German court bans circumcision for non-medical reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

People will go to any extent to justify an irreversible decision they made and maintain status quo.

Those studies are inconclusive, and not applicable to young children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

This guy sums it up better than I could: "If you read enough of the history, you will see that the proponents of circumcision have employed what I often refer to as a Pony Express strategy. They will ride one horse until it becomes tired (for example, prevents masturbation) then they’ll mount another horse (prevents epilepsy). When that horse wears out, they’ll find another (intact penis causes cervical cancer in women). This horse soon becomes tired and so they mount another horse (prevents penile cancer). This one gets tired and they then decide to jump on the UTI pony. Finding even that not to be the thoroughbred that it appeared, they choose yet another horse (prevents HIV infection and other STD’s). Do not expect it to end there. There are an infinite number of ponies yet to be ridden and you can be sure they are being saddled up as we speak."

Hhahahhhahahhaaaaahahhhha, you stupid

Cdc recommends it for medical reasons , aap will be releasing information removing their outdated stance. good luck with stds

Really? This coming from someone who can't even write, doesn't know the meaning of "prevention", and has the reading comprehension of a 7 year old? You're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

People will go to any extent to justify an irreversible decision they made and maintain status quo.

Those studies are inconclusive, and not applicable to young children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

This guy sums it up better than I could: "If you read enough of the history, you will see that the proponents of circumcision have employed what I often refer to as a Pony Express strategy. They will ride one horse until it becomes tired (for example, prevents masturbation) then they’ll mount another horse (prevents epilepsy). When that horse wears out, they’ll find another (intact penis causes cervical cancer in women). This horse soon becomes tired and so they mount another horse (prevents penile cancer). This one gets tired and they then decide to jump on the UTI pony. Finding even that not to be the thoroughbred that it appeared, they choose yet another horse (prevents HIV infection and other STD’s). Do not expect it to end there. There are an infinite number of ponies yet to be ridden and you can be sure they are being saddled up as we speak."

Hhahahhhahahhaaaaahahhhha, you stupid

Cdc recommends it for medical reasons , aap will be releasing information removing their outdated stance. good luck with stds

Really? This coming from someone who can't even write, doesn't know the meaning of "prevention", and has the reading comprehension of a 7 year old? You're embarrassing yourself.

hah you stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm amazed at the ignorance here. There's not such thing as 100% prevention (even with condoms won't do this) but circumcision does significantly reduce the transmission of a number of diseases and viruses that cause other diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm . Pain isn't a sufficient reason to avoid circumcision. There are many numbing medicines available to ease the pain and, of course, vaccines cause pain as well. Also, with anything, there are risks and potential negative reactions. That is, again, insufficient reason to avoid it. You need to make an informed decision.

I'm horrified that some are equating male circumcision with female genital mutilation. There is absolutely no comparison. The practices are conducted for opposite reasons and continuing to compare them diminishes the horrific consequences of gential mutiliation. Shame on you.

I really want to engage in a civilized discussion here, because every time this is brought up, it's ignored by supporters of circumcision.

From the CDC factsheet you linked to, I quote:"In one crosssectional survey of MSM, lack of circumcision was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of prevalent HIV infection [24]. In another, prospective study of MSM, lack of circumcision was also associated with a 2-fold increase in risk for HIV seroconversion [25]. In both studies, the results were statistically significant, and the data had been controlled statistically for other possible risk factors. However, in another prospective cohort study of MSM, there was no association between circumcision status and incident HIV infection, even among men who reported no unprotected anal receptive intercourse [26]. And in a recent cross-sectional study of African American and Latino MSM, male circumcision was not associated with previously known or newly diagnosed HIV infection [27]. "


Now, regarding the other study that's being quoted by people who apparently haven't read it:
Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HSV-2 and HPV Infections and Syphilis. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0802556#t=article

If you look at the actual numbers in the study:

Herpes SV-2: contracted by 114 of 1370 circumcised men; and 153 of 1395 intact men
Syphilis: contracted by 50 of 2083 circumcised men; and 45 of 2143 intact men (note that circumcision appears to increase the risk of infection).
HPV: contracted by 42 of 233 circumcised men; and with 80 of 287 intact men

And then there's:
Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity. 2010
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco, USA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20965388

So how can one affirm circumcision "significantly reduces" the risk of STDs, when even the numbers in the studies that specifically research circumcision do not support that statement?

[Anonymous]

^^I don’t know what you mean by “every time this is brought up, it's ignored by supporters of circumcision”. The anti-circumcision group hasn’t provided anything that contradicts the position of the CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. that circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of disease/viruses. You cherry picking the few studies quoted in the link that support your position. While there are some studies that didn’t show conclusive evidence of reduced transmission, many other studies have. The totality of evidence supports circumcision which is why the CDC, NIH, WHO, etc. supports.

The link you provided for “Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity” actually doesn’t link to an article. I finally found it here http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf . Did you actually read it? I question whether you did because in the very first paragraph the authors state they “question not the internal validity of the studies but their external validity….External validity is the issue that questions the generalization from the RCCT results [the studies showing circumcision significantly reduces transmission of HIV] to a policy of ‘immediate and rapid adoption’ of circumcision of men across Africa.” I don’t think you read it because it's not disputing the fact that the studies showed circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of the HIV virus, rather it questions the policy push in African for mass circumcisions in terms of ethics (informed consent, etc.) and cost effectiveness (is that the best use of limited resources). The authors cite studies that seem to contradict the RCCT results but their intention is to show that the results of the RCCT may not be applicable to other populations in Africa. In fact, in the paragraph immediately following the studies seemingly not supporting circumcision for HIV transmission reduction, the authors state “Therefore, although the efficacy of using male circumcisions in reducing HIV infections was significant within the strict circumstances of the three trials, taken to scale under the very different prevailing circumstances of Africa, their effectiveness cannot be generalized.” The studies, in fact, were so conclusive and significant in support of circumcision that the researchers stopped the study early. If you have any experience with research studies, you know how unusual that is. Again, it's the totality of evidence, not cherry picking what supports your position and ignoring the rest.

While searching for your article, I came a cross a rebuttal to it that was compelling. http://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Circumcision_Denialism_Unfounded_and_Unscientific_AJPM.pdf

There’s plenty of evidence supporting circumcision and cherry picking/taking things out of context won't change that. If you don’t want to have your DS circumcised, don’t. Find a better cause to direct your energy and resources. I’m finished discussing the topic.

[Anonymous]

It is apparent from the various studies above that a reasonable parent might choose circumcision for its net benefits, even if others parents read the data differently.

Perhaps parents might err on the side of caution if the results of circumcision were more problematic, but let's be honest. They aren't. Very, very few men are unhappy about their circumcisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^I don’t know what you mean by “every time this is brought up, it's ignored by supporters of circumcision”. The anti-circumcision group hasn’t provided anything that contradicts the position of the CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. that circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of disease/viruses. You cherry picking the few studies quoted in the link that support your position. While there are some studies that didn’t show conclusive evidence of reduced transmission, many other studies have. The totality of evidence supports circumcision which is why the CDC, NIH, WHO, etc. supports.

The link you provided for “Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity” actually doesn’t link to an article. I finally found it here http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf . Did you actually read it? I question whether you did because in the very first paragraph the authors state they “question not the internal validity of the studies but their external validity….External validity is the issue that questions the generalization from the RCCT results [the studies showing circumcision significantly reduces transmission of HIV] to a policy of ‘immediate and rapid adoption’ of circumcision of men across Africa.” I don’t think you read it because it's not disputing the fact that the studies showed circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of the HIV virus, rather it questions the policy push in African for mass circumcisions in terms of ethics (informed consent, etc.) and cost effectiveness (is that the best use of limited resources). The authors cite studies that seem to contradict the RCCT results but their intention is to show that the results of the RCCT may not be applicable to other populations in Africa. In fact, in the paragraph immediately following the studies seemingly not supporting circumcision for HIV transmission reduction, the authors state “Therefore, although the efficacy of using male circumcisions in reducing HIV infections was significant within the strict circumstances of the three trials, taken to scale under the very different prevailing circumstances of Africa, their effectiveness cannot be generalized.” The studies, in fact, were so conclusive and significant in support of circumcision that the researchers stopped the study early. If you have any experience with research studies, you know how unusual that is. Again, it's the totality of evidence, not cherry picking what supports your position and ignoring the rest.

While searching for your article, I came a cross a rebuttal to it that was compelling. http://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Circumcision_Denialism_Unfounded_and_Unscientific_AJPM.pdf

There’s plenty of evidence supporting circumcision and cherry picking/taking things out of context won't change that. If you don’t want to have your DS circumcised, don’t. Find a better cause to direct your energy and resources. I’m finished discussing the topic.

Thanks for the response and for link to the rebuttal letter - it was an interesting read.

