Tdc2182 said:
In all my years I never thought someone would get this up at arms over circumcision. How was that talking shit? Is someone here a Turtlehead?
No, I'm a female. But if your reaction is to call non-circumcised men names like "turtleheads" then I really don't think you're the best person to be talking about this.
Tdc2182 said:
Health benefits include:
snip
No, no, no. You said: "
recommended". I am not debating about circumcision, I am debating the fact you call RIC
recommended. Like I said, there is not one medical organisation on the planet Earth that recommends it.
So if those health benefits are really there, why does no official organisation and association recommend it anymore?
I'm sure you'll understand why I take the word of every paediactric, oncology, medical and health associating in the world over the word of you and someone who has written seven vague points on some internet webpage.
Actually, I'm not so sure you'll understand that. I'm studying medicine in university now, and I'm only a second year student - but I'll do my best to address the "benefits" you raised, and I'll do my best to make you understand why
no official medical organisation on Earth takes them seriously.
Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin
Undoubtedly, this is a direct solution to
phimosis, or as your little web page put it, "tight foreskin". Phimosis actually effects around 0.5-1% of the male population.
Yep, best estimates put it around 1%. More people are diagnosed with appendicitis. More people are also diagnosed with tonsillitis. Removing the apendix, the tonsils, or the foreskin should only be done when problems occur. They should not be carried out preemptively. This is bad medicine, and bad common sense.
So, that point is completely null.
Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis
This one literally made me laugh out loud. Inflammation alone should not be a reason to perform surgery on someone, unless it is pretty damn severe. Most cases of inflammation can be resolved quite easily and commonly without the use of a knife.
Even if it was a just reason,
once again, this should be performed
once the problem occurs.
The percentage of men who actually have to have circumcision surgery performed on their due to recurrent inflammation of the glands would be miniscule. Even smaller than those effected by phimosis (1%).
Reduced urinary tract infections.
Myth.
"20 out of of 100,157 (0.02%) circumcised boys got UTIs, compared with 88 out of 35,929 (0.244%) intact boys. If circumcising the 35,929 boys would have reduced the incidence from 0.244% to 0.02% (7 boys), the Number Needed to Treat is 35,929/(88-7) = 444 circumcisions to prevent one UTI."
So, if you think performing surgery on over four hundred new born babies is worth preventing one UTI, then I guess you have a point?
Interestingly, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediactrics ran a few studies and observations on the correlation between UTI and circumcision. They found a mix bag of evidence supporting both sides and reinforced the fact that they "
...does not recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
So, yep, not worth it. Next?
Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
This one made me laugh even harder. This is so poorly written and so vague, that I can't even address it. What are they takling about. "Fewer problems". What problems? How fewer? "With erections" Okay, what about the erections. Tight foreskin? Swollen glands? I've already refuted this.
This is where you get your medical advice from?
Really?
You listen to these people, but you ignore the recommendations of official medical organisations? May God have mercy on your soul.
Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, genital herpes, syphilis and other micro-organisms in men and their partner(s)
This one is another one that is incredibly wishy washy. Have a read of this page: http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html It goes into great detail about the reality of it, and cites several incredibly thorough investigations and what they actually found.
I'll take an extract for you, in case you don't want to read the whole thing:
"
Of the 499 men studied, 201 (40.3%) had been circumcised by age 3 years. The circumcised and uncircumcised groups differed little in socioeconomic characteristics and sexual behavior. Overall, up to age 32 years, the incidence rates for all STIs were not statistically significantly different - 23.4 and 24.4 per 1000 person-years for the uncircumcised and circumcised men, respectively. This was not affected by adjusting for any of the socioeconomic or sexual behavior characteristics."
Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/boczko/
"Almost" complete elimination? More like not even close. This little myth was invented by a man named Abraham Wolbarst in 1932. The link above includes sources from the Department of Urology, Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center, and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine that conclusively prove he was wrong.
Decrease in urological problems generally.
Once again, way too vague. This was not written by anyone who had any understanding of medicine whatsoever.
---
There you go. At the end of the day however, if you really had a point, you'd have official organisations backing you up. Instead all you have is wishy-washy, vague and outdated "evidence" that is refuted by thousands of organisations all over the world.
So, yes, you're talking shit.
Routine infant circumcision is not recommended by any official medical organisation. Your claim that it is recommended is nonsense of the highest order.
NOTE: To anyone wishing to quote me with little pieces of evidence that are in support of pro-circumcision
I'm well aware that there are studies that find little pieces of evidence that may hint at some serious health benefits of circumcision, but these studies are invariably too inconclusive for any real action to be taken. To this day no official national medical organisation from the UK, the USA, Australia and Europe recommends circumcision.
I will also not be responding to anyone any further on this. I've learnt my lesson with people on the internet. I've said what I've had to say, and I've made my point explicitly clear. Anyone who either misinterprets me or tries to start a debate should remember that I am refuting the claim that circumcision is recommended. It clearly is not recommended. If you are someone who is pro-circumcision, that's just great, and I am not offending you, nor am I suggesting you shouldn't have been circumcised. I would wager both you and your penis are lovely people.
