patrick.net

Dan8267 says

I'm open to either the pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision camp, but I need hard core evidence to decide, and the default position is anti-circumcision as one doesn't perform medical procedures unless there is a good reason to do so.

I respect that position. My beef is not with those who do not want it to be routine, although I feel it should be, but with those with an emotional reaction against it, even in cases where the patient's history (say, multiple UTI events in infancy) recommends it.

label -- don't be a butt munch.

the cutting of the cord ... and an epesiotomy(sp) ... are both surgical procedures, aint they?

I am pro-trim. Two reasons. Hygene and Health. I shared a hospital room with an old old man while I was recovering from knee surgery when I was a teenager. THe dude was near 80. He was there to have his flap removed due to complications from the flap getting less flexible and getting infected. So, this dude went through the trimming as an adult, and I got the joy of sharing his experience. Only the freakiest of freaks would think it makes sense for a grown male to get trimmed, when trimming a new born is much less trouble and avoids a major hardship later in life.

Personal experience, and reaction from females, suggests that trimmed is the way to go.

thunderlips11 says

I respect that position

More important than the conclusion is the line of thought that leads to it. I think we're using the same line of thought.

The question of whether or not circumcisions should be performed, and if so how they should be performed, should be determined by objective, verifiable medical evidence that the procedure is overall beneficial.

The origins of circumcision are religious as shown in Bullshit. First it was a sacrifice to an imaginary god. Then it was an ineffective means of trying to prevent masturbation. Finally arguments were made for the sake of hygiene and health.

It's quite possible that the arguments regarding hygiene and health are valid, but it's a heck of a coincidence that something that started as an arbitrary religious ceremony and then became part of an anti-masturbation crusade just happens to be also good medical practice. Hence my skepticism.

Of course a skeptic is willing to be convinced. That's what separates skepticism from denial, a trademark of religion and politics. My main concern is that the procedure is still being done simply because it's another way for hospitals to bring in cash, and clearly that's not a good reason to perform a medical procedure.

I'd like to see a reputable organization like the World Heath Organization publish an in-depth study on the positive and negative effects of circumcision as well as the anesthetic needs and risks for babies receiving this procedure. Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure. Personally, I don't see why it would be difficult for the WHO to perform such a definitive study. Seems like it should be easy to do compared to many of the other things they do.

Dan8267 says

Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure

abortion stops a beating heart. you have now been informed.

Melmakian says

So says the God-hater who can't prove that God doesn't exist but wants everyone to believe in Global Warming despite it hasn't been proven to exist either.

Do I have to open a thread on that too?

Bap33 says

abortion stops a beating heart. you have now been informed.

So if the abortion happens before the heart is formed, you are okay with it then?

How the Morning After Pill Works

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

Bap33 says

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world. Are you against sperm going to waste by not being used to impregnate everything in sight?

Dan8267 says

More important than the conclusion is the line of thought that leads to it. I think we're using the same line of thought.

Word. I see your and Leo's point, in my father's day, tonsil removal was routine for most children; today the consensus is the drawbacks negate the benefits and that tonsils should only be removed when there are problems. I imagine the circumcision debate will go through the same process as the science develops and the consensus changes either way in reaction to new research.

Dan8267 says

I'd like to see a reputable organization like the World Heath Organization publish an in-depth study on the positive and negative effects of circumcision as well as the anesthetic needs and risks for babies receiving this procedure. Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure. Personally, I don't see why it would be difficult for the WHO to perform such a definitive study. Seems like it should be easy to do compared to many of the other things they do.

Lots of stuff from WHO:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/fact_sheet/en/

Medical male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60%.
Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention, particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision, where the public health benefits will be maximized. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision.
Medical male circumcision offers excellent value for money in such settings. It saves costs by averting new HIV infections and reducing the number of people needing HIV treatment and care.
A one-time intervention, medical male circumcision provides men life-long partial protection against HIV as well as other sexually transmitted infections. It should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package of services and be used in conjunction with other methods of prevention, such as female and male condoms.

Here's some WHO documents from their website which comprehensively lay out their position, including the most recent, most comprehensive studies on circumcision and HIV. :
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/research_implications/en/index.html

An age old religious routine might have hit on something by accident. Just like some of the herbs used in medieval times actually did something like what they were claimed, and allowed us to synthesize the chemicals within into better and powerful medicine. Most of herb-use was quackery, but a fraction of it was legit.

