 8 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    2
  2. jakeatolla

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,093
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm not the kind of person that says I told you so, so I won't.

    *** but I will grin smugly ***
     
  3. scanjock8

    scanjock8 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    461
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    99
    I considered posting this article yesterday, but didn't feel like being reminded I should resent my parents for mutilating me.

    The Jewish-owned New York Times must be pushing their circumcision agenda.
     
  4. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    Apparently there's no truth in it, the medical profession will try any means to justify something which brings in such huge amounts of revenue.The foreskin in part protects the head of the penis so common sense tells you that taking it away isn't going to be a good idea. I post a link which examines the studies which are being cited so often, it's rather complicated but a clear rebuttal of the studies.

    Does Circumcision Prevent HIV Infection?
     
  5. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a tough way to approach medical issues. Any medication or procedure can be dismissed for that same reason.
     
  6. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    Not at all, you can't dismiss baby immunisations or smears or any number of other procedures on the same grounds, they have proven benefits, here they're trying to justify the removal of a part of a baby's body!!!!! I have nothing against a cut guy, but let it be his choice not his parents or tradtion.
     
  7. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    Deja vu?

    Anyway, I just might consider getting re-circ'd if it would protect me from the "bat demon". :smile:
     
  8. Magic 8

    Magic 8 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    2
    I really don't feel that this article is promoting infant circumcision at all. It simoly states that there is a reduction of the instance of HIV infection in males that are cut, they don't state that these males were circumcised as infants. In fact the article states that some of the men agreed to be circumcised just for this study. Even though I feel that circumcision is a personal choice, if it reduces the chance of HIV infection by 50%, then I'd say it's worth it.

    Also I might point out that your link points to something that was posted in 2001, a lot has changed in 5 years. The link I posted was from this week and refers to a report being published in the British Medical Journal, The Lancet.
     
  9. D_Humper E Bogart

    D_Humper E Bogart New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    2
    Experimenting on Africans again?

    I knew there was something their biomass was good for, besides using them to start bush wars and for recolonialisation.
     
  10. kamikazee_club

    kamikazee_club New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well one was a medical study undertaken in the field and aimed at obtaining objective accurate data, the other seems to be a more academic analysis in support of an organisation stated as being opposed to non theraputic circumcision so which would you think more impartial?

    Did you take a few minutes to read the cited studies? It's telling that most are several (up to 15) years old which is hardly current. I did and most are singularly inconclusive and at least one supports the other findings and another states that the result maybe of limited value due to low numbers. Then why cite it?

    AMA on Neonatal circumcision.

    "Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Sexually Transmissible Diseases: The data on circumcision status and susceptibility to HIV infection and other sexually transmissible diseases have been recently reviewed.5,26,27 Five of 7 prospective studies involving heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 found a statistically significant association between lack of circumcision and elevated risk for acquisition of HIV (relative risks 2.3-8.1). In the other 2 studies the relative risk exceeded 3 in uncircumcised males, but a low proportion of uncircumcised men and a small percentage of seroconversion limited the statistical power of these studies."

    It goes on to say:

    "At least 16 studies have examined the relationship between circumcision and sexually transmissible diseases other than HIV.27 In general, circumcised individuals appear to have somewhat lower susceptibility to acquiring chancroid and syphilis, possibly genital herpes, and gonorrhea compared to individuals in whom the foreskin is intact. The available data on nongonococcal urethritis and genital warts are inconclusive. Regardless of these findings, behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections."

    I think the part I bolded is sensible, yet it appears to contradict the aim of the site.

    From another - Neonatal circumcision revisited

    Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS)

    "Both showed positive associations. Eighteen of the cross-sectional studies reported a statistically significant association, determined through univariate or multivariate analysis, between the presence of the foreskin and the risk of HIV infection. Four other such studies showed a trend toward an association, and four showed no association. The two prospective studies showed positive associations....."

    From a third, African study

    "CONCLUSIONS: The trial cohort was successfully established. Comparability of intervention and comparison communities at baseline was confirmed for most factors. Matching appears to have achieved a trial of adequate sample size. The apparent lack of a protective effect of male circumcision contrasts with other studies in Africa."

    I'd say the last one suggests that the latest findings are not the first. It seems to me like there is an agenda being pushed by NORM UK perhaps on the assumption that the studies would be skimmed?

    I'm also opposed to non theraputic circumsion and I'm also rather skeptical of the latest study but I'm not a doctor and am open to the possibility I may be wrong and that there may be an unexpected positive side effect.

    After all these are opposing conculsions, logically they can't both be right although other factors could be at play. But, you seem to have made your mind up so what makes you choose to believe this one, could it be your personal bias which seems quite plain?
     
  11. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    From a long study you've taken a few paragraphs and you've dismissed the academic study because it doesn't suit you - all medical studies are academic, they're the gathering of facts and then the academical collation of the facts that emerge. What does emerge is that some people are rabid in their defence of circumcision. The body is evolved to protect itself as much as it is able and the foreskin is a protective device which shields the delicate glans from minor abrasions through which infective agents can enter. No more really needs to be said. You can massage figures to say what you want them to say by taking a skewed 'random' sample and the studies so often quoted have done this.
     
