Circumcision ?

[The Blue Elephant]

It is not only me, European pediatricians disagree too.

Preventive procedures on healthy people should follow "more and stricter justification" than medically necessary procedures, and even stricter justification should be required for children, "who cannot weigh the evidence themselves and cannot legally consent to the procedure."

- While the AAP says circumcision prevents urinary tract infections (UTIs), the European doctors counter that only one percent of boys will get these in their first years of life, and there are no randomly-controlled clinical trials proving that circumcision prevents them.

- The AAP says circumcision can stave off penile cancer, but the European docs counter that "the evidence is not strong; the disease is rare and has a good survival rate; there are less intrusive ways of preventing the disease; and there is no compelling reason to deny boys their legitimate right to make their own informed decision when they are old enough."

- The AAP says circumcision can offer protection against genital herpes and genital warts. The Europeans say that conclusion was based on studies in Africa that don't apply in the West; doesn't take into account syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia; and again is only relevant to adults, so "the decision of whether to circumcise can be postponed to an age when boys are old enough to decide for themselves."

- Perhaps most importantly, the AAP, relying on three studies done in Africa, suggested circumcision can have a preventive effect against HIV/AIDS. The Europeans argue that conclusion has been "contradicted by other studies, which show no relationship between HIV infection rates and circumcision status. The African findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high per- centage of routine circumcisions. The situation in most European countries is precisely the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates... There are alternative, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms."

- The Europeans also noted the possible problems with circumcision -- infections, hemorrhages, metal strictures, deaths and (partial) amputations.

- And lastly, the foreigners say not to underestimate the foreskin's role in sexy time: "the foreskin is a richly innervated structure that protects the glans and plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts. Recent studies [which the AAP did not take into account] ..suggest that circumcision desensitizes the penis and may lead to sexual problems in circumcised men and their partners.

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." -Winston Churchill

 

[MVP]

Doctors oppose infant circumcision
18. mar. 2013 13.08 English

The circumcision of infants entails a risk of serious physical injury, or even death, and should be banned, according to 38 leading doctors.

The acclaimed medical journal Pediatrics is today carrying an article by Dane Morten Frisch, a consultant at Statens Seruminstitut (SSI) and adjunct professor at the Sexology Research Centre at Aalborg University, with the simple message: Stop circumcising newborn baby boys.

Frisch believes that the risks in circumcising newborn baby boys exceed the health benefits and that the practice, which is traditional among Jews and Muslims, should therefore be stopped.

“The message of the article is that boys themselves should make decisions about their own bodies,” Frisch told DR News.

Risk of death
Frisch estimates that two to three per cent of boys experience problems related to circumcision.

“In acute cases, things can go very wrong – in the worst case, the child can die. But there are also acute types of problems in the form of bleeding and infections, and later on there are problems of a psychological nature, of a physical nature, of a sexual nature,” explained Frisch.

The article is not just the view of a single Danish doctor. It has been signed by 38 other leading consultants, researchers and professors from Europe and Canada.

Huge debate
The article is now sparking an international debate. While around 75 per cent of American men are circumcised, in the summer a court in Germany ruled that circumcision of infants constitutes assault.

“American paediatricians are the only ones in the world to have issued a report concluding that circumcision has more advantages than disadvantages. We are in complete disagreement with this,” said Frisch.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Need I say more?

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

How to debate with someone who genuinely believes such things. Obviously facts and science doesn't work.

 

[♪alt13]

Humans have no need for circumcision since humans started walking on two legs and began wearing pants. Nails aren't vestigial, foreskin is. The scientific data cannot be any more clear. You can find a couple contrary articles here and there that are against circumcision but the consensus is clear (you can even find a recent Harvard study that fish oil causes prostate cancer). At the end of the day some people are going to believe what they want to believe. You can keep believing Greedy Jewish doctors are taking foreskin make money while I stick with the scientific facts.

I honestly don't see how a foreskin is any more or less vestigial than finger nails. How would I be handicapped in anyway in our modern society if I did not have fingernails. Seems like I would simply save 99 cents every time I lost the clippers. I cannot think of a more apt analogy than this.

I don't believe in greedy jewish doctor conspiracies but cultural bias is a legitimate explanation for infant circumcision when I can't find another reason to justify the procedure.

In fact the link you provided (which I did read through thoroughly) I noticed that you conveniently chopped off the end of their recommendation.

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

I feel that I am doing my part to have a rational dialogue so please don't call me a nut-job.

 

[MVP]

Since you like doctors opinion more then I suggest you should read this statement. It is long, 11 pages and it is by doctors who oppose circumcision.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-04-24_Commentary.pdf

Just first page is enough to confirm what I already claimed - AAP task force for male circumcision was biased and had financial interest. But you keep believing that people like that have no "special" interest posting their studies and conclusions and call it a science? I feel bad for you Blue, really bad.