One of the explanations for circumcision is that when you live the the desert, sand gets trapped into your foreskin, and scratches everything to all hell, causing cuts and infections. It may have been later subject to mythological explanation after the original purpose was forgotten. So instead of "We semites remove our foreskins so as not to have sand up our wang" it became "The King of the Mountain told us we're his people who should mark ourselves by removing this skin flap."

On the summary page, it goes on to talk about the randomized control studies done by the US NIH and a French Organization, which are the sources for the 53-60% number (it varies).

This is why I compare circumcision to Gardasil (HPV Vaccine) - Gardasil does not prevent all or even almost all of the HPV varieties linked to cervical cancer, but is recommended anyway.

This campaign to circumcise by WHO/UNICEF/UNAIDS and other NGOs acting in concert has their own site dedicated to male circumcision:
http://www.malecircumcision.org/about/male_circumcision_about_us.html

The first link of the Tools and Programmes links to the use of Local Anaesthetics when performing circumcision:
http://www.malecircumcision.org/programs/tools_guidelines.html

There are also papers about which devices are best used, how to train personnel, funding for it, etc.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world. Are you against sperm going to waste by not being used to impregnate everything in sight?

nope, in natural conditions a sperm cell dies if it does not find a female egg. A female egg dies in natural conditions if a sperm does not breach the cell wall. Once those two individual cells join, they become a whole new cell with matched DNA .... and that cell splits and splits and splits and continues on for 80 years or so with the exact same DNA it started with. Start from the 80 year old guy, no wait, start from your age and use you for the example, going backwards in your life time, tell me when you stop being the cell cluster that we all call Dan. Thanks.

thunderlips11 says

Lots of stuff from WHO:

Good find. The WHO I trust. They don't have religious or cultural agendas and have to work across many cultures. As such, they really have to be culture neutral and stick to the facts. They also have accomplished a lot in protecting the world from disease.

Plus they rock epically.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BfuWXRZe9yA

Bap33 says

nope, in natural conditions a sperm cell dies if it does not find a female egg. A female egg dies in natural conditions if a sperm does not breach the cell wall.

Still don't get the concept of natural selection, do ya?

Bap33 says

, tell me when you stop being the cell cluster that we all call Dan.

Finally, you get close to the issue. It's rare moments like this that I have hope for you.

I'll address this very issue and many others when I write my weekend rant. Can't get enough free time during the week to do it.

you have an odd way of telling me I am right. Is it that tuff to do? lol

Bap33 says

you have an odd way of telling me I am right. Is it that tuff to do? lol

I will gladly say you are right should that ever happen.

Bap33 says

I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

And that is why your opinion on what constitutes a mental disorder carries no weight. In fact, this lack of grasp on reality is why your opinions on issues in general carries no weight.

New Evidence: Circumcision changes bacterial composition of foreskin area; reduces overall bacterial load; increases number of Langerhans cells (Immunity Boosters), may explain reduction in HIV among circumcised men vs. uncircumcised men.

http://news.discovery.com/health/circumcision-alters-penis-bacteria-130416.htm

I bet this works too:

Female infibulation is the removal of the labia minora (inner lips) and labia majora (outer lips). When the labial tissue heals, it forms a wall of skin and flesh across the vagina and the rest of the pubic area. By inserting a twig or similar before the wound heals, a small hole is created for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. The procedure is usually accompanied by the removal of the clitoris. The legs are bound together for two to four weeks to allow the labia to heal into a barrier. The procedure is usually carried out on young girls before the onset of puberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibulation

thunderlips11 says

New Evidence: Circumcision changes bacterial composition of foreskin area; reduces overall bacterial load; increases number of Langerhans cells (Immunity Boosters), may explain reduction in HIV among circumcised men vs. uncircumcised men.

Unless the effect is highly significant like 90% or more effective, I don't think it's wise to consider circumcision a good way to prevent AIDS. Better off sticking with condoms given the significance of being "unfortunate".

False equivalency. What are the scientifically proven health benefits to female infibulation, again? None.

