patrick.net

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.

It's not a strange question at all. It's a question medicine asks all the time. Is the risk/cost of the treatment worth the benefit? If the risk of vaccine side-effects were bigger than they are, if vaccination were more invasive, they might come to a different result re the contraindication for it. We don't tend to vaccinate against yellow fever in the US or Australia because the risk of contracting it doesn't warrant the financial cost or the risk of possible side effects.

I'm not questioning the mode of protection. I'm asking a standard medical question. And it stands, as yet unanswered.

We're talking about a surgical procedure. What is the quantifiable benefit based on a thousand of these operations? To people in the developed world? Is it this operation the best, safest, most cost effective way to produce that benefit?

AussieGothamite says

We're talking about a surgical procedure. What is the quantifiable benefit based on a thousand of these operations? To people in the developed world? Is it this operation the best, safest, most cost effective way to produce that benefit?

It's in the OP, and elsewhere in the thread.

The best way to avoid STDs is to be a lifelong celibate person, including oral sex (HPV).

I always wonder why circumcision is such a big deal. I believe I read it causes less harm than ear piercings in the USA, which nobody is in a rush to ban.

http://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20120828aap-circumcision.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4277517/

So, indulge me. Based on a thousand operations on first world babies, what's the number of HIV infections fewer than would otherwise have occurred?

It's probably a big deal because it's an elective surgery without a pressing direct and immediate medical benefit. Which the medical community has more or less allowed to be grandfathered in because it's a cultural practice. Most people piercing ears aren't medical professionals, but that's probably another debate we could have.

This is a particularly weird quote, no?

"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine
circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are
sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and
to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It
is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health
benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and
accurate manner.
Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the
best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical
information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and
cultural beliefs and practices. The
medical benefits alone may not
outweigh these other considerations
for individual families."

Most strange indeed. What other medical procedures come with such an odd caveat?

AussieGothamite says

Most strange indeed. What other medical procedures come with such an odd caveat?

Ones that aren't as Culturally controversial.

Name two.

I'm not a pediatrician - and I suspect neither are you - but I do know of a few other instances of hemming/hawing on controversial positions of the AAP:

Gun Control and Violence in Media (which encourages Pediatricians to 'discuss' firearms with parents at check ups, but is generally wishy-washy to step around US Cultural Norms)
Female Genital Cutting (where the AAP had previously suggested doctors make a "brief nick" to the clitoris in order to attempt to satisfy the parents and hopefully top them from getting it done in Barbarian Places -- then dropped it later)

The current policy is considered "Pro-Circ" - the old policy was "Neutral". The CDC is solidly Pro, probably because if the recent studies continue to pan out as they have so far, mandatory universal neonatal circumcision would be a public health breakthrough:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf

I note that this Maternal Child Nursing Care texbook comes with warnings about "unscientific" anti-circ sites.

There's been a revolution in Data Science over the past 20 years that's really coming into fruition, which is why all these new studies are coming out showing a host of mild benefits not only to the possessor of the penis, but to public health generally.

Nothing you've yet posted seems to fit this situation particularly well. The nicking was proposed to stop female circumcision, and rejected as an assault on bodily integrity deemed unnecessary (very much unlike the current situation). And so far as I know, the gun violence discussion was never going to suggest that having a gun in the home had "some benefits, but should be considered in light of your cultural beliefs". I'm all in favour of new medical research. I'm not so in favour of mild benefits being held up as justification.

If there were no cultural baggage associated with this practice, there's no way you could get this procedure accepted. The benefits are minor and insufficient studies have been done to ensure they translate across societies with varying hygiene practices. On principle, it wouldn't be approved. But it does have cultural and religious resonance. It would be difficult to unpick that peculiar freedom which has been offered to parents, and I don't think anybody has the interest or the stamina to do it. So this study, and a couple of others which more or less say, "Offers some benefits, probably safe enough when done in a medical setting." will be used to avoid questioning it. I'd question your description as pro-circ. The draft recommendations ride a pretty fine line.

But at least we have an answer:

300 surgeries on child genitals to prevent one case of HIV. (But only one case per 1230 white genitals, according to the report.)

I don't think the acceptability of circumcision is going to change any time soon.
The development of Gardasil, and future advances in penile cancer prevention might once again bring the practice into question, but these are challenges for the future.

I'm sure you'll come up with something.

AussieGothamite says

300 surgeries on child genitals to prevent one case of HIV. (But only one case per 1230 white genitals, according to the report.)

Wow - that's awesome! And reduces the chances and/or spread of HPV, UTIs, Penile Cancer, etc.

Like I said - a host of small benefits.

It's not rocket science - eliminate a dark, warm, often moist pocket of bacterial/viral breeding grounds, reduce the transmission of those bacteria/viruses.

AussieGothamite says

If there were no cultural baggage associated with this practice, there's no way you could get this procedure accepted.

This argument can easily be turned on it's head: Europeans (esp. Non-Anglo) whose cultural identity is predicated on NOT having this procedure are more skeptical than the evidence warrants.

The US and UK performed tens of thousands of adult circumcisions during the North African Campaign and during the Iraq War. Soldiers in warfare can't take daily showers, the nasty dirty dirt gets trapped, and it's health problems galore. An adult circumcision is a much bigger deal, and requires weeks of recovery as opposed to hours for neonatal circumcision. That's soldiers who get taken off the front in the face of the enemy.

AussieGothamite says

If there were no cultural baggage associated with this practice, there's no way you could get this procedure accepted.

I think it should not be covered as other insured have to pay for this. There may be exceptional situations were it could be covered, such as if a kid has a really large foreskin where it definitely would make sense, but that should become obvious later in life, not after birth. Some countries banned it, I think that may be taking it too far as it is vastly different from practices of mutilation of female genitalia, but each country/state should have the right to do so.

AussieGothamite says

The development of Gardasil, and future advances in penile cancer prevention might once again bring the practice into question, but these are challenges for the future.

Gardasil and the role of HPV or herpes viruses are both very controversial, but in any case, as nasty as STDs or other illnesses of the genitalia are, they do not matter much in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all). Also preventing early infection with some viruses may even have a net negative effect such as reduced bacterial resistance or increased allergies.

mell says

The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all).

Isn't cervical and larynx cancer linked to HPV?

Though I agree with you that Gardasil is controversial. I believe it doesn't protect against some high risk/high frequency types of HPV?

thunderlips11 says

mell says

The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all).

Isn't cervical and larynx cancer linked to HPV?

It is. Especially for women it could make sense to vaccinate, but there are many strains and some hpv strains protect against those that are assumed to play a a role in cervical cancer (via competition among strains) and it is hard to quantify any benefit vs risks. I guess now that many have been vaccinated we should see a drop in cervical cancer esp. due to these vaccinations decades from now, my guess is it will be hard to detect, esp. if matched against the success of preventative check-ups. If a woman does routine check-ups, pretty much all of those cases can be avoided as it is fairly easy to detect and fix. Throat and larynx cancer are linked as well, however I have never seen any details with numbers and how they compare against re usual suspects of big risk factors such as smoking etc. I would not vaccinate a daughter at this point, but leave her the choice. I'm not opposed to that vaccine or vaccines in general but that one needs more data, with regards to benefit and risks, just IMO.