Circumcise warning to parents; etc. 
Author Message
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


Quote:

>First, there is strong medical evidence that circumcision DOES have its
>benefits, and there are also some associated risks attached to it (no pun
>intended).  I have attached 2 abstracts as well as other references for
>those of you out there who are interested in factual information, and not
>simply emotional drivel from persons that need somewhere to place the
>blame for their problems.

>I am not saying that circumcision is necessary, but in my opinion it is
>the right choice.  But it is just that, A CHOICE.

[Abstracts snipped]

With regard to factual information, what you have posted are
articles that tell only half of the story. Most people who are
taking part in this thread are aware that circumcision does
dramatically decrease the risk of UTIs according to the Wiswell
study. Most are also aware that the risk of penile cancer is
significantly reduced according to some studies.

What your abstracts did NOT point out, however, is that the risk
of UTIs in infancy among intact males is less than the risk of
complications that is incurred as the result of the surgery
itself. For example, about 1 or 2 intact infants out of 100 will
experience a UTI (the severity will vary), but 4 or 5 of 100 of
those who are circumcised will experience a complication of some
sort.

Only about 1 in 135,000 men will ever get penile cancer. If we
were to circumcise 135,000 males to prevent one case of penile
cancer, more than 5,000 would suffer some sort of complication
from the surgery itself--a few would suffer very serious
complications. [Br J Surg, 1993 Oct, vol 80, 1231-1236]

The AMA and AAP have both issued policy statements to the effect
that routine infant circumcision is not justified on medical
grounds.

Several utility analysis studies have concluded that the benefits
of circumcision are offset by the risks. Thus that any decision
to circumcise a normal, healthy infant cannot be justified on
medical grounds. [Fam Med, 1991 Nov-Dec, vol 23, pp 587-593 & Med
Decis Making, 1991 Oct-Dec, vol 11, pp 282-293]

"A smaller incidence of UTI is not a reason to perform
circumcision, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, and reported
benefits are insignificant compared to surgical risks." [F.
Lawler, M.D.; Fam Med, 1991 Nov-Dec, vol 23, pp 587-593]



Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.

Quote:



> [Abstracts snipped]

> With regard to factual information, what you have posted are
> articles that tell only half of the story. Most people who are
> taking part in this thread are aware that circumcision does
> dramatically decrease the risk of UTIs according to the Wiswell

.... and later followup

Quote:
> study. Most are also aware that the risk of penile cancer is
> significantly reduced according to some studies.

Generous of you; you DO have considerable basis to challenge this
as a hygenic issue.

Quote:
> What your abstracts did NOT point out, however, is that the risk
> of UTIs in infancy among intact males is less than the risk of
> complications that is incurred as the result of the surgery
> itself. For example, about 1 or 2 intact infants out of 100 will
> experience a UTI (the severity will vary), but 4 or 5 of 100 of
> those who are circumcised will experience a complication of some                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> sort.  ^^^^^

*IF* the (unspecified) complications cited were uniform in severity,
and *IF* that severity were similar to that of neonatal UTI, *THEN*
you would have a case.  We've been going around for months on this
one and you have yet to support such a claim.  Absent some such
support, this assertion has no more bearing than the (any takers
this will be quoted out of context?) assertion that the "complication
rate" of noncircumcision is 100% when you include such factors as
having the foreskin caught in a zipper.  The latter is patently
absurd, and would rightly be rejected as too trivial to take
seriously, but by including it we inflate the overall rate.

Quote:
> Only about 1 in 135,000 men will ever get penile cancer. If we
> were to circumcise 135,000 males to prevent one case of penile
> cancer, more than 5,000 would suffer some sort of complication
> from the surgery itself--a few would suffer very serious
> complications. [Br J Surg, 1993 Oct, vol 80, 1231-1236]

Classic propaganda ploy: cite a high incidence that includes trivia,
then mention that some (unspecified) number are serious.  Imply
that the high incidence applies to the high severity.  The same
technique can (and has) obviously been used to completely mislead
audiences.

Quote:
> The AMA and AAP have both issued policy statements to the effect
> that routine infant circumcision is not justified on medical
> grounds.

> Several utility analysis studies have concluded that the benefits
> of circumcision are offset by the risks. Thus that any decision
> to circumcise a normal, healthy infant cannot be justified on
> medical grounds. [Fam Med, 1991 Nov-Dec, vol 23, pp 587-593 & Med
> Decis Making, 1991 Oct-Dec, vol 11, pp 282-293]

All of our comments above regardless, this is quite true as a
statement of public policy.  Insurers, including government
health programs, have adequate grounds to refuse payment for
the procedure -- and IMHO should.

Quote:
> "A smaller incidence of UTI is not a reason to perform
> circumcision, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, and reported
> benefits are insignificant compared to surgical risks." [F.
> Lawler, M.D.; Fam Med, 1991 Nov-Dec, vol 23, pp 587-593]

Presumably Lawler has some basis for this assertion and has cited
his sources.  Post them and you've answered our challenge (above).

--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions

http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction



Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.

On 27 Apr 1996 12:01:02 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"

Quote:


>> What your abstracts did NOT point out, however, is that the risk
>> of UTIs in infancy among intact males is less than the risk of
>> complications that is incurred as the result of the surgery
>> itself. For example, about 1 or 2 intact infants out of 100 will
>> experience a UTI (the severity will vary), but 4 or 5 of 100 of
>> those who are circumcised will experience a complication of some

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quote:
>> sort.  ^^^^^
>*IF* the (unspecified) complications cited were uniform in severity,
>and *IF* that severity were similar to that of neonatal UTI, *THEN*
>you would have a case.

I have a case anyway since D.C. Sessions is not the ultimate
authority. The severity of UTIs is also not specified. The
comparative studies which address these problems, however, have
concluded that the risk of UTI is less serious than the risk of
complications from the surgery. Personally, I prefer to put my
trust in the medical research rather than in the continual
harping of D.C. Sessions.

Quote:
>We've been going around for months on this one and you have
>yet to support such a claim.

Speak for yourself. YOU have been going around on this for
months. I have supported my claims. What you mean is that I did
not do it in a way that satisfies you. It does satisfy me and it
does satisfy medical researchers.

Quote:
>Absent some such
>support, this assertion has no more bearing than the (any takers
>this will be quoted out of context?) assertion that the "complication
>rate" of noncircumcision is 100% when you include such factors as
>having the foreskin caught in a zipper.  The latter is patently
>absurd, and would rightly be rejected as too trivial to take
>seriously, but by including it we inflate the overall rate.

The fact that you harp on such as this doesn't mean that you say
have a case. You have never offered any support that I have seen
for anything which you say. Here is the support for what I say.
See if you can grasp it. The AAP and the AMA both say that
routine infant circumcision is not justified on medical grounds.
Here are two studies (which I have cited before) which support
the contention that the risks of circumcision cancel out the
alleged benefits (regardless of whether those risks are specified
to your satisfaction or not)....

"Additional analysis suggested that reported benefits in
preventing penile cancer and infant urinary tract infections are
insignificant compared to the surgical risks of post neonatal
circumcision." [Fam Med, 1991 Nov-Dec, vol 23, pp 587-593]

"These results suggest that the financial and medical advantages
and disadvantages of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each
other and that factors other than cost or health outcomes must be
used in decision making." [Med Decis Making, 1991 Oct-Dec, vol
11, pp 182-293]

Quote:
>> Only about 1 in 135,000 men will ever get penile cancer. If we
>> were to circumcise 135,000 males to prevent one case of penile
>> cancer, more than 5,000 would suffer some sort of complication
>> from the surgery itself--a few would suffer very serious
>> complications. [Br J Surg, 1993 Oct, vol 80, 1231-1236]

>Classic propaganda ploy: cite a high incidence that includes trivia,
>then mention that some (unspecified) number are serious.  Imply
>that the high incidence applies to the high severity.  The same
>technique can (and has) obviously been used to completely mislead
>audiences.

In this case, it is not a propaganda ploy but rather the same
conclusion that has been arrived at by medical researchers. And
speaking of ploys, yours seems to be to continuously argue by
innuendo while offering nothing in the way of evidence.


Thu, 15 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


Quote:

[snip]
>> "A smaller incidence of UTI is not a reason to perform
>> circumcision, from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, and reported
>> benefits are insignificant compared to surgical risks." [F.
>> Lawler, M.D.; Fam Med, 1991 Nov-Dec, vol 23, pp 587-593]

   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don, is the above article in English? Wonder why are DC&MV sessions
asking you to _read it out_ to them!

Quote:
>Presumably Lawler has some basis for this assertion and has cited
>his sources.  Post them and you've answered our challenge (above).

Hey, Don, *we* (the Anti-RICers) are for some reason required to back up
our claims, cite reference for our claims *AND* read out the material to
DC&MV Sessions. But at the same time, DC & MV Sessions are somehow exempt
from any such need. They can make blanket allegations without a single
word of proof.


making various claims about vaccination... obviously without a shred of
evidence. I quote DC Sessions below:

--- QUOTE DC&MV SESSIONS ---

Subject:  Re: Circumcise warning to parents; etc.
Date: 26 Apr 1996 18:06:02 -0700

..
1) Vaccination is *really* routine -- nearly 100% of kids are vaccinated.
2) Vaccination is mandated by law, with the burden on parents to opt out.
3) Vaccination is paid for by our tax dollars.
4) Vaccination is repeated several times, while circ is only once.
5) Public officials haven't a clue wrt circ, but CONSTANTLY inquire into
   vaccination status.
6) Vaccination is performed on girls as often as boys.
7) The rate of death and lifelong crippling from vaccination is orders
   of magnitude greater than the worst-case (partisan) estimates for
   similar outcomes of circumcision.