  12. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    but... you just said that they would go to any lengths to prove the benefit of something that brought in so much revenue. Immunizations bring in a ton of revenue, so maybe the proofs that they do good were all fabricated?

    Not speaking out for circumcision, because I'd feel horribly stupid if I caught myself participating in that debate, but what BD said was right... the argument that proofs for the benefits of circumsicion can be categorically dismissed because doctors make money off the procedure is not a very good one.
     
  13. B_dxjnorto

    B_dxjnorto New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    7,319
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest U.S.
    Babies are at no risk for AIDS unless the mother is infected in which case genital cutting availeth nothing.
     
  14. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    The benefits of both baby immunisations and smears were proven in studies which involved true random subjects within the group likely to be affected within the societies in which their application was intended to be used and their benefit has been proven by the fact we don't really see polio (in fact the program of polio immunisation was so successful that there are now talks underway regarding the possibility of stopping it as it is no longer needed) or diptheria now and that smallpox has in fact been officially declared eradicated. Baby imms and smears are in no way an invasive procedure while circumcision is the removal of a very sensitive part of a baby's anatomy while unanaesthetised and in quite a few cases (as evinced in threads on here) leads to problems as an adult. I'm not going to cite studies here regarding the success of immunisation and smears in preventing disease and death, we're on the net anyone can look at them, but those studies were never contested by anyone else within the medical field.

    The medical establishment only needs to go to such exotic ends when what it is trying to prove is decidedly dubious. A study in Africa (and a dodgy one at the least) cannot be applied to America or to the Uk. Why not perform this study in America? Because there they can't pick from tribal groups with practises which are likely to increase or decrease the chance of hiv.

    The way to prevent aids is through safe sex and education not performing a procedure on the unconsenting.

    Incidentally I have no bias against circumcision, I have a slight preference for the look of a circumcised cock because foreskin is fun to play with, what I do have a bias against is mutilating babies for the sake of tradition or for spurious medical reasons.
     
  15. B_NineInchCock_160IQ

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    where the sun never sets
    Good points. But he was still right.
     
  16. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    Yes, I agree with BD about the criteria being somewhat ineffective for determining value, but why was it done in Africa? In all likelihood, a male receiving a circumcision there may be getting the first medical treatment of their lives. They would be instructed on the care of the penis afterward, which may be an entirely new bit of information for many of them. It is still customary there for men to "wash" their penes by rubbing them with sand- ouch.

    We have different standards od cleanliness here, and I would find it far more interesting to see the differences between cut and uncut men in North America or Europe before I put much value on studies that don't take into account that medical treatment is not widely available in impoverished nations. How about a control group of Africans who were better educated and less superstitious? In many places, African men still believe that sex with a virgin will cure them of AIDS, which has accounted for a gross number of rapes of young women. I would be very cautious about accepting the results of these studies without examining more closely the "random" sample.

    Oh yeah, breasts develop cancer too, but I wouldn't want to lop my daughter's off just to prevent it. Nor would I support the removal of the prostate.
     
  17. kamikazee_club

    kamikazee_club New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, that's rather what you did when you said quite catergorically "Seems it isn't true" you took the word of the source you found, evidently without qualification or reservation. I didn't dismiss it I just highlighted a few areas (there's only limited space here) that appeared to support an alternate view or didn't support what you were saying. Of course figures can be massaged, but that works both ways remember to support whatever agenda is being pushed.

    I think your own bias against circumcision is shining bright here and it's clouding your objectivity. If you actually take the time to read what I wrote you'll see that I am also against NT Circumcision and I am skeptical of the new study results I just want to know the truth and I have no agenda on this subject. I think that's called keeping an open mind, you should try it.
     
  18. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    I took the word of the source because I actually read it.
     
  19. Onslow

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well, um, sorry to have to disagree with you here but there are those who do dismiss immunizations. Since certain immunizations can actually create the illness in a person (although it is rare), many are loathe to having their child subjected to that risk. As to circumcision, there are studies which have shown benefits and those which show no benefits--studies are always slanted and essentially worthless since they do not include every last individual on the planet. All this topic really does is create a new thread of pro/con on circumcision and there are already dozens upon dozens of those threads here at LPSG. As was indicated to you by Kamikazee, you decided to cite your chosen source and thus negate the initial source. See? It's all a matter of where you choose to acquire your 'facts' from. (and yes, I have been known to err in this way as well, so don't think it's picking on a princess day--it's not.)
     
  20. kamikazee_club

    kamikazee_club New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    As did I (I'm assuming you're accusing me of not having done so?) and that's precisely why I have doubts.

    But, it's good that you feel able to dismiss the possibility of there being a link with such certainty, especially based on evidence presented by what is clearly a lobby group. I think there is merit in what's said but I'm not sold, but then maybe I require a rather higher threshold of confidence in such an important matter before dismissing all other arguments.

    Tell me where did you do your MD?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted