Dr Rick

<strong> Some of the studies quoted above come from Africa; Kenya is not part of the US.

<strong> Here is an article from India:

Epidemiology of cancer of the cervix: global and national perspective. 2000
Shanta V, Krishnamurthi S, Gajalakshmi CK, Swaminathan R, Ravichandran K.
Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai.

"Cancer of the uterine cervix is one of the leading causes of cancer death among women worldwide. The estimated new cancer cervix cases per year is 500,000 of which 79% occur in the developing countries. Cancer cervix occupies either the top rank or second among cancers in women in the developing countries, whereas in the affluent countries cancer cervix does not even find a place in the top 5 leading cancers in women. The truncated rate (TR) in the age group 35-64 years in Chennai, India, is even higher (99.1/100,000; 1982-95) than rate reported from Cali, Colombia (77.4/100,000, 1987-91). The cervical cancer burden in India alone is estimated as 100,000 in 2001 AD. The differential pattern of cervical cancer and the wide variation in incidence are possibly related to environmental differences. Aetiologic association and possible risk factors for cervical carcinoma have been extensively studied. The factors are: Sexual and reproductive factors, socio-economic factors (education and income), viruses e.g., herpes simplex virus (HSV), human papillomavirus (HPV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in cervical carcinogenesis..."

The incidence of these infections is higher in uncircumcised males and their partners. The non-American authors conclude:

"...infections and other factors like smoking, diet, oral contraceptives, hormones, etc. The accumulated evidence suggests that cervical cancer is preventable and is highly suitable for primary prevention. Sexual hygiene, use of barrier contraceptives and ritual circumcision can undoubtedly reduce cervical cancer incidence[emphasis added]. Education, cervical cancer screening of high risk groups and improvement in socio-economic status can reduce cervical cancer morbidity and mortality significantly."

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Sure hypospadias correction leaves scarring. And circumcision leaves no scarring? If you say so.

Are either of you women with experience of a chordee penis? Thickness apparently counts.

I can't vouch for all examples, but I am fairly sure that various girlfriends and my wife of ten years were / are not just being nice in reporting that this particular cloud has a silver lining, for the woman too. So, yes, as far as I know, it does stand.

TTFN, Oolon, 1 in 350.

Krieger

"Some of the studies quoted above come from Africa; Kenya is not part of the US."

Around 73% of the Kenya's population is either Xian or Islam, both religions come from the Jewish tradition, which advocates circumcision.

If you don't believe me you can look up the percentages of the populations here:

<a href="http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/" target="_blank">http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/</a>

Dr Rick

Most of India is neither Muslim nor Christian, however, and one of the articles cited above originated from that country.

The majority of scientists, engineers, professors, journalists, and homemakers are theists; most of humankind's knowledge could be fallaciously dismissed by "poisoning the well of discourse'' rather than objectively evaluating the evidence on its merits.

The reality is that the pros and cons of male circumcision are not cut and dried:

Pediatr Clin North Am 2001 Dec;48(6):1539-57
Neonatal circumscision.
Lerman SE, Liao JC.
Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.

"The merits of neonatal circumcision continue to be debated hotly...Review of existing literature supports that most children who are uncircumcised do well from a medical standpoint and, thus, the question of whether US health care practitioners are subjecting neonates to an unnecessary surgical procedure remains. The medical benefits of circumcision are multiple, but most are small. ...Most of the medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved. Proper penile hygiene should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision ( there is as of now no good evidence to support or refute this conjecture)... Nevertheless, in areas where safe sexual practices are poorly adhered to, circumcision can have a relative protective effect against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. The medical harms of circumcision lie mainly in the 1% acute complication rate and the additional patients who require revision of their initial circumcision for cosmetic or medical reasons. Anecdotally, the authors see far fewer complications in the acute and long-term phase when the circumcision has been performed by someone with expertise and experience with the procedure...A negative psychologic and sexual impact of circumcision has been argued, but solid, scientific data are lacking [emphasis added]. Special interest groups have argued that perhaps the greatest harm of circumcision is in performing an operation without a clear indication. Many of these groups have claimed that performing a routine neonatal circumcision is akin to performing a surgical procedure without a clear medical benefit, and in an infant, that is akin to surgery without informed consent. Although this is an extreme posture, the clinician can understand the emphasis on trying to provide invasive medical services only when a clear medical benefit is expected, especially when treating an infant or child. Deciding whether or not to circumcise an infant continues to challenge many new parents. Clearly, the procedure provides potential medical benefits and potential risks. It is difficult to say whether the benefits outweigh the risks for all male infants [emphasis added]...

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

alek0

Oolun Colluphid,

1. Scarring from hypospadia correction is different from scarring from just circumcision. If you don't beleive it, find some medical book with good photos in it and check it for yourself.

2. As a woman with plenty of experience with all sorts of penises, again, you are wrong. Why men have this ridicilous idea that sexual pleasure is linear function of size/thickness? Beyond certain point it is not pleasurable any more, it hurts. And number of positions is more limited.

Rbuchnermd,

I can (and have) shown articles which disagree. We could go on searching medline ad infinitum trying to prove one another wrong. As I've said before, one can always find articles to support his/her point of view. Can you instead answer the following questions:

1) Why don't American Cancer Society recognise circumcision as a measure of prevention of penile cancer and cervical cancer?

2) Even if it would be certain that circumcision reduces STD risk, what does this have to do with circumcision of infants? Why not let them decide?

3) Please explain how come that according to all medical associations around the world (of which AAP has the mildest statement) "potential benefits" balance out with the risks so there are no medical reasons in favour of circumcision? And those medical associations typically take into account lowest estimates of risk available in the literature, so risk. vs. benefit analysis would be different with more realistic estimate of complications.

4) How reliable is self-reported number of partners and visits to prostitutes?

5)PLease discuss the reliability of estimate of relative risk in studies with large confidence intervals (typical for studies on cicumcision and STDs). Please discuss how are the studies with large p value releveant? Also please explain how do you understand p value.

6) Why is in many studies on STD risk circumcision status self-reported? Why is no account taken of the extent of circumcision, i.e. how much foreskin was removed? If Langerhan's cells play a role, this is significant factor.

GunnerJ

Which proves all sorts of things, I'm sure. This is the most blatant and unabashed use of argumentum ad hominem I've ever seen. Kregier, if you want to discredit the studies shown, you'll have to do better than "Well, they're all Xian, so they're lying." Oh, and BTW, circumcision is NOT a Xian thing, so cut this whole "we have to stop the evil Xian baby mutilators!" crapola out.

Anunnaki

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/history/" target="_blank">History of circumcision</a>
<a href="http://www.circlist.org/critehistory.html" target="_blank">Another</a>

Apparently the Christians never officially condoned this Jewish nonsense,but when all is said and done my fucking foreskin would still be mine if it were not for that douche bag of a god both of those stupid religions worship.


[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Krieger

Those are some great questions alek0! =)

HeatherD

Sorry but it is really hard to come up with a similar analogy. Perhaps we should just remove the mammary glands of infant females to prevent cancer there.

The point still stands though. Are you saying it's okay to perform surgery on an infant because of potential health benefits many years later?

Perhaps we should remove the appendix of all infants. We don't need it, it's just a useless organ and we'll just have to remove it later in a small percentage of cases.

MrDarwin

Like I said earlier, we could cut the rate of breast cancer in half by removing just one of every infant girl's breasts at birth. The same goes for testicular cancer--remove one of a boy's testicles at birth, and the corresponding reduction in testicular cancer in adult men would be vastly greater than any reduced rate of penile cancer due to circumcision.

Can anybody explain why these are not good ideas that follow exactly the same logic as circumcision?