..
--- END QUOTE ---

The post ends without any reference or proof of for the above claims.

See the point #7? So much for their argumentative integrity.

Quote:
>--
>D. C. & M. V. Sessions

>http://www.primenet.com/~sessions under construction

--

Ray... who gets "Evidence not found error" in DC&MV Sessions' posts.
=======================================================================
Ray Bakshi          | Warped with version 3.0 and HAPPY!
--------------------|--------------------------------------------------

=======================================================================



Fri, 16 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


writes:

Quote:

}> Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, right? This myth
}> keeps going around and around but the facts just don't support it.
}> Uncircumcised men DO NOT give "life-threatening infections" to their
}> partners any more than circumcised men.  The only way to prevent
}> AIDS and STD's is abstinence or a {*filter*}.
}
}..... and don't bet on the {*filter*}.
}
}>                                            The idea that being circed
}> somehow prevents AIDS and STD's is ridiculous.   Here in America where
}> the majority of {*filter*} males are circumcised there are very high rates
}> of AIDS and other STD's.
}
}As you say, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, right?"
}
}This one is a favorite of GraceB's, and for a refutation of it you only
}have to look on your very own news system.

  A lie wasn't repeated.  A fact was.  Big difference...
too bad you didn't understand the difference.
Since you missed it...the fact was:  High rates
of AIDS and STDS in a society where the majority
of {*filter*} {*filter*}ly active males are cut.  Not a lie.
We'll repeat this truth often.  Just as the pro-circ
side repeats the lies of "circ prevents cancer,
STDs, AIDS, is cleaner/easier to clean" blah, blah, blah.

Grace Boockholdt



Sun, 18 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


Quote:
>  A lie wasn't repeated.  A fact was.  Big difference...
>too bad you didn't understand the difference.
>Since you missed it...the fact was:  High rates
>of AIDS and STDS in a society where the majority
>of {*filter*} {*filter*}ly active males are cut.  Not a lie.

while both these statements may be true, there is no
implied causation.  that's like saying there are more
sunspots in the years where there was a republican congress
<true statements..but the congress doesn't CAUSE the spots>

please know how statistics work before making statements like
this...

beth <who isn't claiming to be part of EITHER side..just pointing
out a statistical error>



Wed, 21 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


Quote:

>>  A lie wasn't repeated.  A fact was.  Big difference...
>>too bad you didn't understand the difference.
>>Since you missed it...the fact was:  High rates
>>of AIDS and STDS in a society where the majority
>>of {*filter*} {*filter*}ly active males are cut.  Not a lie.
>while both these statements may be true, there is no
>implied causation.  that's like saying there are more
>sunspots in the years where there was a republican congress
><true statements..but the congress doesn't CAUSE the spots>
>please know how statistics work before making statements like
>this...
>beth <who isn't claiming to be part of EITHER side..just pointing
>out a statistical error>

You have ignored the fact that it was claimed that circumcision
prevented AIDS and STDs. What you state about sunspots would
be good evidence against a claim that the Republican congress
prevented sunspots! It is clear that if circumcision has any
prophylactic effect it is swamped by other social and medical
factors or else some positive correlation would be apparent.
It simple logic to say that a preventative measure should produce
an obvious result if it is sufficiently effective. If circumcision
was 100% effective there would be fewer cases of STDs and AIDS in
circumcising countries than in non-circumcising countries. This
does not appear to be the case. It is up to the proponents of
routine infant circumcision to justify their position. The facts
quoted in the original message remain unchallenged.

Best regards, Lindsay Berge



Thu, 22 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


Quote:

says...
>>  A lie wasn't repeated.  A fact was.  Big difference...
>>too bad you didn't understand the difference.
>>Since you missed it...the fact was:  High rates
>>of AIDS and STDS in a society where the majority
>>of {*filter*} {*filter*}ly active males are cut.  Not a lie.

>while both these statements may be true, there is no
>implied causation.

No, but a good rebuttal of an implicit (and dangerous) claim that
circumcision is effective as prophylaxis against HIV. Don't give up
wearing the {*filter*}s, guys!

Quote:
>  that's like saying there are more
>sunspots in the years where there was a republican congress
><true statements..but the congress doesn't CAUSE the spots>

The spots cause the congress?