Also, men circumcised in adulthood report "little to no difference" in sensation or ability to orgasm. Some even report better orgasms. I wonder what that would be for female mutilation.

Chop the end of your own dick off all you want honey, just don't be so keen on foisting it on others.

finehoe says

Chop the end of your own dick off all you want honey, just don't be so keen on foisting it on others.

Ah, excellent, rational, reasoned argument.

Circumcision is more complicated and painful in adulthood, and waiting until over 18 doesn't prevent HIV transmission, UTIs, non-retractable foreskins (most common in prepubescent boys), and the transmission of HPV before then. Most people screw around long before 18.

The recovery time for infant circumcision is less than 24 hours. After the onset of puberty, it is 10-14 days.

Multiplying thunderlips11 says

"If a vaccine was available....

it would be cheaper and less invasive than surgery. The best prevention technologies available currently are (a) condoms, which have been around for centuries at least, and (b) circumcision, which has been around for millenia. That fact should tell you something. Since drug companies began advertising DTC and PhRMA's political influence began to dominate the evening news and federal policy (e.g. Medicare D, Obamacare), research $ has gone primarily to daily pills that PhRMA can advertise on TV. For a small fraction of that cost, we could have vaccines that would end these diseases, and probably end many cancers as well. It is shocking how ignorant some people (e.g. Homefool) are about vaccines, many do not even understand what a vaccine is and how it works. Vaccines work by improving the immune system to prevent or cure disease. Some vaccines do both, e.g. the smallpox vaccine can prevent smallpox and it can cure smallpox in people recently infected. (Homefool tried to deny that by saying it won't cure them after the disease has already run its course, and I must acknowledge dead people are very difficult to treat.) That is how smallpox was eradicated, and the cost of treating smallpox has dropped to zero because nobody gets smallpox anymore. Many people assume that prices and medical costs must always increase, but that is not true. CPI did not increase overall in the century prior to the advent of the Federal Reserve, and medical costs could actually fall if instead of revenue-maximizing PhRMA-driven public policy we had public policy in the public interest, reducing costs. For an interesting popular article on vaccine research, you can read more here.

"While the “gold standard” for medical trials is the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the African trials suffered [a number of serious problems] including problematic randomisation and selection bias, inadequate blinding, lack of placebo-control (male circumcision could not be concealed), inadequate equipoise, experimenter bias, attrition (673 drop-outs in female-to-male trials), not investigating male circumcision as a vector for HIV transmission, not investigating non-sexual HIV transmission, as well as lead-time bias, supportive bias (circumcised men received additional counselling sessions), participant expectation bias, and time-out discrepancy (restraint from sexual activity only by circumcised men)."

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced an early end to two clinical trials of adult male circumcision because an interim review of trial data revealed that medically performed circumcision significantly reduces a man's risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual intercourse. The trial in Kisumu, Kenya, of 2,784 HIV-negative men showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to uncircumcised men, while a trial of 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, showed that HIV acquisition was reduced by 48 percent in circumcised men.

"These findings are of great interest to public health policy makers who are developing and implementing comprehensive HIV prevention programs,"says NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. "Male circumcision performed safely in a medical environment complements other HIV prevention strategies and could lessen the burden of HIV/AIDS, especially in countries in sub-Saharan Africa where, according to the 2006 estimates from UNAIDS, 2.8 million new infections occurred in a single year."

Above PDF claims trials not randomized, controlled, etc. The DIrector of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases disagrees:

"Many studies have suggested that male circumcision plays a role in protecting against HIV acquisition," notes NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "We now have confirmation — from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials — showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse."

The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse.

The co-principal investigators of the Kenyan trial are Robert Bailey, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Stephen Moses, M.D., M.P.H., University of Manitoba, Canada. In addition to NIAID support, the Kenyan trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and included Kenyan researchers Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, M.B.Ch.B., and Kawango Agot, Ph.D., M.P.H. The Ugandan trial is led by Ronald Gray, M.B.B.S., M.Sc., of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Additional collaborators in the Ugandan trial were David Serwadda, M.Med., M.Sc., M.P.H., Nelson Sewankambo, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med.M.Sc., Stephen Watya, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med., and Godfrey Kigozi, M.B.Ch.B., M.P.H.

