| Author |
Message |
|
Buckskin
#1 / 8
|
 circs
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1989 "Report from
the Task Force on Circumcision" cancer of the {*filter*} has an incidence of
1:600 in the uncircumcised male, while it is only 1:100,000 in the
circumcised male. In other words, uncircumcised men are 166 times more
likely to get penile cancer than those who have undergone the
procedure.
In addition to this, as mentioned in previous posts there is a
higher incidence of UTI in the uncirced. There may also be a higher
incidence of transmission of HPV (and hence cervical cancer), but early
findings have not been reproducible.
To those who think that circumcision is unnecessary and brutal, you
are entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be.
|
| Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT |
|
 |
|
Albert -A
#2 / 8
|
circs Quote: > According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1989 "Report from
>the Task Force on Circumcision" cancer of the {*filter*} has an incidence of
>1:600 in the uncircumcised male, while it is only 1:100,000 in the
>circumcised male. In other words, uncircumcised men are 166 times more
>likely to get penile cancer than those who have undergone the
>procedure.
> In addition to this, as mentioned in previous posts there is a
>higher incidence of UTI in the uncirced. There may also be a higher
>incidence of transmission of HPV (and hence cervical cancer), but early
>findings have not been reproducible.
> To those who think that circumcision is unnecessary and brutal, you
>are entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be.
Your post is in error. Would suggest you re-read the report again, this time more carefully. "In Sweden, where circumcision is rare but standards of hygiene
are high, the incidence of penile cancer is the same as in the
United States." Rockney R, MD. "Newborn Circumcision",
AFP, October, 1988, pp151-155.
"We report other risk factors independent of circumcisio *routine* infant
circumcision.
least some cases of cancer at this site are
associated with the presence of other conditions that occur in
circumcised men as well." Maden C, "History of Circumcision,
Medical Conditions, and {*filter*} Activity and Risk of Penile
Cancer," J Nat Cancer Instit, vol.85,no1,January 6, 1993,pp 19-24.
In addition to the statistics you are misrepresenting, you
also failed share that at the end of the report the AAP
*did not* recommend routine circumcision, stated *there were
risks involved*, and only that there *might* be benefits.
While you *might* still be trying to justify your own {*filter*} (?),
you do not speak for me nor a growing number of other men..
The medical community has *never* been able to prove any benefit
to *routine* infant circumcision.
|
| Thu, 16 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Jeff Sil
#3 / 8
|
circs Quote:
> > According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1989 "Report from
> >the Task Force on Circumcision" cancer of the {*filter*} has an incidence of
> >1:600 in the uncircumcised male, while it is only 1:100,000 in the
> >circumcised male. In other words, uncircumcised men are 166 times more
> >likely to get penile cancer than those who have undergone the
> >procedure.
> > In addition to this, as mentioned in previous posts there is a
> >higher incidence of UTI in the uncirced. There may also be a higher
> >incidence of transmission of HPV (and hence cervical cancer), but early
> >findings have not been reproducible.
> > To those who think that circumcision is unnecessary and brutal, you
> >are entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be.
> Your post is in error. Would suggest you re-read the report
> again, this time more carefully.
> "In Sweden, where circumcision is rare but standards of hygiene
> are high, the incidence of penile cancer is the same as in the
> United States." Rockney R, MD. "Newborn Circumcision",
> AFP, October, 1988, pp151-155.
> "We report other risk factors independent of circumcisio *routine* infant
> circumcision.
> least some cases of cancer at this site are
> associated with the presence of other conditions that occur in
> circumcised men as well." Maden C, "History of Circumcision,
> Medical Conditions, and {*filter*} Activity and Risk of Penile
> Cancer," J Nat Cancer Instit, vol.85,no1,January 6, 1993,pp 19-24.
> In addition to the statistics you are misrepresenting, you
> also failed share that at the end of the report the AAP
> *did not* recommend routine circumcision, stated *there were
> risks involved*, and only that there *might* be benefits.
> While you *might* still be trying to justify your own {*filter*} (?),
> you do not speak for me nor a growing number of other men..
> The medical community has *never* been able to prove any benefit
> to *routine* infant circumcision.
Albert...you are in denial again. -- Jeff
|
| Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Wayne Hampt
#4 / 8
|
circs Quote:
> According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1989 "Report from
>the Task Force on Circumcision" cancer of the {*filter*} has an incidence of
>1:600 in the uncircumcised male, while it is only 1:100,000 in the
>circumcised male. In other words, uncircumcised men are 166 times more
>likely to get penile cancer than those who have undergone the
>procedure.
From the bottom of page 388, of the Report of the Task Force on Circumcision (RE9148), Pediatrics V80#4 August 1989 pp 388-391... "In developed countries where neonatal circumcision is not
routinely performed the indicence of penile cancer is
reported to range from 0.3 to 1.1 per 100,000 men per year."
this is comparable to getting struck by lightning. Other studies
show that hygiene is as effective as surgery without the problems.
Quote: > In addition to this, as mentioned in previous posts there is a
>higher incidence of UTI in the uncirced. There may also be a higher
>incidence of transmission of HPV (and hence cervical cancer), but early
>findings have not been reproducible.
> To those who think that circumcision is unnecessary and brutal, you
>are entitled to your opinion, however uninformed it may be.
The brutality is also well documented in Anand and Hickey "Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus" NEJM v317#21 pp1321-1329. The AAP report yields a penile cancer incidence rate for Americans
at between 0.7 and 0.9/100000/Y. That is comparable to the 0.3 to
1.1/100000/Y figure it cites for uncircumcised men. If you take
the larger of the ranges it looks like intact men have a slightly
higher risk, but if you take the bottom of the ranges - it looks like
UNcircumcised men might be healthier. Bottom line - what you claim
as dogma is far from meaningful statistically. Perhaps it is you
who is 'uninformed' sir. And it looks like you try to deceive by
mixing numbers with different denominators.
|
| Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
#5 / 8
|
circs
|
| Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
TOM STIFT
#6 / 8
|
circs I had osteomylitis last year, also had TB diagnosed in the soft
tissue in the area, did surgery removed affected muscle and soft tissue
grafted muscle flap and skin graft. Still having the pain. Bone scan
showed increased uptake. MRI shows webbing affect on the bones in the
lower leg and ankle region. Did dye test to rule out infection. No
infection. Both local MD.'s and MD in Los Angeles, including the
radiologists have not seen anything like it, and can not explain why
there is still chronic deep pain. Has any DR. out-there seen anything
similar or have any ideas. Could TB now be on the bone but not show up
on the dye test? Any ideas of what to do? Please E-Mail all repiles.
|
| Sat, 18 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
#7 / 8
|
circs
|
| Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Aeso
#8 / 8
|
circs Sorry--you are off by several orders of magnitude. This is an extremely rare condition of grossly poor hygiene (i.e., bums on the street). Ask the Swedes. To amputate healthy normal tissue with this as a justification is no longer given any credence (as was the Victorian {*filter*} scare at the turn of the century). Even the Americans appear to be finally abandoning this practice. The real
heroes are the men who themselves were mutilated but who refuse to inflict this
on their sons. To these men, hat's off.
|
| Mon, 20 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT |
|
| |
|