I am aware that the University of California study questioned the external validity, it's evident from the title. It concludes that "Studies published since the RCCTs show that
(1) male circumcision is not correlated with lower HIV prevalence in some sub-Saharan populations; (2) circumcision is correlated with increased transmission of
HIV to women; and (3) male circumcision is not a cost effective strategy." I don't want to make this too long a post, anyone interested can read the details since the link is provided.

Regarding the studies I linked to, you can call it cherry picking if you wish, I call it (as it simply is) different studies showing different things about STD prevention, which shows there isn't scientific/ medical consensus on this, therefore my conclusion that the research to date is inconclusive.

[Anonymous]

use science

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

[Anonymous]

My OB told me that there was NO medical reason to circumcise our son. He said he did them, was "an excellent surgeon" but he encouraged us to do the research for ourself. I ran into those studies and asked him about them. I can't remember everything he said, but he said there were a few problems with them.

First, they didn't have a placebo group, I think. Second, (and more importantly) he said that it didn't control for the fact that the circumsized group were, by virtue of having pain in the penis and by requirements of the surgeons, had to be celebrate for a period of time during the study. Moreover, the study was ended early, so the results were skewed by that. Finally, he said that while it MAY be helpful in reducing HIV transmission rates in subsaharan Africa, a lot of this had to do with a specific cultural practice of "dry sex" where the women put things in the vagina to dry it out before engaging in sex. This makes HIV transmission (through cuts and injuries) more common.

I am not really an alternative person. Most people would probably be surprised to learn we didn't circ. And we actually had not really thought that much about it before the convo with our OB. I'm very, very glad we did not circ, though, now that I know more about it and have researched even more.

I think most people in the states are not circ'ing their sons in order to reduce the transmission of HIV anyway. I think they're doing it for religious or cosmetic or "look like daddy" or fear of the kid being mocked, etc reasons. I'm not saying they're not valid reasons to consider it, but the whole "health" benefits is the thing they can tell themselves they're embracing. I hate to say that, but I do think it is true. It has seemed true of most of my friends who did circumcise their boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:use science

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Science again!

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:use science

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Science again!

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

You're anti ciruc mumbo jumbo is no match for science cat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^I don’t know what you mean by “every time this is brought up, it's ignored by supporters of circumcision”. The anti-circumcision group hasn’t provided anything that contradicts the position of the CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. that circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of disease/viruses. You cherry picking the few studies quoted in the link that support your position. While there are some studies that didn’t show conclusive evidence of reduced transmission, many other studies have. The totality of evidence supports circumcision which is why the CDC, NIH, WHO, etc. supports.

The link you provided for “Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity” actually doesn’t link to an article. I finally found it here http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf . Did you actually read it? I question whether you did because in the very first paragraph the authors state they “question not the internal validity of the studies but their external validity….External validity is the issue that questions the generalization from the RCCT results [the studies showing circumcision significantly reduces transmission of HIV] to a policy of ‘immediate and rapid adoption’ of circumcision of men across Africa.” I don’t think you read it because it's not disputing the fact that the studies showed circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of the HIV virus, rather it questions the policy push in African for mass circumcisions in terms of ethics (informed consent, etc.) and cost effectiveness (is that the best use of limited resources). The authors cite studies that seem to contradict the RCCT results but their intention is to show that the results of the RCCT may not be applicable to other populations in Africa. In fact, in the paragraph immediately following the studies seemingly not supporting circumcision for HIV transmission reduction, the authors state “Therefore, although the efficacy of using male circumcisions in reducing HIV infections was significant within the strict circumstances of the three trials, taken to scale under the very different prevailing circumstances of Africa, their effectiveness cannot be generalized.” The studies, in fact, were so conclusive and significant in support of circumcision that the researchers stopped the study early. If you have any experience with research studies, you know how unusual that is. Again, it's the totality of evidence, not cherry picking what supports your position and ignoring the rest.

While searching for your article, I came a cross a rebuttal to it that was compelling. http://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Circumcision_Denialism_Unfounded_and_Unscientific_AJPM.pdf

There’s plenty of evidence supporting circumcision and cherry picking/taking things out of context won't change that. If you don’t want to have your DS circumcised, don’t. Find a better cause to direct your energy and resources. I’m finished discussing the topic.

Thanks for the response and for link to the rebuttal letter - it was an interesting read.