Both trials involved adult, HIV-negative heterosexual male volunteers assigned at random to either intervention (circumcision performed by trained medical professionals in a clinic setting) or no intervention (no circumcision). All participants were extensively counseled in HIV prevention and risk reduction techniques.

The above PDF claims that only the circumcised were counseled; this is not the case.

Both trials reached their enrollment targets by September 2005 and were originally designed to continue follow-up until mid-2007. However, at the regularly scheduled meeting of the NIAID Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) on December 12, 2006, reviewers assessed the interim data and deemed medically performed circumcision safe and effective in reducing HIV acquisition in both trials. They therefore recommended the two studies be halted early. All men who were randomized into the non-intervention arms will now be offered circumcision.

"It is critical to emphasize that these clinical trials demonstrated that medical circumcision is safe and effective when the procedure is performed by medically trained professionals and when patients receive appropriate care during the healing period following surgery," notes Dr. Fauci.

Researchers have noted significant variations in HIV prevalence that seemed, at least in certain African and Asian countries, to be associated with levels of male circumcision in the community. In areas where circumcision is common, HIV prevalence tends to be lower; conversely, areas of higher HIV prevalence overlapped with regions where male circumcision is not commonly practiced.

Results of the first randomized clinical trial assessing the protective value of male circumcision against HIV infection, conducted by a team of French and South African researchers in South Africa, were reported in 2005. That trial of more than 3,000 HIV-negative men showed that circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV by 60 percent. The trial was funded by the French Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida (ANRS) (see http://www.anrs.fr/).

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm

Multiple long term, large sample sized research efforts - BOTH actual trials AND statistical surveys of infection rates among various populations - have shown that circumcision carries substantial anti-HIV benefits.

Is it really that difficult to get the dude to put on a condom before he jabs his penis into your rectum?

Wow, so those crazy Jews had it right all along! :-)

CaptainShuddup says

Well that must explain my low IQ, I've been drinking tap water all of my life

Let's just consider it one of the reasons.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

I did lol at this one.

Did the study include a statistically significant sample of skullisexuals?

thunderlips11 says

Can you lower HIV infection risk? Yes, with a simple procedure

take a cold shower.. yep pretty simple ! no point getting infected or dealing with a pregnancy.

Have your asshole sewn shut...that'll do it on the cheap!

Sperm by itself does not have potential to cure jackshit.
Union of sperm and egg, resulting in human baby, does have potential to cure cancer.
Uncle Dan: FAIL.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world.

freak80 says

Wow, so those crazy Jews had it right all along! :-)

and 2 billion muslims.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

accidentally cured with stem cell treatments.

studies have shown that strangers sticking dicks in your ass is not related to the spread of HIV. Get your facts straight. STOP THE HATE!!!!!!!!

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

The real question we must axe here is this:

"How can we reduce the incidence of HIV infection when skullfucking banksters?"

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

NEVER!

SoftShell says

Sperm by itself does not have potential to cure jackshit.

Union of sperm and egg, resulting in human baby, does have potential to cure cancer.

Uncle Dan: FAIL.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world.

It turns out that sperm has low levels of vitamins. So I'm sure the vast quantities of sperm you swallow can cure scurvy.

Pure balderdash. Genital mutilation advocacy - why is this needed here? Why don't we remove the brain, most organs and let the body grow in a Matrix-bath. It drastically reduces the risks of dying of cancer, or even exhibiting risky behaviors.

You know maybe just maybe some of these studies need to be examined more closely. I did the research a while back and the pro genital mutilation research was relatively easy to debunk.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

This would be more helpful as a mug or refrigerator magnet.

So based on best estimates and statistics to hand (rates of infection in the US, condom use, penile infection incidence), how many genitals have to be sliced up to stop one contraction of HIV? one case of penile cancer? And is that a number which justifies the procedure?

AussieGothamite says

So based on best estimates and statistics to hand (rates of infection in the US, condom use, penile infection incidence), how many genitals have to be sliced up to stop one contraction of HIV? one case of penile cancer? And is that a number which justifies the procedure?

Strange Question. How many needles are poked into asses to cause a decline in polio or smallpox?

Search the thread: The research is growing that exposing the surface of your wang to air cuts down on the dark, warm and often moist environment where bacteria likes to breed and viruses can survive longer out of the body.