Circumcision ?

[The Blue Elephant]

Well I did find a list of circumcision complications from Stanford.
https://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html

Its from biotched circumcisions. The chance that infection occuring is offeset by the lowered chance of UTI's. Circumcision reduced the chances of UTI's by 83% in one study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19231547

Vast overwhelming majority of complications occur when done by nonprofessionals.

"complications occur in less than 1% of procedures.... usually minor"
"Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age"
-Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I (2010). "Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review". BMC Urol 10

If you want to do your son a favor, have him circumcised, preferably at an earlier age.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

That's all right it seems that all of the medical reasoning is akin to removing an infants fingernails in order to avoid the germs that might get trapped in there and the occasional hang nail. The more I look into these studies the more their methodology seems to be in question. I will continue reading of course but to be honest I think this is a serious decision to make for someone else so it will take a pretty damn good reason for me to go ahead and do it.

Reducing chances of multiple forms of cancer by a significant amount(not just for the individual circumscribed but both partners), reducing the chances of a variety of diseases, reducing the chances of infection, and no negative side effects is the same as removing your nails.

 

[MVP]

Here was Europeans had to say about AAP statement:

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract

 

[♪alt13]

Its from biotched circumcisions. The chance that infection occuring is offeset by the lowered chance of UTI's. Circumcision reduced the chances of UTI's by 83% in one study.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19231547

Vast overwhelming majority of complications occur when done by nonprofessionals.

"complications occur in less than 1% of procedures.... usually minor"
"Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age"
-Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I (2010). "Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review". BMC Urol 10

If you want to do your son a favor, have him circumcised, preferably at an earlier age.

yeah but that 83% is as akmvp said 0.3% compared to 1% and I did read concerns from an oxford research fellow(will find link) that the methodology of that particular study was flawed. Furthermore UTI's are easily treated with anti-biotics so it does not necessarily justify preemptive surgery.

This isn't the same one I was refering to earlier but it's the same jist.

URNARY TRACT INFECTIONS
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.The evidence for clinically significant protection is weak, and with easy access to health care, deaths or long-term negative medical consequences of UTIs are rare. UTI incidence does not seem to be lower in the United States, with high circumcision rates compared with Europe with low circumcision rates, and the AAP report suggests it will take∼100 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of UTI. Using reasonable European estimates cited in the AAP report for the frequency of surgical and postoperative complications (∼2%), for every 100 circumcisions, 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of hemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death.
Circumcision fails to meet the criteria to serve as a preventive measure for UTI, even though this is the only 1 of the AAP report’s 4 most favored arguments that has any relevance before the boy gets old enough to decide for himself

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-18_Frisch%20et%20al.pdf

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Wait so you are arguing that removing sensitive skin does not reduce sensitivity? lol are you serious? If you would read some of those studies about sensitivity you would find out that all they did they checked sensitivity of the glans of circumcised and exposed glans of uncircumcised men and found no difference . Problem is they could not check circumcised men general sensation in regards to foreskin as it was gone.
And sure you would blame low rates of HIV in non circumcised countries on causation and correlation thing - lol. You can't deny that the BIGGEST drive for American doctors pushing for circumcision is almighty dollar and not medical benefits which are to little to justify removal of perfectly healthy and normal organ. Where money stopped being a factor circumcision rates dropped to almost zero - In England, under socialized medicine when physicians were no longer compensated monetarily, the circumcision rate fell to below 0.5%. You want to say UK doctors are stupid and do not read "well researched studies and recommendations of well respected USA colleagues?? Or they suddenly stopped caring about " prevention from prostate cancer, HIV and UTIs?" Man what a terrible doctors practice in UK, rest of Europe, Russia, Japan, all South America, Canada and basically all non Muslim and non Jewish world.....

Continue believing that America is run by greedy Jewish doctors out to make money while I will stick with scientific data.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

yeah but that 83% is as akmvp said 0.3% compared to 1% and I did read concerns from an oxford research fellow(will find link) that the methodology of that particular study was flawed. Furthermore UTI's are easily treated with anti-biotics so it does not necessarily justify preemptive surgery.

Infection caused by circumcision is also treatable by antiobiotics. I used it as a counter point when he discussing the super rare infections that may occur in circumcision.

 

[MVP]

How about we will start ignoring pro circumcision studies coming from USA and will look at other countries research?

The first European study to examine sexual side-effects from circumcision revealed a surprising number of conditions and ailments associated with the surgery.*

A new study revealed that circumcision was associated with frequent ****** difficulties in men and with a variety of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably ****** difficulties, difficulty with penetration, painful intercourse, and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fullfilment.

*Frisch M, Lindholm M, Grønbæk M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: A survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol, 2011;1–15. Advance Access published June 14, 2011.

 

[MVP]

Continue believing that America is run by greedy Jewish doctors out to make money while I will stick with scientific data.

Scientific data which is weak and unproven and probably was funded by big pharmaceutical companies in need of baby foreskins. And all coming from USA

 

[The Blue Elephant]

How about we will start ignoring pro circumcision studies coming from USA and will look at other countries research?

The first European study to examine sexual side-effects from circumcision revealed a surprising number of conditions and ailments associated with the surgery.*

A new study revealed that circumcision was associated with frequent ****** difficulties in men and with a variety of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably ****** difficulties, difficulty with penetration, painful intercourse, and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fullfilment.

*Frisch M, Lindholm M, Grønbæk M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: A survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol, 2011;1–15. Advance Access published June 14, 2011.

"Here was Europeans had to say" - scientific evidence according to AKMVP.

I stick with scientific journals you stick to your greedy American Jewish doctor conspiracy theories.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Scientific data which is weak and unproven and probably was funded by big pharmaceutical companies in need of baby foreskins. And all coming from USA

Wow.... I am done. You really believe that don't you...

 

[MVP]

The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations (AFAO). The AFAO issued a briefing paper: “Male Circumcision Has No Role in the Australian HIV Epidemic” (July, 2007). The key points were: no demonstrated benefit of circumcision in men who have sex with men; consistent condom use, not circumcision, is the most effective means of reducing female-to male transmission, and vice-versa; and African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way. The paper compared Australia to America by concluding: “The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision. Circumcision does not prevent HIV—in high prevalence areas it reduced the risk of female-to-male transmission. HIV acquisition rates were nevertheless high in both the circumcised and the non-circumcised groups involved in the trials.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations (AFAO). The AFAO issued a briefing paper: “Male Circumcision Has No Role in the Australian HIV Epidemic” (July, 2007). The key points were: no demonstrated benefit of circumcision in men who have sex with men; consistent condom use, not circumcision, is the most effective means of reducing female-to male transmission, and vice-versa; and African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way. The paper compared Australia to America by concluding: “The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision. Circumcision does not prevent HIV—in high prevalence areas it reduced the risk of female-to-male transmission. HIV acquisition rates were nevertheless high in both the circumcised and the non-circumcised groups involved in the trials.

I never stated that circumcision was more effect than condom use for prevention of HIV.