--
Hugh Young                            *************************
Pukerua Bay                           *  An overnight editor  *
Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND   *  Your text clarified  *
                                      *    in the Antipodes   *
    The opinions expressed above      *    while you sleep:   *
       are damned good ones!          * e-mail me for details *
                                      *************************



Fri, 23 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


Quote:


>>  A lie wasn't repeated.  A fact was.  Big difference...
>>too bad you didn't understand the difference.
>>Since you missed it...the fact was:  High rates
>>of AIDS and STDS in a society where the majority
>>of {*filter*} {*filter*}ly active males are cut.  Not a lie.

>while both these statements may be true, there is no
>implied causation.  that's like saying there are more
>sunspots in the years where there was a republican congress
><true statements..but the congress doesn't CAUSE the spots>

>please know how statistics work before making statements like
>this...

Beth:

With all due respect, the problem with your "rebuttal" is that a
recent statistical study done in Africa (by the Caldwells) was
published here in this country (in the March 1996 issue of
"Scientific American") as if there *were* a connection between
circumcision status and the spread of aids and as if this
statistical analysis of date provided the evidence.

This study has many problems, not the least of which is that it
is a different strain of HIV virus that is implicated (the
e-strain, which relies on a warm, moist environment) in the
African study from what we have here (the a, b, c, and d strains,
which rely on the exchange of body fluids).

Don



Sun, 25 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.


Quote:

>Beth:

>With all due respect, the problem with your "rebuttal" is that a
>recent statistical study done in Africa (by the Caldwells) was
>published here in this country (in the March 1996 issue of
>"Scientific American") as if there *were* a connection between
>circumcision status and the spread of aids and as if this
>statistical analysis of date provided the evidence.

>This study has many problems, not the least of which is that it
>is a different strain of HIV virus that is implicated (the
>e-strain, which relies on a warm, moist environment) in the
>African study from what we have here (the a, b, c, and d strains,
>which rely on the exchange of body fluids).

>Don

Don,

You may not have meant it this way, but effectively, you are saying
that the Caldwells' study has some validity in Africa (i.e. that
circumcision reduces the rate of transmission of the e-strain).
I'm afraid I cannot agree.

Circumcision simply cannot be recommended as a prophylactic against
HIV... in Africa or anywhere else. There are simply too many good
reasons to leave a boy or man intact; and the evidence that circumcision
has any prophylactic effect is simply too flimsy to rely on.

The Caldwell article is full of holes. A first draft of my review of
that article is available at the URL

        http://theorem.math.rochester.edu/nocirc/med/sciam2

Yours

g.

--
   I conceal nothing. It is not enough not to lie. One should strive
   not to lie in a negative sense by remaining silent.  ---Leo Tolstoy



Mon, 26 Oct 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Circumcise warning to parents; etc.

Quote:

>  i got a friend with two boys .... after seeing the 1st born cry
>during circumcision he couldn't go thu with it on the 2nd born....
>I am following this case with great interest.....
>  Any one know how many nerve cell are cut off in the process???
>Mark in Texas

I'm glad that you asked. It is thousands---although the number is
not necessarily the most important point.

What is perhaps the most important point is that the value of the
tissue and structures that may be removed and/or damaged in a
circumcision is only recently coming to light. A recently
published article states that the mucosa of the prepuce is more
sensitive than the glans itself.

[Abstract follows]

[British Journal of Urology, February 1996, Vol. 77, pp 291-5,
The Prepuce, Specialized Mucosa of the {*filter*}, and Its Loss to
Circumcision]

"The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is
more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counseling.
Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be
an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the
human {*filter*}."

"Skin and mucosa sufficient to cover the penile shaft was
frequently missing from the circumcised {*filter*}. Missing tissue
included a band of ridged mucosa located at the junction of
true penile skin with smooth preputial mucosa. This ridged band
contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa
and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa."

"The prepuce provides a large and important platform for
several nerves and nerve endings. ... The glans, by contrast,
is insensitive to light touch, heat, cold, and, as far as the
authors are aware, to pin {*filter*}. Le Gros Clark noted that the
glans {*filter*} is one of the few areas on the body that enjoys
nothing beyond primitive sensory modalities."



Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 12 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Circumcise warning to parents; etc

2. Pro-circ delusions (Was: Circumcise warning to parents; etc)

3. Circumcise Warning to Parents

4. parenting skills. good parenting skills,parenting skills assessment,parenting skills checklist,used books parenting skills homework planner,parenting skills for toddlers

5. parenting tips : Actual News. 10 parenting tips,tips for parenting teens,tips for step parenting,step parenting tips,new parenting tips

6. Warning to parents!

7. Parents warned on 'natural' jabs

8. Warning to parents!


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software