Susan Blank, MD, MPD, chair of the Task Force, an infectious disease specialist,
who has a well documented religious and cultural bias in favor of male circumcision.
·
Andrew Freedman, MD, a pediatric urologist, who has reported that he
circumcised his own son on a kitchen table, for religious cultural reasons, and who
derives twenty percent of his practice from treating boys for circumcision generated problems;

Douglas Diekema, MD, an AAP bioethicist, who
twice first in 1996 and again in 2010 on behalf of the AAP, proposed a billable “ritual nick” to the genitals of
female children, despite the existence of international and U.S. federal law
forbidding this practice;

Steven Wegner, MD, JD, a
doctor lawyer, who serves on the AAP Committee on
Health Care Financing, whose presumed focus in this instance was on
the circumcision income flow, over $1.25 billion, annually $2.25 billion or more
if circumcision could be made mandatory or universally subsidized by Medicaid.

It is abundantly clear that the members of the task force were chosen with a view to
obtaining an outcome favorable for the continued practice of circumcision of American male children and to provide for third
party payment to physician and hospital providers.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

I honestly don't see how a foreskin is any more or less vestigial than finger nails. How would I be handicapped in anyway in our modern society if I did not have fingernails. Seems like I would simply save 99 cents every time I lost the clippers. I cannot think of a more apt analogy than this.

I don't believe in greedy jewish doctor conspiracies but cultural bias is a legitimate explanation for infant circumcision when I can't find another reason to justify the procedure.

In fact the link you provided (which I did read through thoroughly) I noticed that you conveniently chopped off the end of their recommendation.

I feel that I am doing my part to have a rational dialogue so please don't call me a nut-job.

That was directed at AKMVP who says that pharmacological companies are stealing foreskins to make money.

Fingernails provides rigidity to the ends of nails. Go online look at the pros and cons at having nails then look at the same for foreskin. If you don't see a difference I cannot help you anymore.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Since you like doctors opinion more then I suggest you should read this statement. It is long, 11 pages and it is by doctors who oppose circumcision.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-04-24_Commentary.pdf

Just first page is enough to confirm what I already claimed - AAP task force for male circumcision was biased and had financial interest. But you keep believing that people like that have no "special" interest posting their studies and conclusions and call it a science? I feel bad for you Blue, really bad.

Susan Blank, MD, MPD, chair of the Task Force, an infectious disease specialist,
who has a well documented religious and cultural bias in favor of male circumcision.
·
Andrew Freedman, MD, a pediatric urologist, who has reported that he
circumcised his own son on a kitchen table, for religious cultural reasons, and who
derives twenty percent of his practice from treating boys for circumcision generated problems;

Douglas Diekema, MD, an AAP bioethicist, who
twice first in 1996 and again in 2010 on behalf of the AAP, proposed a billable “ritual nick” to the genitals of
female children, despite the existence of international and U.S. federal law
forbidding this practice;

Steven Wegner, MD, JD, a
doctor lawyer, who serves on the AAP Committee on
Health Care Financing, whose presumed focus in this instance was on
the circumcision income flow, over $1.25 billion, annually $2.25 billion or more
if circumcision could be made mandatory or universally subsidized by Medicaid.

It is abundantly clear that the members of the task force were chosen with a view to
obtaining an outcome favorable for the continued practice of circumcision of American male children and to provide for third
party payment to physician and hospital providers.

Thanks for providing peer reviewed unbiased proof from a website called doctorsagainstcircumcision.com. I bet you get your opinion of homosexuals from godhatesfags.com.

 

[♪alt13]

That was directed at AKMVP who says that pharmacological companies are stealing foreskins to make money.

Fingernails provides rigidity to the ends of nails. Go online look at the pros and cons at having nails then look at the same for foreskin. If you don't see a difference I cannot help you anymore.

Right and a foreskin provides lubrication and elasticity(which would have solved my problem with puberty)

 

[MVP]

heyhey, you should really look at this website, awesome info debunking all myths about "benefits" and trashing all that biased data and studies. And since it is by doctors I would love to see who Blue would argue with that.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Right and a foreskin provides lubrication and elasticity(which would have solved my problem with puberty)

If you say so.

 

[MVP]

Thanks for providing peer reviewed unbiased proof from a website called doctorsagainstcircumcision.com. I bet you get your opinion of homosexuals from godhatesfags.com.

So now you are saying that doctors from 50 states in USA, 12 provinces in Canada and 6 other continents are lying?

 

[The Blue Elephant]

So now you are saying that doctors from 50 states in USA, 12 provinces in Canada and 6 other continents are laying?

Laying golden eggs provided by the money Jewish Doctors get from selling foreskins.