|
are you circumcised? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
My sources included: the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, the World Health Organization and the Canadian Pediatric Society, all from the last ten years. If you can find me more reputable sources than these contradicting their results, using comperable scientific methods, I'm all ears. Until then, saying that they somehow contain "false research and outdated information" without a shred of proof comes down to your word versus theirs. I think I'm going to side with the PhD/MDs. |
That's exactly the problem. You haven't posted any "scientific methods" at all. You've posted articles which purport to interpret scientific data which is hidden from the reader. None of the articles you posted were written by PhD/MDs, none of them listed the methodology which was used in order to obtain their "results". And their "results" as presented are in direct contradiction to accepted medical dogma throughout the vast majority of the western world.
There are two possibilities. Either:
1. Medical associations in the United States are privy to some information which is unavailable to those in Europe, where circumcision largely ceased to be an issue decades ago since medical evidence so unilaterally indicated it was a harmful procedure with no benefits, and therefore the U.S. institutions are producing more accurate results.
or
2. Medical assocaitions in the United States have framed their research from the standpoint of attempting to justify, rather than analyzing objectively, dated genital mutilation practices of entirely theistic origin. By manipulating results via positive outcome bias and through hiding the details of their studies behind "reports" such as the ones you posted which contain no analyzable data of any kind, they are able to avoid actually addressing the issue while purporting to espouse medical fact.
One of these is realistic. One of them is not. It's time for a wake-up call. If we listened to people like you, we'd still be sacrificing virgins at the sun temple to ensure a prosperous growing season. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
That's exactly the problem. You haven't posted any "scientific methods" at all. You've posted articles which purport to interpret scientific data which is hidden from the reader. None of the articles you posted were written by PhD/MDs, none of them listed the methodology which was used in order to obtain their "results". And their "results" as presented are in direct contradiction to accepted medical dogma throughout the vast majority of the western world. |
Please look at these two articles again and tell me there is no scientific methods, and that they weren't from PhD/MDs. I am yet to see any "evidence" to the contrary done in a controlled, scientific manner that would have me believe otherwise. I have heard very much rhetoric, with little to no substance. If this truly is not the case, and circumcision is such an obvious tragedy and detriment to human health, where is the overwhelming evidence from leading scientific researchers? Where is there proof from any throughly performed scientific research? It is easy to say that I am wrong, but I am still waiting for any evidence of that.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/to/
http://www.lib.umich.edu/taubman/re...choenEdgarJ.pdf |
|
|
| Lephaid |
http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm
"After looking at almost 40 years of research on the benefits and risks of circumcision, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) concluded that we can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision." |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| CLOSE THE PENIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!:nervous: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lephaid
http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm
"After looking at almost 40 years of research on the benefits and risks of circumcision, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) concluded that we can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision." |
Where's the research? That article wasn't written by a PhD/MD. :D |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Where's the research? That article wasn't written by a PhD/MD. :D |
Well, it says on the bottom of the page:
| quote: | | © 2004 - American Academy of Pediatrics |
So I guess they are PhDs or MDs. |
|
|
| Lephaid |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Where's the research? That article wasn't written by a PhD/MD. :D |
"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and its member pediatricians dedicate their efforts and resources to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults. The AAP has approximately 57,000 members in the United States, Canada and Latin America. Members include pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists. More than 34,000 members are board-certified and called Fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP)." |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
I'm just using the same tactics as someone else. And technically that was summary (not even an abstract) probably not written by a doctor. Also, the article lists no statistics or clinical findings, merely the interpretation of the author(s), who is not cited with the article.
Besides, even though they do not recommend circumcision in every case, it does exactly say what I have been saying the entire time, that there are medical benefits to circumcision.
From the article.
| quote: | While circumcision is not essential to a child's well being at birth, it does have potential medical benefits.
The research shows that circumcised males have fewer urinary tract infections. They also have a lesser chance of developing penile cancer... |
If anything the article is urging analgesics to be used during the proceedure, which is already done in American hospitals. |
|
|
| Aristronica |
Look at these d00ds get into medical facts like it's really important if someone has a hoodie or not, damn let it go.
Here's all that matters:
If the girl you're dating likes it the way it is (whatever way it is) then you're all good.
If you're ok with it, then it's all good too. Except if you got it cut off and want it back, then you're f'ed cuz they can't go find it and sew it back on.
But me, if I ever feel like it's an impediment i can just get it cuz off and deal with the swelling for 2-3 weeks (that's what the doctor said ;)) |
|
|
| Electronicmaji |
| quote: |
any religion that condons the mutilation of a baby is pretty wack.
|
Not if God told you to do it :rolleyes: |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Electronicmaji
Not if God told you to do it :rolleyes: |
Unless of course, their god was pretty whack. ;) |
|
|
| butterfly |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Unless of course, their god was pretty whack. ;) |
or didnt exist. |
|
|
|
|