I am aware that the University of California study questioned the external validity, it's evident from the title. It concludes that "Studies published since the RCCTs show that
(1) male circumcision is not correlated with lower HIV prevalence in some sub-Saharan populations; (2) circumcision is correlated with increased transmission of
HIV to women; and (3) male circumcision is not a cost effective strategy." I don't want to make this too long a post, anyone interested can read the details since the link is provided.

Regarding the studies I linked to, you can call it cherry picking if you wish, I call it (as it simply is) different studies showing different things about STD prevention, which shows there isn't scientific/ medical consensus on this, therefore my conclusion that the research to date is inconclusive.

ohhh really, i guess as another poster pointed out the cdc is a bunch of lying fools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^I don’t know what you mean by “every time this is brought up, it's ignored by supporters of circumcision”. The anti-circumcision group hasn’t provided anything that contradicts the position of the CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. that circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of disease/viruses. You cherry picking the few studies quoted in the link that support your position. While there are some studies that didn’t show conclusive evidence of reduced transmission, many other studies have. The totality of evidence supports circumcision which is why the CDC, NIH, WHO, etc. supports.

The link you provided for “Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity” actually doesn’t link to an article. I finally found it here http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf . Did you actually read it? I question whether you did because in the very first paragraph the authors state they “question not the internal validity of the studies but their external validity….External validity is the issue that questions the generalization from the RCCT results [the studies showing circumcision significantly reduces transmission of HIV] to a policy of ‘immediate and rapid adoption’ of circumcision of men across Africa.” I don’t think you read it because it's not disputing the fact that the studies showed circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of the HIV virus, rather it questions the policy push in African for mass circumcisions in terms of ethics (informed consent, etc.) and cost effectiveness (is that the best use of limited resources). The authors cite studies that seem to contradict the RCCT results but their intention is to show that the results of the RCCT may not be applicable to other populations in Africa. In fact, in the paragraph immediately following the studies seemingly not supporting circumcision for HIV transmission reduction, the authors state “Therefore, although the efficacy of using male circumcisions in reducing HIV infections was significant within the strict circumstances of the three trials, taken to scale under the very different prevailing circumstances of Africa, their effectiveness cannot be generalized.” The studies, in fact, were so conclusive and significant in support of circumcision that the researchers stopped the study early. If you have any experience with research studies, you know how unusual that is. Again, it's the totality of evidence, not cherry picking what supports your position and ignoring the rest.

While searching for your article, I came a cross a rebuttal to it that was compelling. http://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Circumcision_Denialism_Unfounded_and_Unscientific_AJPM.pdf

There’s plenty of evidence supporting circumcision and cherry picking/taking things out of context won't change that. If you don’t want to have your DS circumcised, don’t. Find a better cause to direct your energy and resources. I’m finished discussing the topic.

Thanks for the response and for link to the rebuttal letter - it was an interesting read.

I am aware that the University of California study questioned the external validity, it's evident from the title. It concludes that "Studies published since the RCCTs show that
(1) male circumcision is not correlated with lower HIV prevalence in some sub-Saharan populations; (2) circumcision is correlated with increased transmission of
HIV to women; and (3) male circumcision is not a cost effective strategy." I don't want to make this too long a post, anyone interested can read the details since the link is provided.

Regarding the studies I linked to, you can call it cherry picking if you wish, I call it (as it simply is) different studies showing different things about STD prevention, which shows there isn't scientific/ medical consensus on this, therefore my conclusion that the research to date is inconclusive.

ohhh really, i guess as another poster pointed out the cdc is a bunch of lying fools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:use science

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Here is a quote from the source you provide, above:

A number of important differences from sub- Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM. There are as yet no convincing data to help determine whether male circumcision will have any effect on HIV risk for men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner. Receptive anal sex is associated with a substantially greater risk of HIV acquisition than is insertive anal sex. It is more biologically plausible that male circumcision would reduce HIV acquisition risk for the insertive partner rather than for the receptive partner, but few MSM engage solely in insertive anal sex [40].

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:use science

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Here is a quote from the source you provide, above:

A number of important differences from sub- Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM. There are as yet no convincing data to help determine whether male circumcision will have any effect on HIV risk for men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner. Receptive anal sex is associated with a substantially greater risk of HIV acquisition than is insertive anal sex. It is more biologically plausible that male circumcision would reduce HIV acquisition risk for the insertive partner rather than for the receptive partner, but few MSM engage solely in insertive anal sex [40].

Even so, it's still a benefit. The issue is the degree of benefit.

[Anonymous]

Ok Germany band. Germany historically not the most accepting of varying cultures. Do we really have to read all the crap you two posted ?
Just agree to disagree and move on!