Reply to German court bans circumcision for non-medical reasons

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "German court bans circumcision for non-medical reasons"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]

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?

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics