consult2

"If you are only presenting the risks and none of the BENEFITS THAT IS SUPPORTED BY RESEARCH, then you are misleading parents, and to me, that borderlines malpractice." Ok, I'll bite, what are these alleged "benefits" that are supported by valid scientific research?

Really? The US has the 6th highest HIV rates in the industrialized countries HIV cases % UNAIDS (2003) Circumcising countries: Zimbabwe........................24.6 Congo................................4.9 Malawi..............................14.2 Kenya.................................6.7 Chad..................................4.8 USA...................................0.6 Eithiopia............................4.4 Non-circumcising countries: Japan............................... Finland...............................0.1 Norway..............................0.1 Sweden.............................0.1 Germany...........................0.1 UN data from 2003 show the following AIDS rates for that year: Nation AIDS cases% Cirk rates/1995* Cirk rates/1975** USA.........................0.6........................60%.......................85% Australia...................0.1..........................8%.......................55% Canada....................0.3........................ France.....................0.4.......................... Netherlands............0.3.......................... UK...........................0.1.............................1%.........................1% Germany.................0.1.......................... Sweden.................0.1............................ Norway............. ....0.1............................. New Zealand........0.1...............................5%......................10(?) Finland................01........................... Japan................ Eithiopia...............4.4..............................100%......................100% So taking the estimated cirk rates of 20 years ago we find an amazing POSITIVE correlation between the cirk rates and the HIV rates

Really, perhaps you missed this in scienice 101? Note the last paragraph... http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/labs/scimethod.htm The Principles of Science As this is a science class, it would be beneficial to start out with a discussion on just what is "science." Science is a methodical process which seeks to determine the secrets of the natural world by using the scientific method. The Scientific Method The scientific method is a process scientists must follow in determining the workings of the universe. There are five basic components to the scientific method: 1. From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem). 2. Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome. 3. Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable. 4. Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis. 5. Further modify and repeat the experiments. It is impossible to prove something to be true (this dips deeply into philosophy, but Truth is an ever-elusive principle.) One can create a theory with an overwhelming amount of support, but one valid piece of contrary evidence can strike it down. As such, science and scientific theories are an ever-evolving as new ideas and technologies allow us to create and test hypotheses in new and exciting ways.

The OPINIONS may be equal, but the facts and evidence are not--try following your brains. And the end of the day, WHY do something that has no proven benefit and proven harm? Which direction does one's brains lead?

Exactly! You got me.

""Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong." Well the circumcision and HIV rates come from those organizations whose opinions you cite, so this begs the question: Why do their own stats contradict their opinions? Perhaps because "medical science" is mostly a consensus of OPINIONS (sometimes based on facts and evidence, and sometimes contradicted by it) and "science" is a consensus of the evidence?

And it is just as prevalent in areas that DO circumcise and those that don't --something does not compute logically.

"Well, I guess the CDC, World Health Organization, Unicef, and other, internationally recognized organizations that are dedicated to the PREVENTION of disease, are all wrong." Well, they certainly were on the latest swine-flu pandemonium they manufactured--and the bird flu, and... and Again, IF it is their OPINION that circumcision reduces HIV, WHY do we NOT see this reduction? Either their OPINIONS are wrong, or reality is wrong--so, which is it?

"An circumcision...is done with a lidocaine," very infrequently.. "does not cut into muscle, does not cut through a protective membrane that would expose major organs to possible infection and has minimal blood loss. It is considered a minor surgical procedure." not to the victim--and not to those who die from it directly or indirectly.--onlt to the perpetrators. "An appendectomy, is considered major surgery. It is done through general anesthesia and all of the risks of intubation, cutting through major muscles of the abdominal cavity, thus, placing the body at risk for adhesions, major infection, stitches, etc." So? one is UNNECESSARY and the other is necessary--what is your point?

.In SCIENCE, all it takes is ONE valid exception to make a theory invalid--you got them in Scand. and Japan--and the other rates for various countries are valid ENOUGH to complete the picture. So, again: IF circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, WHY do we not see this alleged reduction in the real world? If circumcision reduces HIV by 50%, HOW & WHY do we oft times see an increase in HIV --up to 88 fold?

Being a bit lazy are we?

"Some cried for a few minutes and then stopped. To me it did not seem that the lidocaine made much of a difference because that hurts being injected. It seems that they cried just as much either way." Of course! After the initial pain, they retreated in a trauma-induced coma-like state "My ex-boyfriend was not circ. and he was embarrased about it when we first got together. Since most men are circ. when you are one of the few that are not I think it can be embarassing for you. He always said that he wished it would have happened when he was a baby because now it would be a big ordeal." Not if you are educated and know that YOU are the lucky one--knowledge is a great confidence builder. HOW would it be a BIGGER ordeal now than as an infant?

"ETA - the actual number of intact men that end up 'having' to get circumcised as adults in the US is about 1 in 100. So we're circing, on average, 99 newborns who otherwise would have no problems, to save one person who *might* have problems that truly need fixing with circumcision." Actually the rate in foreskin-educated countries is a LOT less: First of all, for a man who was not circumcised as an infant the chances of him having to get circumcised as a adult are extremely rare. In fact it's only 6 in 100,000. (0.006%) Health officials of each Scandanavian country were queried about adult circumcision.. None of the health officials could provide precise data, because the numbers were so small that they weren't worth compiling. Each official stressed that foreskin problems were present but said they were largely treated medically-surgical solutions were extremly rare. "in Oslo, Norway, over a 26-year period in which 20,000 male babies were cared for, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency rate of 0.02%. In Denmark. 1968 children up to the age of 17 were examined over a period of several years. In this group, 3 circumcisions were performed-a frequency of 0.15%. In this study, in retrospect, the physicians believed that all three operations might have been avoided. Both of these studies related to the infrequency of circumcision and puberty, they did not deal with the issue in adulthood. Wallerstein, Edward, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. pg 128 In Finland -- a non-circumcising country -- the operative rate is only a tiny fraction of this percentage. A male's risk of being circumcised for any reason during his entire lifespan is less than one in 16,000. http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/circumcision/circumcision4.shtml The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis. A total of 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older,which represents only 2/100ths of 1% (0.023%) of the total male population in that age group. This means that 99.97% did NOT develop a problem. Moreover, according to Finnish authorities, only a fraction of the reported cases required surgery- a number too small to reliably estimate. Wallerstein, Edward, CIRCUMCISION: AN AMERICAN HEALTH FALLACY p.128 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269

"I tell them that there is a risk to permanent damage to the member from the procedure, infection that can have a major impact on urination, appearance, and future sexual performance." Do you tell them that there is a 100% chance of the loss of erogenous tissue and various rates of meatal stenosis-- removal of too much tissue, iatrogenic phimosis, glans amputation, and even death?

"The links ARE my sources...and they are from the CDC and well recognized professional medical journals with CURRENT RESEARCH." Thoise are the OPINIONS of medical organizations--not proven facts--and are contradicted by empirical evidence in the real world. "Appeal to authority" is not a valid argument especially when those organizations have a bad track record. "I graduated in May and the same information appeared in our textbooks as well as the teaching literature we give to parents at my hospital who inquire about circumcision." That is a sad commentary on the state of our medical education--stating unproven claims as scientific fact.